Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 1

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE

Draft 14
Revised January 19, 2015
2015

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 2

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr

Introduction
The back text on The Semantics of Biblical Language,1 declares this notorious and radical
book to be one of the most explosive [biblical scholarship] works, and argues that those who
read it on its first appearance were never the same again.2 Barr published the book when the
famous but aggressive theologian was moving on from the Chair of Old Testament, Language
and Theology at his Alma Mater, Edinburgh,3 in order to become Regius Professor of Hebrew
at Oxford University.4
Barr announces his purpose for the book in the Preface,5 where he states in blunt and
forceful words that it is a main concern of both scholarship and theology that the Bible should
be soundly and adequately interpreted,6 and then explains the reason for his concern:
In recent years I have come to believe that one of the greatest dangers to such sound and adequate
interpretation comes from the prevailing use of procedures, which, while claiming to rest upon a knowledge
of the Israelite and the Greek ways of thinking, constantly mishandle and distort the linguistic evidence of
the Hebrew and Greek languages as they are used in the Bible. The increasing sense of dependence upon
the Bible in the modern church only makes the danger more serious. The fact that these procedures have
never to my knowledge been collected, analysed and criticized in detail was the chief stimulus to my
undertaking of this task myself.7

Fallacies about Language and Mind

Williams describes the treacherous and perilous waters in which the theological world
found itself during the time Barr wrote his book, and the manner in which the Hebrew Language
scholar exposed them in these words:
In the middle of the 20th century the biblical theology movement was at its height. Alongside its insistence
that God revealed himself uniquely in the history of Israel, it also developed a substructure for its work on
the nature of biblical language, whereby a major word, such as "holiness" or "justification", gathered more
and more allusions as it was used in different contexts until it became the bearer of a whole theological
concept. A major dictionary could take many pages to unpack such a word, the whole made more
complicated by the fact that it moved from the Hebrew of the Old Testament to the Greek of the New.
Barr's book The Semantics of Biblical Language brought that whole juggernaut to a halt. Published in
1961, it came like a bolt out of the blue. In it he exposed the fallacy of thinking that a people's mentality
can be read straight off from their language, that the meaning of words is more determined by their ancient
etymology than their current usage, and that peculiarities of use in one context can somehow be transferred
to all uses everywhere thereafter.
This critique bore all the hallmarks of Barr's later work - a devastatingly incisive exposure of faulty method
with pertinent examples that sometimes caused great hurt to the individuals involved, focus on a linguistic
topic of great importance for the proper interpretation of the Bible, and a concentration on analysing and
correcting how people did things rather than a concern to show the results of proper method. 8

Silva produces an even more comprehensive and insightful discussion about the
outrageous fallacies that ignorant and inept theologians that acted as absolute experts in language
and linguistics brought to the theological table:

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 3

Barrs book, The Semantics of Biblical Language, was a trumpet blast against the monstrous regiment of
shoddy linguistics. Controversial throughout, undiplomatic at times, it has been recognized as a major
contribution to biblical studies. What are its theses?

[Language and Thought Fallacies]

Theologians have been particularly concerned with pointing out the differences between Greek and
Hebrew thought. The former, we are told, is static, contemplative, abstract, intellectualized, divisive; the
latter is dynamic, active, concrete, imaginative, stressing the totality of man and his religion [emphasis
added]. Whatever we may think of this contrast, Barr claims that the linguistic arguments used to support it
are unsystematic and haphazard. Evidence of this kind adduced by these theologians is valid only when
the biblical languages are rigorously examined and when the method is integrated with general linguistic
science. Modern theology falls on both scores.5 9

[Language and Mentality Fallacies]

Underlying much of the work criticized by Barr is the conviction that language and mentality can be easily
correlated. For example, the fact that Hebrew baar corresponds to two Greek words ( and ) has
been interpreted as a reflection of the Israelites concern with the totality of man in contrast with those
Greek presuppositions that posited a distinction between flesh and body. 6 Barr pointed out that it is
outmoded and unscientific to assume such neat correspondence between linguistic and thought structures
[emphasis added].7 10

Ouro Misreads Barrs Sharp Criticism

Barr himself shows his displeasure with this fallacious habit of contrasting Greek and
Hebrew modes of thought,11 in chapter two of his book entitled, The Current Contrast of Greek
and Hebrew Thought. He establishes the chapters general tone with the statement, [t]he habit
of contrasting Greek and Hebrew modes of thought has become extremely commonplace in the
modern theology and has had very great influence upon it.12 His clear and definite position on
this commonplace theological habit is obvious when one is well attuned to the theologians
perspective. States Barr:
The habit of contrasting Greek and Hebrew modes of thought has become extremely commonplace in
modern theology and has had very great influence upon it. A brief and quite unoriginal sketch of the way
this contrast is generally made may be given here. We may begin by remarking that the interest in the
contrast has been found not only among theologians. Professor John Macmurray, for example, lays great
emphasis upon it in his book The Clue to History. For him as for much of the modern theological
movement it can be laid down that Christianity is essentially Jewish. The contrast of the Jewish and the
Greek needs to be drawn out so that we may truly identify the Hebraic elements in our heritage of culture
or religion. There is danger otherwise that these elements may be obscured, whether because the European
mind has an emotional barrier against Jewish culture, as Macmurray holds, or because we naturally tend to
think in the Greek manner and tradition, and thus interpret away the Jewish element, as some of the
theologians put it.
In the tendency to emphasize this contrast, different interests may be seen at work. With Macmurray it is a
desire to delineate Jewish culture as the one truly religious culture, and to see in the reaction to its
contribution the clue to cultural history. From the theological side, however, other interests may appear. In
one way, it is a means of asserting the uniqueness of Christianity. Christianity, as long as it is properly
understood (and this means, to a large extent, adequately demarcated against the Greek-dominated
European culture), belongs with Jewish thought as a roughly homogenous entity clearly set apart from the
other currents of European thought. In another respect the contrast of Greek and Hebrew thought, and the

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 4

alignment of Christianity with the latter, go to emphasize what is now called the unity of the Bible. This
unity is said to lie not only in the rather formal old-fashioned way of prediction of the New Testament
events in the Old, or in the foreshadowing of the New by certain patterns of life and worship in the Old, or
in the discernment of a historical continuum through the Old Testament history and down into the New, but
in a common way of thinking, a common cast of mind and mould of expression, which operates throughout
the Bible and which is more noticeable and influential than the variations which it of course undergoes in
the minds of individual authors and traditions.13

The informed and astute readers will recognize that Barr has noticed the too common and
mistaken habit of contrasting Greek and Hebrew modes of thought, is not at all pleased with
this new theological fad, and indicates so with examples that demonstrate that this erroneous
habit is based on logical and linguistic fallacies. He also mentions what reasons have driven the
theologians and other scholars to place such undue emphasis on the fallacious and claimed Greek
and Hebrew thought correspondence: (1) the unwarranted assumption that Christianity is
essentially Jewish, that (2) the contrast of the Jewish and the Greek needs to be drawn out so
that we may truly identify the Hebraic elements in our heritage of culture or religion, because
(3) there is danger otherwise that these elements may be obscured, (4) the desire to delineate
Jewish culture as the one truly religious culture, and to see in the reaction to its contribution the
clue to cultural history, (5) that such exaggerated emphasis is a means of asserting the
uniqueness of Christianity, (6) because Christianity, as long as it is properly understood
belongs with Jewish thought, and (7) also because it is believed the contrast of Greek and
Hebrew thought, and the alignment of Christianity with the latter, go to emphasize what is now
called the unity of the Bible.
Ouro, Old Testament professor at the Sagunto Adventist Theological Seminary, 14 misses
the boat, though, and fails to notice Barrs critical position on this pseudo linguistic and
fallacious Greek-Hebrew thought and action contrast. He misunderstands the Hebrew scholar
and quotes him as if he is in agreement with the erroneous theological practice. States Ouro:
According to William H. Shea, the apotelesmatic principle was originally used in Classical Greek for
making astrological predications based upon the reading of horoscopes. By the time of the early Church
Fathers, however, it had merely become a synonym for prophecy.6 We think that besides this origin in
classical Greek, this hermeneutical principle can be placed more accurately in the Greek conception of
history, especially in the Platonic philosophy of history. Our hypothesis is as folllows: The apotelesmatic
principle has its philosophic origin in the Platonic conception of history based on the idea of recurring
historic cycles.15
Likewise, the stoics considered the concepts of eternal return, cosmic cycles, and cyclic events very
significant. In general, the hypothesis prevailed among Greek thinkers that there exists an analogy between
the phases of civilization and the phases of the physical universe, and between the human race and the
individual human being. These thinkers supposed that civilizations followed one another by virtue of their
own laws, and at the same time, within a common universal law. In the Greek way of thinking, this concept
of cycles, and its applications to the history of humankind, was the natural corollary of a sensational
astronomic discovery made in the Babylonian world between the 8 th and the 6th centuries B.C. The
discovery consisted in the verification or the simple affirmation of a great cycle of cosmic months and
years that made the solar year seem insignificant by contrast. The minds fond of this idea projected their
periodicity patterns to all events.
Greeks knew how to look and see. Their visual-spatial dimension was notoriously superior to their audiotime dimension. This science of observation (the theoria) was born in Greece as a result of a purely
contemplative attitude, besides it being the right place for the development of theater (a way of seeing) and

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 5

spatial-visual arts. Among the Greeks the spatial nature won over temporal history. And the fact that it is
repeated suggested a cyclic idea of events. Among the Romans, the idea of fatality and relentless fate
appears in Cicero, and the circular conception of historical time that seems predominant among Romans as
well as the Greeks is quite clearly affirmed by Plutarch. 7 16
Israel constituted in ancient times a culture with very special characteristics, similar to neither the ancient
Near East [ANE] people nor the Greco-Romans. Hebrew thought has a different attitude regarding
historical time, and it is characterized by a certain way of thinking and living.
There is a clear and distinctive contrast between Greek and Hebrew thought. Greek thought states that
reality is static, unchangeable, and immovable. On the contrary, for the Hebrews reality consists in action
and movement. The Greeks were interested in contemplation; the Hebrews were interested in action. For
the Greeks, movement was not the final reality. For the Hebrews, true reality was action and movement;
inactivity and immobility were not reality at all.8
The Hebrews dynamic approach to reality is expressed in their interest in history. Their God acts in
history, and these actions in history are the center of Israels religion. The Hebrews interest in history
corresponds with their perspective of time. Time was real for them. Greek philosophy was interested in an
unchangeable and static reality that did not pay attention to action in history. Greek history was similar to
anecdote or tragedy. They did not see in historical processes a Supreme Power but a destiny or a necessity.
The Greeks considered history to be unchangeable, static and immovable. Therefore, in their refined
philosophical thoughts, their perspective of time was cyclic.9 17

Ouro Plagiarizes Barr in His Arguments

Ouro goes much further when he misreads Barrs criticism and assumes that Barr agrees
with him about the fallacious comparison approach and conclusions between the Greek and
Hebrew thought he plagiarizes sections from Barr to support his false perspective. Because
plagiarism is better noticed from a parallel perspective, Barrs text in The Semantics of Biblical
Language18 and Ouros plagiarized text in The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and
Application19 will be placed in a table and marked with different highlights:
Barr Plagiarized in Ouros Paper
Barrs The Semantics of Biblical Language

Ouros The Apotelesmatic Principle

The main contrasts drawn between Greek and

Hebrew thought are usually the following:
There is a clear and distinctive contrast
between Greek and Hebrew thought. Greek
1. The contrast between the static and dynamic. thought states that reality is static,
The Greeks were ultimately interested in unchangeable, and immovable. On the
contemplation, the Hebrews in action. contrary, for the Hebrews reality consists in
Movement could not be the ultimate reality for action and movement. The Greeks were
the Greeks, for whom being must be interested in contemplation; the Hebrews were
distinguished from becoming, and the ultimate interested in action. For the Greeks, movement
must be changeless. For the Israelites the true was not the final reality. For the Hebrews, true
reality was action and movement, and the reality was action and movement; inactivity
inactive and motionless was no reality at all.20
and immobility were not reality at all.8 21

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 6

The dynamic approach of the Hebrews to

reality is expressed in their interest in history.
Their God is characteristically one who acts in
history, and these actions in history are the
core of the religious tradition in Israel. The
interest in history corresponds to and
presupposes a realistic view of time.
The highest philosophical developments of the
Greeks were interested in an unchanging
reality and paid no attention to action in
history. Greek history was akin to anecdote or
to tragedy; it did not see in historical process a
higher power than fate or necessity. For
ultimate reality the Greeks turned away from
history into the unchanging. Typically,
therefore, it is held, their view of time became
cyclic in the philosophical refinements of
tought.22

The Hebrews dynamic approach to reality is

expressed in their interest in history. Their God
acts in history, and these actions in history are
the center of Israels religion. The Hebrews
interest in history corresponds with their
perspective of time. Time was real for them.
Greek philosophy was interested in an
unchangeable and static reality that did not pay
attention to action in history. Greek history
was similar to anecdote or tragedy. They did
not see in historical processes a Supreme
Power but a destiny or a necessity. The Greeks
considered history to be unchangeable, static
and immovable. Therefore, in their refined
philosophical thoughts, their perspective of
time was cyclic.923

The passages to the left in the table express Barrs explicit and brutal criticism about the
erroneous and dangerous habit of contrasting Greek and Hebrew modes of thought24 and the
fallacies that result from such a commonplace but fallacious practice. He states:
Another important event is the rise after the first World War to leadership in Protestant theology of
theological viewpoints which were willing to borrow very little from natural theology or philosophy and
which rejected more or less abruptly the idea that a philosophy not founded on the special revelation of
God and correspondingly unrelated to the Bible and its Hebraic thought might serve as part of the
substructure of Christian theology. To those influenced by this point of view it became natural to think of
the philosophy or natural theology which was rejected from the theological structure as something akin
to the Greek outlook which was sharply contrasted with the Hebraic heritage: and conversely that the
Hebrew way of thinking, so sharply identified and isolated by the contrast with the Greeks, occupied a
position of independence analogous to that of a theology conscious of its unwillingness to lean on the
Western philosophic tradition. It should however be added that this correspondence is by no means a
universal one, and that some of those who are most anxious to assert the independence and unity of the
Hebrew mind and its contrast with the Greek belong to the theological traditions much more sympathetic to
a philosophic sub-structure independent of the Bible.25

Ouro, though, misunderstands and misinterprets Barrs statements, and uses the Biblical
Scholars negative statements to support the position about which Barrs warns the theologians
when he states:
In recent years I have come to believe that one of the greatest dangers to such sound and adequate
interpretation comes from the prevailing use of procedures, which, which claiming to rest upon a
knowledge of the Israelite and the Greek ways of thinking, constantly mishandle and distort the linguistic
evidence of the Hebrew and Greek languages as they are used in the Bible. The increasing sense of

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 7

dependence upon the Bible in the modern church only makes the danger more serious. The fact that these
procedures have never to my knowledge been collected, analysed and criticized in detail was the chief
stimulus to my undertaking of this task myself.26

Conclusion
In his inadequate and failed endeavor to refute the apotelesmatic principle as a sound
method for prophetic interpretation, Ouro uses Barrs sharp criticism and brutal warnings against
the unscientific and pseudo linguistic approach that attempts to draw a direct contrast between
the Greek and Hebrew thought and then draw a generalization without support from empirical
evidence that would validate such a claim, in order to support and defend his own erroneous
perspective on the matter because he misreads and misunderstands Barr and interprets the
Hebrew scholars criticism as an affirmation and support for his own fallacious position. In the
argument process that captivates his attention, Ouro comes much too close to Barr, and manages
misread and plagiarize him, an unexpected and unacceptable action that tarnishes his reputation
and discredits him as an academic and scholar.

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 8

References
1

James Barr. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), back
cover.
2

Idem.

Hans M. Barstad, The Rev Professor James Barr, The Independent Saturday, 11 November
2006. Retrieved on January 19, 2015 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ therev-professor-james-barr-423854.html?printService=print
4

Idem.

James Barr. Preface. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961.
6

Idem.

Idem.

HGM Williamson, James Barr, The Guardian, Wednesday, 8 November 2006. Retrieved on
January 18, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/nov/08/guardianobituaries.
obituaries1
9

Moises Silva. Biblical Words and Their Meaning An Introduction to Lexical Semantics
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 18.
10

Idem, 18-19.

11

James Barr. Preface. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961, 8.
12

Idem.

13

Idem, 8-9.

14

Roberto Ouro, The Term ehr in Genesis 7:2: A Linguistic Study, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 16/1-2 (2005), 29.
15

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 328.
16

Idem, 329.

17

Idem, 330.

Adventist Scholar Misreads and Plagiarizes Barr 9

18

James Barr. Preface. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961).
19

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 326-342.
20

James Barr. Preface. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961), 10-11.
21

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 330.
22

James Barr. Preface. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961), 11.
23

Roberto Ouro, The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application, Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 9/1-2 (1998), 330.
24

James Barr. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961, 8.

25

26

Idem, 10.

James Barr. Preface. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961).