[OBW]

Whether Kittel's word studies are good is based on the word studies, not his status as a Christian or as a Nazi.

One thing that has bothered me about so many words used in the NT (and in the whole Bible for that matter) is the number that are given special meaning in a Christian context. They would be meaningful if left at common usage of the day, but have instead been imbued with special meaning that is deemed layered-on by the fact that it is in the Bible. Now there are clearly passages (mostly OT, and to some extent the NT parables) that are full of imagery. But even there, it is not about special meaning of words, but of the images that the passages as a whole provide. Even the types are mainly plain words. It is the parallel with something else that gives it the additional meaning.

But we come along and determine that "zoe" is exclusively "God's life" everywhere it is used when the word was not created by the biblical writers to have a special meaning, but already had a primary meaning that was quite meaningful for the things being written by them. And surely that word had a link to the divine because it was the connection with Christ that was said to make it more fully accessible to man. But it did not need a different, special, new meaning to convey what I continually see as the truth of the passages in question.

As an example, it has been suggested that the word that we translate "sin" carries with it the meaning of an archery term that means to simply miss the mark. Aimed at it, hit the target, but not quite the center, therefore a "sin." But the Greek word from which it comes does not appear to carry such a meaning at the time of writing. It meant to do what is wrong. (Hard to say that not quite hitting the center of the target is wrong.) But instead, it seems we have taken a meaning of the English (Old English?) word it was translated into and back-dated it to the original writing.

Just one simple example. But these word studies are full of such words. And when you look up words in regular dictionaries, how many have a special meaning in a religious context. And how many of those meanings were created over time and not by the original writers of the texts.

Add to that the constant further redefinition of words by people like Lee. Such as when he says that a particular word is "simply" one of many actual potential meanings. And often one of the more obscure ones. Or one that he somewhat made up. Jesus was full of grace. Grace came with Him. But the Bible never defines grace as "simply Christ." That is a Leeism. And it somewhat obliterates the actual use of the word. The word no longer has a specific meaning that is tied to its roots. Instead, it is a word that puts our focus on something other than the actual characteristics of grace.

Maybe Kittel's word study does not do this. But sometimes I think the more people try to dig and dig into words trying to find something more than what is at or near the surface, the more they are going to find nonsense, but convinced they have found gold. (Or be selling whatever it is they found as gold.)