Exegetical Fallacies¶
Carson, D. A. (1984). Exegetical Fallacies.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Etymological fallacy
- Lexicography and usage commentary — the diagnostic governs the standing dispute between descriptive and prescriptive treatment of "incorrect" usage (decimate, literally, disinterested): an origin-fact cannot settle a convention-question. Historical and semantic-change linguistics — the fallacy marks the boundary between legitimate tracing of semantic drift (broadening, narrowing, amelioration, pejoration) and the illegitimate import of an older sense as a normative constraint. Rhetoric and informal-logic instruction — catalogued as a named argumentative error, taught so that "the word originally meant X, therefore it must still mean X" is recognized as a hypothesis needing current-usage evidence, not a proof. Translation and exegesis (linguistic core) — flags the "root fallacy" of forcing a term's etymological sense over its attested contemporary usage in the source community
This sourceCarson's Exegetical Fallacies names the root fallacy - the assumption that a word's meaning is bound up with its shape or components - as a common error in biblical word study. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies opens its treatment of word-study fallacies with a section on the root fallacy, presented as a warning to interpreters. Carson's point that a word's meaning cannot be reliably determined from its etymology, illustrated with 'butterfly' and 'pineapple' rather than their parts.
SupportedVerified against a saved copy of the source
“Common Fallacies in Semantics 1, The root fallacy”
- Lexicography and usage commentary — the diagnostic governs the standing dispute between descriptive and prescriptive treatment of "incorrect" usage (decimate, literally, disinterested): an origin-fact cannot settle a convention-question. Historical and semantic-change linguistics — the fallacy marks the boundary between legitimate tracing of semantic drift (broadening, narrowing, amelioration, pejoration) and the illegitimate import of an older sense as a normative constraint. Rhetoric and informal-logic instruction — catalogued as a named argumentative error, taught so that "the word originally meant X, therefore it must still mean X" is recognized as a hypothesis needing current-usage evidence, not a proof. Translation and exegesis (linguistic core) — flags the "root fallacy" of forcing a term's etymological sense over its attested contemporary usage in the source community
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:d12588b3fe31 · see in the full table