Lawrence O. Richards ὑπόκρισις word group

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Post Reply
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 813
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Lawrence O. Richards ὑπόκρισις word group

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 7th, 2018, 4:48 pm

In a recent 06/21/18 post on patheos, Mark Driscoll cited the late Larry Richards (Lawrence O. Richards)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdrisco ... hypocrite/
What is a hypocrite?
{snip}
Bible scholar Larry Richards explains the concept of hypocrisy in the New Testament. He says:
“The Greek words hypokrinomai (appears once in the NT), hypokrisis (6 times in the NT), and hypokritēs (20 times in the NT) denote someone acting out the part of a character in a play. In Greek drama the actors held over their faces oversized masks painted to represent the character they were portraying. In life, the hypocrite is a person who masks his real self while he plays a part for his audience.

That background of the word “hypocrite” in Greek theatre makes for an amazingly concrete definition. Richards goes on to explain what it looks like when someone “masks his real self” and “plays a part for his audience”:

What characterizes the religious hypocrite? In Matthew’s Gospel (where 16 of the 27 occurrences of these Greek words occur) we note these things:

A hypocrite does not act spontaneously from the heart but with calculation, to impress observers (Mt 6:1–3).
A hypocrite thinks only of the external trappings of religion, ignoring the central, heart issues of love for God and others (Mt 15:1–21).
A hypocrite uses spiritual talk to hide base motives (Mt 22:18–22).
Jesus give us this warning that to the hypocrites of every age: “Woe to you” (Mt 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29).”(1)
What do you think about this lexical semantic methodology?

Somewhat irrelevant background: Larry Richards was a significant player in christian education literature in the 1970s. He published a lot of books. Driscoll's contribution is difficult to determine. See the post on patheos and keep an eye on the quotes, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdrisco ... hypocrite/
0 x


C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 813
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Lawrence O. Richards ὑπόκρισις word group

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 8th, 2018, 1:07 pm

Having consulted the relevant lexicons on ὑποκρίνομαι, ὑπόκρισις, ὑποκριτής, I found a range of methodological similarity to Lawrence O. Richards as cited in Mark Driscoll's article June 21, 2018. The most similar was C. Spicq who gives an extensive historical development. The least similar was Louw & Nida. Danker, Grimm-Thayer, Lampe were in the middle.

Lampe was helpful in citing ancient sources for example:
Origenes De oratione
Ch. 20, § 2,
ὥσπερ δὲ οἱ ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις δραμάτων τινῶν ὑποκριταὶ οὐχ ὅπερ λέγουσίν εἰσιν, οὐδ' ὅπερ βλέπονται καθ' ὃ περίκεινται πρόσωπον τοῦτο τυγχάνουσιν· οὕτως καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐπιμορφάζοντες τῷ δοκεῖν τὴν τοῦ καλοῦ φαντασίαν οὐ δίκαιοι ἀλλ' ὑποκριταί εἰσι δικαιοσύνης, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἰδίῳ θεάτρῳ ὑποκρινόμενοι, “ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν.”
A short sample from Spicq:
Because both the orator and the actor practice an art of illusion, our terms came to be pejorative. The actor who plays the role of Agamemnon is not really Agamemnon but pretends to be. So he counterfeits himself and covers his tracks by hiding his own identity: “when tragic actors put on their costumes, they also change their gait, their voice, their bearing, and their language” (Plutarch, Demetr. 18.5). So hypokrinomai comes to mean “pretend,”9 “practice deception,”10 “dissemble” (Marcus Aurelius 2.17; 9.2).
Postscript: Role playing in social science (vintage late 1960s) wasn't viewed as inherently dishonest. Acting a part in different social scenarios was understood as a necessary and universal activity.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 813
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Lawrence O. Richards ὑπόκρισις word group

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 8th, 2018, 3:28 pm

Spicq's treatment of the historical development helps us to understand frames and scripts for prototypical scenarios in which ὑποκριτής, ὑπόκρισις, ὑποκρίνομαι were used[1]. Thus what appears to be an older lexical semantic method actually is more valuable. It helps us understand the metaphor by providing a short history.


[1] Framing the Frames: A Theoretical Framework for the Cognitive Notion of “Frames of Reference”
Ernst R. Wendland 2010
http://www-01.sil.org/siljot/2010/1/928 ... 0-1-03.pdf
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3491
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Lawrence O. Richards ὑπόκρισις word group

Post by Jonathan Robie » August 9th, 2018, 9:07 am

I like this thread. To me, it really does seem sound.

I like this example from 1 Peter 1:22:
1 Peter 1:22 wrote:εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον
Should ἀνυπόκριτος be seen as a privative - "without play-acting", or has it taken on an active meaning of "genuine" on its own?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1336
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Lawrence O. Richards ὑπόκρισις word group

Post by Barry Hofstetter » August 9th, 2018, 10:04 am

I had a professor who would always render it "under-actor" and υπερετής as "under-rower." He was being facetious, of course, but also claimed that it helped him remember the "real meaning" of the words.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply