16 tons, and what do you get?

Page 2 of 2 (40 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 39 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 16 2012 10:40 AM

NewbieMick:
You do

 

Wow, that's good stuff, NewbieMick, I didn't realize (although I should have known) that a free pdf of this could be obtained, thank you.

This article will benefit everyone who reads this blog.

Posts 5571
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 16 2012 10:53 AM

JR Woods:
It helps with understanding authorial intent (linguistic based, not theological based) and communicating that to your people, a good example is in John's record of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. (Jn 3) Lots of commentaries spend a great deal of time on the Theologically prominent theme of "the kingdom". (but was this John's prominent issue?) Most commentators get the sense that there is some type of argument, or debate here, but struggle to verify this linguistically, and so are left to convey this through descriptive impressions.

Sure, but this is basic exegesis. Looking at the author's intent is nothing new (is it?). I'm aware that some commentaries jump to questions of theology too quickly (particularly in Romans, IMHO), but not all. What you're describing in theologizing-driven Bible study, is what has long been condemned as proof-texting, and/or eisegesis. This doesn't seem new, and D.A. isn't the first to point this out, nor the only remedy, is it?(I also understand the dangers of lexicon-driven studies, but D.A. didn't discover that danger, as another D.A. (Carson) would readily assert.)

Secondly, what I see from you is a theoretical backdrop or framework to a better understanding of John chapter 3, but I don't see what help you got from D.A. in understanding this chapter. Could you show me how D.A. helps where other methods fall short?

JR Woods:
The ABSOLUTELY most helpful discussion of this from a discourse perspective is Levinsohn's, Discourse Features of the Greek NT, check Amazon, (along with my review there) where Levinsohn outlines how certain phrases, "ἀπεκρίθη ... (O εἶπεν O) αὐτῷ" (as opposed to the usual, " Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE AR-SA MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 εἶπεν" for reported speech, (Check Runge's "Redundant Quotative Frame") are John's way of communicating the bigger picture of Jesus' "taking control" of the conversation with material (about the second birth) that challenged Nicodemus and his later rebuke. As only one example, this allows OUR readers to process rightly the kind of tone, intent, and placement John is using for each part and piece that make-up the whole of his discourse without spending time down individual word-study rabbit trails that assert something about the word which the author is not using in context. Runge's material, when consulted with his Introduction material help us see the depth, gives us this Functional linguistic sense. 

You're conclusions here, derived from D.A., as you say, echo what NICNT says about the passage:
In this chapter John furthers his purpose by recording a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, a typical representative of Pharisaic Judaism. As such Nicodemus would have stressed the careful observance of the Law and the traditions of the elders. For the loyal Pharisee this was the way of salvation. John uses this conversation to show that all such views are wide of the mark. Not a devout regard for the Law, not even a revised presentation of Judaism is required, but a radical rebirth. The demand is repeated three times (vv. 3, 5, 7). Nicodemus and all his tribe of lawdoers are left with not the slightest doubt but that what is asked of anyone is not more law, but the power of God within that person to remake him or her completely. In its own way this chapter does away with “works of the law” every bit as thoroughly as anything in Paul.

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 185-86.

Not to be obstinate, but I'm still not seeing a contribution by D.A. that results in a different result than is achieved by other, honest exegetical methods. Help me see what I'm missing.

(BTW, I don't have JETS in Logos, and can't afford it right now - maybe later this year.) I'll check out the PDF in the URL provided by NewbieMick (definitely not a Newbie any more, Nick!  Thanks!).

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 16 2012 11:54 AM

Richard DeRuiter:
I'm still not seeing a contribution by D.A.

Thank you for your reply, Richard, I appreciate the chance to talk about this issue in greater depth. What I see from my end as the real disconnect is the operating idea driving our discussion in two different directions, Richard:

1) DA as a method, only one tool, which calls for "an example" of how it works.

2) DA as a discipline, an entire body of knowledge, that calls for training as any other in order to come to grips with.

With the former as true, I can see the reason for the "obstinate" search (my army training would simply call "motivated"), with the Latter as true, however, you can see my reluctance to expound very much here, and refer resources to help generate your answers. I have NICNT as well, I saw the article, and read it as the backdrop to my earlier response (along with ICC's commentary, et al). Please do not misinterpret me, Richard, I'm not docking the level of scholarship behind them, only the approach that drives them--a topical, not linguistic, drive. Hence, Morris' article you use is an excellent example, touching all these topics in just the first few sentences of his material--starting with Jesus/Nicodemus, careful observance of Law, traditions, elders, Pharisee, salvation, conversion, Judaism, radical rebirth, demand, tribe of lawdoers, doubt, power of God, remake him, works of the law, Paul.

While certainly great for connecting larger issues related to the text, this is not linguistically focused commentary--but this is topically panoramic. The wide breadth of topics must be called upon if the lack of linguistic focus is to be compensated. It represents good knowledge of first-century conditions, but not a Linguistic orientation exclusively. Compare Morris' breadth of topics, to Levinsohn's incredibly lazer-beam focused section regarding the breakdown of the linguistic masterpieces that run through this entire chapter of John--from a literary, top-down, linguistic approach to the same material. (Discourse Features of the Greek NT) After reading Levinsohn's material, the reader's eyes become trained to see the text itself, not the thousand topics surrounding it. Again, there is no easy answer here, and finding "the contribution" which DA offers, assumes that the benefits of an entire body of knowledge can be subsumed under one descriptive heading. I would hope we could agree that analyzing any body of knowledge calls for more depth than that. Your example was a great commentary, indeed, and any great commentary will consider the same issues hermeneutically--grammatical, historical, theological--but linguistics are gradually coming on the scene with more precise, linguistic methods to verify/not-verify issues that used to be impressions of the text. The benefit is in the certainty of the method--a functional analysis that verifies the patterns of linguistic variation used by the Koine Greek of the NT documents. After you read the JETS article, you will see the broad base of issues discourse studies have begun to offer.

The whole reason I gave you the JETS level of bibliographic data was to encourage you to read about it yourself (which you don't need Logos specifically to do). If there is no desire for that, then this blog will be of no use, and will simply degenerate into something personal--when the only reason for my response was to send you on a path that would help.

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 16 2012 12:11 PM

Not to toot my horn here, Richard, which I have no benefit to do on this blog anyway, but you were thanking Nick for the information about a journal that I gave you the full information on to go and find yourself, which Nick himself gives his own implicit thanks for in his some-what backhanded response to you for not looking up. What motivates someone to thank other people for resources they receive from someone? I'm not clear on this. It's clear that some parts may have pricked egos for some of us, but I think its still the right thing to give credit where its due, since most Christians have the same policy (as I believe you do), I'm trying to come up with the real meaning behind a thank you to the wrong person. 

I have done all that is profitable to do here without allowing this to turn into an ego-generated discussion. You have the resources, I do not believe for one second you cannot afford them on payment plans (since I bought them while I was in seminary), and all I can do is offer them (and some testimony) and wish you the best along your journey, should you choose to accept it. We are all obstinate in certain areas, Richard, a reluctance to rendering the word of truth on stronger grounds (i.e, linguistically) does not have to be one of them.

I've done as much as I can here, offering what will help you discover your answers.

Feel free to have the last word Richard.

Posts 5571
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 16 2012 12:35 PM

JR Woods:
Not to toot my horn here, Richard, which I have no benefit to do on this blog anyway, but you were thanking Nick for the information about a journal that I gave you the full information on to go and find yourself, which Nick himself gives his own implicit thanks for in his some-what backhanded response to you for not looking up. What motivates someone to thank other people for resources they receive from someone? I'm not clear on this. It's clear that some parts may have pricked egos for some of us, but I think its still the right thing to give credit where its due, since most Christians have the same policy (as I believe you do), I'm trying to come up with the real meaning behind a thank you to the wrong person. 

Wait.

Nick gave the URL to a PDF of the article you recommended. I thanked him for providing me with that.

If I seem ungrateful to you for trying to help me figure this D.A. thing out, I'm sorry. I am grateful. Any frustration you might pick up from me is really directed toward the D.A. approach, which just doesn't seem to be what i thought it was.

I hope to get to read the JETS article tomorrow, as today is my day off, and I try not to do too much real 'work' on Mondays. If I would keep to my normal discipline, I wouldn't have checked these forums either.

JR Woods:
I do not believe for one second you cannot afford them . . .

Well, I'm in the process of building a house this year. While I do have a book budget, I try to prioritize it carefully. So far, most journals haven't made it to the top of my priority list (except for those that come with my base package).

JR Woods:
We are all obstinate in certain areas, Richard, a reluctance to rendering the word of truth on stronger grounds (i.e, linguistically) does not have to be one of them.

Actually, I genuinely want to understand how D.A. helps me do that. I was one of the first to sign up for the HDNT, read the stuff on it, watched some of the videos, etc. I'm still signed up for the one to be developed for the OT. My problem is that when I got the resource and looked at it, I didn't know what to do with it. I've asked for help, watched the videos, read through some of the theory, and try as I might, I'm not sure what to do with what I'm looking at. At the same time, given the level of support D.A. has, I figure I'm probably missing something. I really want to know what that is.

I'm sorry if the way I've stated things here made you think I was being either ungrateful or contentious toward you personally. That was not my intention. I am grateful for your attempts to help me out here. If I seem to push back, it's because I'm still not getting it, but want to.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 27965
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 16 2012 9:07 PM

Richard DeRuiter:
Not to be obstinate, but I'm still not seeing a contribution by D.A. that results in a different result than is achieved by other, honest exegetical methods. Help me see what I'm missing.

If you are familiar with the work of Derrida, you will notice that only Derrida can execute his version of deconstruction. At least that is what a recently retired philosophy professor says.Smile There are others who have reached similar conclusions through their own, non-standardized techniques.

That is not a random bit of information - it is a parallel case to linguistic discourse analysis. Others have noted some of the features discourse analysis exposes. The power of DA is that it is a teachable, repeatable set of rules that anyone can apply for themselves - which makes it possible to apply it across the whole corpus. Just as the units of language study have divided into smaller units word--> morpheme, phoneme and sememe --> nano-syntax the units have also grown into larger units word -->phrase-->clause-->sentence-->discourse ... that is the power of DA.

Question: what do you think of rhetorical criticism or narratological criticism? They are somewhat related to discourse analysis.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 5571
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 7:47 AM

MJ. Smith:
The power of DA is that it is a teachable, repeatable set of rules that anyone can apply for themselves - which makes it possible to apply it across the whole corpus. Just as the units of language study have divided into smaller units word--> morpheme, phoneme and sememe --> nano-syntax the units have also grown into larger units word -->phrase-->clause-->sentence-->discourse ... that is the power of DA.

I just finished reading the JETS article mentioned above. I find it compelling in its arguments, but still nothing really new or different from what I was taught - different terms same ideas, with some nuance toward the process of communication and some new terminology.

MJ. Smith:
Question: what do you think of rhetorical criticism or narratological criticism? They are somewhat related to discourse analysis.

Rhetorical criticism and narratological criticism (haven't heard that term before you mentioned it) seem to address some of the same issues, and though I was taught what rhetorical criticism was, the claim that it was 'science' was pretty much debunked at seminary, while some of the approaches were seen as helpful. In other words, this is more art than science.

What follows is an expression of frustration aimed to elicit help in understanding what I'm missing about the HDNT and the LDGNT. Please don't see this as trying to debunk either the method or the resource. I want to get this. I really do. But I don't (yet).

This is all well and good, but what then do I get when I look at what I see in the HDNT or the LDGNT, I'm confused. I see a column on the left describing something about the text on the right. Usually this just says "Sentence." Sometimes the same word is indented, sometimes it's called a "Sub-Point" or "Bullet List," but all in all, it doesn't tell me anything that doesn't seem utterly obvious, and/or suggesting one way of dividing up and describing the content, though other ways will do just as well.

I also see some highlighted words/phrases, or greyed out words/phrases that on hover display different things in the HDNG than in the LDGNT, though the discourse content doesn't seem to be different. For example, in Mark 2:17 the phrase "when Jesus heard" is in grey. On hover I see "Backgrounding" with a description of what is meant by that, including a reference to what's going on grammatically in Greek. In the same place in the LDGNT on hovering over "akouas ho Iesous" (hearing the Jesus - better English "Jesus, hearing [this]") I see "Nominative circumstantial frame" further described as a way of backgrounding. Okay, now that I know that, what did I learn? I learned a term to describe what a natural reading of the text would tell me: Jesus responded to what he heard. Is this it?

In the remaining part of that verse, there's a quote by Jesus in which He makes a double comparison: Doctor is to Sick as I am to Sinners, and the parallel ideas "have need" with "I have come," and the implicit comparison of  Pharisees with both healthy and righteous (and conversely those at this gathering as sick and sinners). Both the HDNT and the LDGNT describe each phrase as a point/counterpoint, but the only clue that they are inter-related and mutually interpreting "sentences" is that they are both indented from the main sentence and marked by the term "Sentence." That seems totally inadequate to the authorial intent here, doesn't it? Wouldn't we need to understand these statements as parallel statements that both inform us of why we need Jesus and why He has come? What discourse promises in documents like the JETS article I mentioned, it doesn't seem to deliver -- at least not in this resource.

Further, the way this pericope is told, everything (including the call of Levi) is explained and interpreted by this verse. But neither the HDNT nor the LDGNT tell me this, or hint that it might be significant (though the JETS article points to this kind of expectation in narrative). It seems to me that the authorial intent in this story is found in v.17 (not, e.g., v.15 - which might lead one to conclude that Jesus teaches us to eat and fellowship with scoundrels - as an end in itself).

Now maybe I'm doing structural or rhetorical analysis instead of discourse analysis. Okay. That's fine. But I got some pretty juicy stuff that way, and I didn't find anything nearly that interesting by looking at just the discourse structure available in the HDNT or the LDGNT. Or did I miss something?

Please, please tell me what I'm missing about Discourse Analysis and help me understand how to use the D.A. materials we have in Logos to do what it promises. There are too many smart people who see this as something significant. I must be missing something.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 928
Bill Moore | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 8:15 AM

Thanks, Richard, for carrying on this conversation, and thanks to those responding. I am with Richard in trying to understand this.

Pastor, Cornerstone Baptist Church, Clinton, SC

Posts 4817
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 9:46 AM

JR Woods:

Richard DeRuiter:
I'm still not seeing a contribution by D.A.

Thank you for your reply, Richard, I appreciate the chance to talk about this issue in greater depth. What I see from my end as the real disconnect is the operating idea driving our discussion in two different directions, Richard:

1) DA as a method, only one tool, which calls for "an example" of how it works.

2) DA as a discipline, an entire body of knowledge, that calls for training as any other in order to come to grips with.

With the former as true, I can see the reason for the "obstinate" search (my army training would simply call "motivated"), with the Latter as true, however, you can see my reluctance to expound very much here, and refer resources to help generate your answers. I have NICNT as well, I saw the article, and read it as the backdrop to my earlier response (along with ICC's commentary, et al). Please do not misinterpret me, Richard, I'm not docking the level of scholarship behind them, only the approach that drives them--a topical, not linguistic, drive. Hence, Morris' article you use is an excellent example, touching all these topics in just the first few sentences of his material--starting with Jesus/Nicodemus, careful observance of Law, traditions, elders, Pharisee, salvation, conversion, Judaism, radical rebirth, demand, tribe of lawdoers, doubt, power of God, remake him, works of the law, Paul.

While certainly great for connecting larger issues related to the text, this is not linguistically focused commentary--but this is topically panoramic. The wide breadth of topics must be called upon if the lack of linguistic focus is to be compensated. It represents good knowledge of first-century conditions, but not a Linguistic orientation exclusively. Compare Morris' breadth of topics, to Levinsohn's incredibly lazer-beam focused section regarding the breakdown of the linguistic masterpieces that run through this entire chapter of John--from a literary, top-down, linguistic approach to the same material. (Discourse Features of the Greek NT) After reading Levinsohn's material, the reader's eyes become trained to see the text itself, not the thousand topics surrounding it. Again, there is no easy answer here, and finding "the contribution" which DA offers, assumes that the benefits of an entire body of knowledge can be subsumed under one descriptive heading. I would hope we could agree that analyzing any body of knowledge calls for more depth than that. Your example was a great commentary, indeed, and any great commentary will consider the same issues hermeneutically--grammatical, historical, theological--but linguistics are gradually coming on the scene with more precise, linguistic methods to verify/not-verify issues that used to be impressions of the text. The benefit is in the certainty of the method--a functional analysis that verifies the patterns of linguistic variation used by the Koine Greek of the NT documents. After you read the JETS article, you will see the broad base of issues discourse studies have begun to offer.

The whole reason I gave you the JETS level of bibliographic data was to encourage you to read about it yourself (which you don't need Logos specifically to do). If there is no desire for that, then this blog will be of no use, and will simply degenerate into something personal--when the only reason for my response was to send you on a path that would help.

For the sake of explanation, why don't you apply DA to what you yourself wrote above. Then show how it helps us understand what you meant when you said what you said.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 12:46 PM

Richard DeRuiter:

I also see some highlighted words/phrases, or greyed out words/phrases that on hover display different things in the HDNG than in the LDGNT, though the discourse content doesn't seem to be different. For example, in Mark 2:17 the phrase "when Jesus heard" is in grey. On hover I see "Backgrounding" with a description of what is meant by that, including a reference to what's going on grammatically in Greek. In the same place in the LDGNT on hovering over "akouas ho Iesous" (hearing the Jesus - better English "Jesus, hearing [this]") I see "Nominative circumstantial frame" further described as a way of backgrounding. Okay, now that I know that, what did I learn? I learned a term to describe what a natural reading of the text would tell me: Jesus responded to what he heard. Is this it?

In the remaining part of that verse, there's a quote by Jesus in which He makes a double comparison: Doctor is to Sick as I am to Sinners, and the parallel ideas "have need" with "I have come," and the implicit comparison of  Pharisees with both healthy and righteous (and conversely those at this gathering as sick and sinners). Both the HDNT and the LDGNT describe each phrase as a point/counterpoint, but the only clue that they are inter-related and mutually interpreting "sentences" is that they are both indented from the main sentence and marked by the term "Sentence." That seems totally inadequate to the authorial intent here, doesn't it? Wouldn't we need to understand these statements as parallel statements that both inform us of why we need Jesus and why He has come? What discourse promises in documents like the JETS article I mentioned, it doesn't seem to deliver -- at least not in this resource.

Looking at Mark 2:17, noted counter-point and point are structurally in one sentence line.  After comparing with couple other passages, wonder if Mark 2:17 should have sub-point structure within a sentence ?

Structurally aligning counter-point and point for visual comparison would be appreciated.  Edit: I sent an email to Logos with reference to this thread.

By the way, I created couple Discourse Analysis visual filters to use with my Logos Greek Morphology filters.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 27965
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 1:41 PM

I'm no expert in DA - structuralism and semiotics were the fads when I was in graduate school. But I've found a balanced example. Read the whole article and see if it helps. For those who don't have the interest to follow the link, here is an excerpt where he puts his methods in perspective:

Discourse analysis is the discipline that studies texts as acts of communi-
cation. Discourse grammar analyzes grammatical structures, such as verb
tense and aspect, to find patterns of usage related to communicative intent.
Described this way, its advantages for exegesis should be obvious and not
particularly controversial. Unfortunately, discourse grammarians often use
exotic vocabulary and make extravagant claims, and generally do not make
clear to the uninitiated just which parts of their position are common
ground among Hebrew grammarians, and which are not.7 I aim to make
use of those parts which are in fact common ground.

from DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF GEN 2:4-7
JACK COLLINS http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Collins_Gen2Discourse_WTJ.pdf

 

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 1:58 PM

Pre-publication for => Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible Bundle (6 vols.) is still gathering interest, needs more pre-orders to express enough purchase interest (cover estimated production cost) for Logos to develop Discourse Hebrew Bible.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 27965
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 17 2012 3:05 PM

see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/43882/326648.aspx#326648 for a reading list of examples of discourse analysis in action

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 5571
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 18 2012 9:03 AM

MJ. Smith:

see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/43882/326648.aspx#326648 for a reading list of examples of discourse analysis in action

Thanks for the reading list, MJ. It is helpful.

After reading just two of those articles, I find that while I still don't quite get how D.A. works, I'm starting to see some of the linguistic science behind it. It seems highly technical and carefully nuanced.

I also see that the Logos resources like the HDNT and the LDGNT don't do intend to do or present the work of D.A., but only (some of?) the linguistic/semantic features that someone doing D.A. would use.

This quote in the Willsey article is discouraging: "For many people, the required level of linguistic knowledge will be a barrier to independent work." (p.5 of that article)

If this assessment is right, it is somewhat discouraging for someone like me, who really doesn't have the time to learn an entirely new hermeneutical discipline. I'm intrigued by what D.A. promises, but without a great deal of time and effort, I'm not at all confident it's a discipline I can implement myself.

While I don't share the skepticism, nor the outright objections of Thomas (in the TMSJ article) regarding linguistic analysis (his straw dogs are both obvious and flammable), D.A. is still something that raises at least one of my eyebrows. If this new field is the key to settling Biblical interpretation (as the optimism of Bergen suggests), and if it requires a high level of linguistic knowledge and skill (as Willsey asserts), then it seems that only the linguistically elite can speak authoritatively on Scripture (and may assume so themselves). But that's a suspicion, not a conclusion.

Thanks to all who have been patient with me in this. I'll continue to read the articles in MJ's fine reading list, maybe something will 'click' as I read more. For now, I'll have to stick with the tools I have, not the least of which is prayer.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 4:54 PM

MJ. Smith:
structuralism and semiotics were the fads when I was in graduate school.

Jeffrey Reed, Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek: "Although it is fair to say that discourse analysis is here to stay in the linguistic world, its fate in New Testament biblical scholarship is less certain."

Since Discourse Analysis, text-linguistics and functional linguistic studies have already been well-established, long-term professional techniques in rendering issues regarding language translation, and theory, the only real issue is our theologians coming to grips with letting go of antiquated, less-informed methods of hermeneutical presuppositions and submitting to the fact that God is calling them to a more secure level of dividing God's word.

The two methods you mentioned may have been fads for NT study, but these methods are already top-of-the-food-chain. NT study needs to just learn to let go of theology and embrace linguistic competencies.

But hey, don't listen to me.

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 5:36 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Okay, now that I know that, what did I learn?

Again, it's this "easy-answer" training we need to release. Runge's material is not meant to simply be "glanced over" with the expectation that some

revelation will hit our brains about the text just because we read it, and the "theological" rendering of the text you mention are exactly the point I'm making--your theology is informing you views of the importance of the textual readings your looking at. No, I'm not talking about eisegesis either (which is a separate issue altogether), I'm talking about presuppositions that construct our hermeneutical approaches of the language. If we must render the text to conform our theological views, then we are not observing the text for the way each author (the specific author of a specific text, who is trying to demonstrate his own, unique literary environment, which a theology would not be able to come to grips with) When we separate our theology from the text, and view the text as an actual human-generated,  tool of human-interaction discourse, only then can we come to conclusions that are accurate to the text--as the text itself functions. Theology as a hermeneutical presupposition forces us to clump together in a topical manner (hence many of the sermons we hear today), texts that have nothing to do with each other, from disparate authors separated by both time, space, and formative ability and use of their language. Developing linguistic competencies first as a hermeneutical methodology forces us to render the text itself first--out from its specific author, time, and use, so that we then can come to forming a theology (or even comparative theology, depending on the agreement between authors) that sits on surer ground--the text itself--rather than human philosophical ingenuity--i.e., philosophical reasoning.   

Here's a good example:

Martin-Asensio (Transitivity Based Foregrounding in the Book of Acts) addresses issues with "transitivity structures" (the language structures used to demonstrate more/less active roles througout narrative) in Luke's book of Acts, that demonstrate certain participants in the narrative as foregrounded and others as backgrounded, according to the language structure Luke uses to accomplish this (i.e., what Asensio calls 'ergativity structures' (see Halliday, Functional Grammar)) Out of this 200-page study, he then applies that same concept to some studies by leading historical-critical scholars at the end of his book and concludes that their assessment of certain "more ancient" traditions behind the certain wordings of Christ's resurrection appearance in Acts are untenable by the actual language structure they describe.

Theology would not inform us of such weaknesses, and hence, we find these scholars received a great deal of notoriety in their day (and deserved to some degree, as their conclusions were certainly breakthroughs), but with the advent of linguistic competencies informing our hermeneutical approaches now, we have the ability to "move beyond" these more antequated, theologically-presupposed (and in most cases Asensio demonstrates as simply "presumed") renderings of the NT Greek language.

This expectation of "getting it" in terms of understanding the contribution of DA or text-linguistics will not be resolved by this forum, nor by a single article reading (since the article I referenced was authored in the 80's and many times he discusses the "bright future" of more conclusive, and reliable data that is linguistically derived). The article I gave was not designed to be the authority of the contribution of DA or linguistics, but simply a good intro to the basic concept of the predominant benefit resulting from it. The author of any text did not formulate the theology we use today, but he did formulate the text we have today, hence linguistic competency is an issue God has finally called us to develop (not to dive into reliability issues of the NT docs either).

I myself am simply a novice at all this, admittedly. But, in an effort not to hide whatever talent I've been given (Mt 18:18), I offer to you all whatever I can to try to be helpful. If it clicks with even one, I'm glad to have spent the effort.

Blessings.

 

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 5:40 PM

Sorry, that text reference of Matt 18:18 should be 25:18--parable of the talents.

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 5:43 PM

I'm not interested in sarcasm Paul, just helping with what I can.

Posts 101
JR Woods | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 5:55 PM

JR

JR Woods:
25:18

I just seem to have some difficulty getting this hyperlinked, OK, lets try this again--

Matthew 25:18

There, hope that pops up.

Blessings,

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 19 2012 9:40 PM

JR Woods:

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Okay, now that I know that, what did I learn?

Looking back in thread, noticed quote was from:

Richard DeRuiter:
I also see some highlighted words/phrases, or greyed out words/phrases that on hover display different things in the HDNG than in the LDGNT, though the discourse content doesn't seem to be different. For example, in Mark 2:17 the phrase "when Jesus heard" is in grey. On hover I see "Backgrounding" with a description of what is meant by that, including a reference to what's going on grammatically in Greek. In the same place in the LDGNT on hovering over "akouas ho Iesous" (hearing the Jesus - better English "Jesus, hearing [this]") I see "Nominative circumstantial frame" further described as a way of backgrounding. Okay, now that I know that, what did I learn? I learned a term to describe what a natural reading of the text would tell me: Jesus responded to what he heard. Is this it?

As a discourse novice, believe answer is yes.  For background circumstantial information in a discourse, LDGNT and HDNT highlight those words in grey.  Noticed Mark 2:15-16 has discourse emphasis tagging using bold text to indicate Greek words that deviate from nominal expected order for emphasis (likewise noted the word καὶ is used eight times in Mark 2:15-16 with some καὶ 's having different scope of meaning).  In Mark 2:17, noticed ἀλλά used twice between contrasting points.

Keep Smiling Smile

Page 2 of 2 (40 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS