Logos 4 Beta Resource Wish List

Hi,

I don't know if it is appropriate or not but I would love to see these resources included in the beta resource list. I am interested in them, but I wonder how much they would be useful to me and if they are truly an advancement beyond some of the other visualization resources I already have. So I express my desire, and trust the wisdom at Logos to do what they can.

Titles Included on My wish List!

Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament
Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament: Glossary
Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament: Introduction

The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament includes all the resources from the Lexham High Definition New Testament (HDNT)!

Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition
Lexham High Definition New Testament: Glossary
Lexham High Definition New Testament: Introduction

You Guys are Great. Thanks for all you do to help us get into the word efficiently!!

Pastor Chris McFarland

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Comments

Mike Aubrey

They're an advancement in terms of grammatical information that you won't find in any other resource in existence, print or otherwise.

Rich DeRuiter

I don't know if it is appropriate or not but I would love to see these resources included in the beta resource list.

Maybe someone will chime in and say something better about these.

I got them when they first came out, because the promised to show me stuff I'd been missing, but have not found them to be very helpful. I've spent most of my studies recently in the epistles and so I can't say how helpful they may be in narrative or poetic literature. But in the epistles, unless I'm smarter than average (I wouldn't take that bet), they basically just restate the obvious.

I could be more specific, if you'd like. But that gets a bit technical.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16672#Comment_16672

[ they basically just restate the obvious.

That's what I've found too. But I guess that's sorta the point with exegesis. We aren't looking for hidden messages but to just understand and state clearly the obvious. I have found the HDNT to be helpful enough at times to justify the cost. When it is helpful is to quickly compare my reading and understanding of the passage with another guy who's smarter and more studied than I.

-Jacob

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16672#Comment_16672

Please, get more technical.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16697#Comment_16697

Please, get more technical.

Okay. But please realize that I don't know any of the esoteric lingo that goes along with some of these areas of study.

Let's take the example of the passage I just studied in preparation for my latest message on Ephesians 4:25-5:2 (we could debate the chapter division at another time)

The WBC rightly (IMHO) suggests a literarly structure here that the LHDNT and the LDGT completely ignores. The structure, repeated 4 (maybe 5?) times in this passage is roughly this: negative -sub-point -motivation for desired action, or "Don't - instead - because," or, to be contextual "old man stuff, new man stuff, here's why I want you do to the new man stuff" (I know that's not completely accurate, but it gives a rough idea of what Paul is saying). To put this in outline form it would be A., 1., a., B., 1., a., (etc.).

The LHDNT and the LDGNT suggests a structure where often the sub-points are treated as in parallel with, rather than dependent on each other. The phrases are listed as "sentence, sentence, sub-point," or "sentence, sentence, sentence." To put it in outline form A., B., 1., C., D., E., etc. This scheme misses the listing of the four negatives that should be seen in parallel in verses 25-29, and the motivational phrases as parallel either. As I look at the text, it misses the obvious textual cues and treats them as merely sentences or sub-points.

Now I could accept a A., 1., 2.; B., 1., 2., or some such evaluation, anything that recognizes that Paul is presenting us with a list of not only what we ought not do, but what we should do each time. The evaluation of the dialog is at best inadequate.

This is only one example, obviously, but I have seen this in other places too. An obvious literary structure is either loosely treated or ignored, as it informs the syntactical relationships of phrases with each other.

[Note that I'm not commenting here on the syntactical graphs, which follow this structure a bit better (except in v.26), but is difficult to navigate without floating the window.]

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16716#Comment_16716

Rich,

The sub-points are
simply grammatical subordinations without reference to literary structure. The textual clues are merely sentences. This isn't literary analysis. The DGNT is looking at grammatical issues, not literary ones -- though they are often connected.

It sounds like the main issue is that you had hoped the DGNT would be looking at things it was never designed to.

In terms of showing you stuff you might have been missing, no other resource in existence analyzes Topic & Focus, framing devices, Points of Departure, etc. And no current grammar class teaches the stuff - though they should. These are things that are inherent in Greek (and in language in general). You may want to consider looking into the discourse grammar. It explains this stuff incredibly well - and why it's important. At the very least, if you're cynical about putting down $50 for the book, check out the sample on Steve Runge's blog: http://www.ntdiscourse.org/publications/

Mike

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16716#Comment_16716

The WBC rightly (IMHO) suggests a literarly structure here that the LHDNT and the LDGT completely ignores. The structure, repeated 4 (maybe 5?) times in this passage is roughly this: negative -sub-point -motivation for desired action, or "Don't - instead - because," or, to be contextual "old man stuff, new man stuff, here's why I want you do to the new man stuff" (I know that's not completely accurate, but it gives a rough idea of what Paul is saying). To put this in outline form it would be A., 1., a., B., 1., a., (etc.).

Tsk, tsk. I was taught that you don't have a "1" without a "2" or an "a" without a "b."

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16746#Comment_16746

Tsk, tsk. I was taught that you don't have a "1" without a "2" or an "a" without a "b."

George, we truly are blessed to have someone keeping us on the straight and narrow. From Super Hero to Grammatical holely spirit...you do it it :-)

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16766#Comment_16766

Tsk, tsk. I was taught that you don't have a "1" without a "2" or an "a" without a "b."

you do it it :-)

hehehe...the baby was stirring so I had to rush the message and get her bottle ready. The holely was intentional, but it should be you do it all :-) better to confess early then face the conviction of the the spirit.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16771#Comment_16771

hehehe...the baby was stirring so I had to rush the message and get her bottle ready. The holely was intentional, but it should be you do it all :-) better to confess early then face the conviction of the the spirit.

That's all right so long as the holes aren't in someone's head.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16792#Comment_16792

That's all right so long as the holes aren't in someone's head.

Just couldn't bring myself to call anyone a Holy Spirit.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16737#Comment_16737

It sounds like the main issue is that you had hoped the DGNT would be looking at things it was never designed to.

Probably. But I'm at a loss to understand discourse apart from the literary devices language uses.

For example, in v.26 of the passage I cited there is a direct quote from Psalm 4:4a (LXX Ps 4:5a). Is not a quotation a discourse device? Paul then goes on with a reinterpretation/restatement of Psalm 4:4b. Is this not also a discourse device? Yet neither the LDGNT nor the LHDNT note this nor the connection, between them. They are treated independently, when they are obviously connected. The connection is not grammatical, but discourse isn't about grammar (at least that's what they say), it's about choosing how to say what you want to say by making linguistic choices. Using a direct quote is a literary device, but isn't it also a discourse device? Restating and reinterpreting a quote is another linguistic device, but isn't it also a discourse device?

In v.26 by using a direct quote followed by a reinterpretation of the rest of the verse, he is doing, in effect what Jesus did when he said things like "You heard it said..." followed by "but I say to you..." I could make that point more strongly, and this is subject to interpretation, I know. But Paul is choosing to say something in a certain way in order to make a point.

Further literary structure must inform the discourse analysis to determine if the μηδε [mede] connects to the previous "sentence" or the previous two "sentences." To determine this, the listener would understand (IMHO of course), what Paul meant here -- that he is not merely stacking a list of do's and don't's but engaging the listener in the continuing discussion of what it means to take off the old self, put on the new, and why this is necessary.

If discourse is totally uninterested in the meaning of what is being said, or the way in which it is being said, then I question its value -- at least to me.

Chances are good that I don't really understand it (even after trying to read/understand the reference you cite), which is fine, but that makes it equally unuseful.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16746#Comment_16746

Tsk, tsk. I was taught that you don't have a "1" without a "2" or an "a" without a "b."

Obviously your teacher was bound by logic, rather than free to make analogies in any way that would make a point.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16822#Comment_16822

Okay, a couple thoughts:

1) I really don't know who it is who says that discourse isn't about grammar. It's definitely very much about grammar - discourse is grammar (SIL/Wylciffe Bible Translators linguist & consultant, Robert Longacre, actually wrote a book entitled: The Grammar of Discourse.

2) Nobody said discourse analysis isn't interested in the meaning of what is being said. It's just interested from a different perspective. One of the major questions, especially for Greek, that DA deals with is: "Why do the phrases in a give clause appear in the order they do and how does that relate to the preceding context?"

In terms of the parallels of the section in question, the parallels are marked with the point-counter point sets, where clauses are organizes together to express a specific relationship: "POINT: The one who steals must steal no longer // COUNTER-POINT: but rather work with his own hands what is good."

I'd very much be interested in working through with you exactly what you don't understand in the PDF I referred to, but I get the sense that you're not terribly interested in that. It sounds like your conclusions are already drawn and that's that. I consider that unfortunate -- particularly since these resources were supposed to be intended to make accessible grammatical material that would normally require several years of reading and study.

But it's fine and I won't push the issue any longer.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16737#Comment_16737

In terms of showing you stuff you might have been missing, no other resource in existence analyzes Topic & Focus, framing devices, Points of Departure, etc. And no current grammar class teaches the stuff - though they should. These are things that are inherent in Greek (and in language in general). You may want to consider looking into the discourse grammar. It explains this stuff incredibly well - and why it's important. At the very least, if you're cynical about putting down $50 for the book, check out the sample on Steve Runge's blog: http://www.ntdiscourse.org/publications/

Mike

Mike, thanks for pointing this out. I downloaded the PDF and it's beginning to make sense to me. I'd recommend that those who don't get the significance of DA give it a read, it's eye opening.

It dispelled many misgivings I had about the whole DA thing.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/16951#Comment_16951

Okay, a couple thoughts:

1) I really don't know who it is who says that discourse isn't about grammar. It's definitely very much about grammar - discourse is grammar (SIL/Wylciffe Bible Translators linguist & consultant, Robert Longacre, actually wrote a book entitled: The Grammar of Discourse.

I was reading the first paper of the page you suggested called "Discourse Grammar" by Steve Runge. Now I should have said that DA is not about traditional grammar, to make clearer what I was saying. But it seems to me that Mr. Runge is suggesting that grammar (traditionally understood) is not the focus of DA. That while DA is interested in, and may be a new way of thinking about grammar, it is not meant to supplant traditional grammar. I understood p.vi of that PDF to say that the project here is to do what traditional grammar has failed to do.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

2) Nobody said discourse analysis isn't interested in the meaning of what is being said. It's just interested from a different perspective. One of the major questions, especially for Greek, that DA deals with is: "Why do the phrases in a give clause appear in the order they do and how does that relate to the preceding context?"

Those were precisely the questions I was asking in Eph 4:25-5:2. I also suggested that neither the LHDNT, nor the LDGNT helped me answer that question.

If you can show me how it does, please do. I'm challenging the validity of DA, or at least it's usefulness. Either back away from the challenge or prove me wrong.

In terms of the parallels of the section in question, the parallels are marked with the point-counter point sets, where clauses are organizes together to express a specific relationship: "POINT: The one who steals must steal no longer // COUNTER-POINT: but rather work with his own hands what is good."

Actually, you inverted the Point//Counter-point, in that verse (the Point=work; the Counter-point=don't steal). But my point is that this structure is repeated beginning with v.25 - v.32. In fact in vv31-32, there is a larger point//counter-point that is undocumented, and though the linguistic clue is just a "de" the contextual pattern requires seeing it this way -- and I think your average reader/listener would see it this way. The paper I cited above makes a big point about uses of "kai" and "de" but the LHDNT and LDGNT fail to deliver in this passage (IMHO), failing to note the connectivity implied in v.30 ("kai" which seems to me to imply continuity with, or further refinement of the ideas expressed in v.29), and in v. 32. ("de" which clues us in to the contrast between this verse and v.31).

But maybe I'm expecting what these resources are not designed to deliver. If so, help me understand what I'm missing.

I'd very much be interested in working through with you exactly what you don't understand in the PDF I referred to, but I get the sense that you're not terribly interested in that. It sounds like your conclusions are already drawn and that's that. I consider that unfortunate -- particularly since these resources were supposed to be intended to make accessible grammatical material that would normally require several years of reading and study.

I think you misread me. My conclusions are based on my interactions with these resources in my studies (mostly sermon prep.). So far I have not found them helpful, and have, in fact, been frustrated by the little they seem to offer.Yes, I'm pretty sure about how I think about them, but that doesn't mean I'm closed to hearing a different story.

If you find these resources helpful, don't just tell me they're unique, show me by example how they are helpful. I have tried to be specific in my objections in the hopes that my specificity would help your rebuttal of my misunderstandings of how these resources are, or are not helpful. You continue to assert that they are, but you haven't shown that they are.

Please show me how you have found them helpful in your Biblical studies. Take it as a challenge, or an invitation. I'm genuinely curious.

I've bought these resources and they are sitting unused in my library. If I could make valuable use of them, I would love to!

But it's fine and I won't push the issue any longer.

I know this is somewhat off the original topic of this discussion, but it seems worth pursuing, if only to come to some sort of understanding of what DA intends to deliver, and whether or not the above mentioned resources actually deliver what's promised.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/17110#Comment_17110

Hi Rich, I'm a little busy tonight, but I'll see about writing something with substance in terms of how I view the helpfulness of these resources & how they deal with questions of word order & information structure.

Full Disclosure: I'll admit that I, very much, have a vested interest in these resources since I have been rather heavily involved in the development of Steve's forthcoming discourse grammar -- I did a good amount of copy-editing, checked Greek references & compiled the bibliography. Now with that said, I regularly use the DGNT on my own several times each week as I work through various texts.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/17312#Comment_17312

Mike,

I'd be interested in that as well...I'm just barely smarter than a garden rock.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/17348#Comment_17348

sadly, I overestimated the amount of time I would have today...and it's thanksgiving this weekend in Canada...there's house work to be done before family arrives.

Sorry. Soon, it'll come soon.