16 tons, and what do you get?

About to pull the trigger on a large Logos order (NICOT/NT, AYBD, ISBE, Greek NT Discourse Bundle), but anything including the NICOT/NT would have to be a 12-month payment plan for me, and if I'm going to do the payment plan, I may as well add some prime resources to take advantage of the $5/month administrative fee for the entire purchase.

But it's not too late. I haven't given my sales rep the go ahead (yet!), though there are good discounts on everything, and we know about the NICOT/NT discount through September 12. In the meantime, this song keeps running through my mind. Smile

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1:550:0]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

The YouTube video that runs through my head when you say "16 tons" is this one:

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284114#Comment_284114

Hilarious, Rosie. Actually, it's the "I owe my soul to the company store" that was on my mind, but your image makes me even more hesitant to follow through with the order. [;)]

Rich DeRuiter

About to pull the trigger on a large Logos order (NICOT/NT, AYBD, ISBE, Greek NT Discourse Bundle), but anything including the NICOT/NT would have to be a 12-month payment plan for me, and if I'm going to do the payment plan, I may as well add some prime resources to take advantage of the $5/month administrative fee for the entire purchase.

But it's not too late. I haven't given my sales rep the go ahead (yet!), though there are good discounts on everything, and we know about the NICOT/NT discount through September 12. In the meantime, this song keeps running through my mind.

I have all of these. If you're looking to save, you may not want both AYBD and ISBE (I assume that's the revised 1979 version, not the older one, right?), though they are both good resources.

Despite the promises, I've not found the Discourse stuff much help. I just don't get it. I know it's supposed to be something really great, innovative, etc., and I'm trying to figure out why, but so far, it just seems to state the obvious. Maybe it's just me, or the way I work with the text.

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284138#Comment_284138

You know, Richard, you may have a point about the Discourse material. I'm trying to decide whether working with it will improve my biblical languages that I have let languish or will simply further complicate the matter. I may drop that. I wish I could get others to chime in, but I didn't get much response to a thread on the forthcoming Introducing NT Discourse Grammar: Video Series, the release of which has been delayed to 9/13.

And, yes, the ISBE is the 1979-95 version. Adding it increased the monthly payment by only $8.33, and I think it will prove useful.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284144#Comment_284144

You know, Richard, you may have a point about the Discourse material. I'm trying to decide whether working with it will improve my biblical languages that I have let languish or will simply further complicate the matter. I may drop that. I wish I could get others to chime in, but I didn't get much response to a thread on the forthcoming Introducing NT Discourse Grammar: Video Series, the release of which has been delayed to 9/13.

I hope I'm not the only one who has anything to say about this. I know some find it very helpful. Discourse grammar uses some different terms than 'normal' grammar, so I'm not sure if it will or won't help you with Greek. I just opened my Discourse Greek NT again and don't see anything there that's particularly complex or subtle, but it's not a Greek grammar in the classic sense either (at least not that I can see).

Discourse analysis is a bit of a new way of talking about communication. But I don't know enough about it to make any really intelligent comments. Neither do I know enough about it to evaluate whether it's worth the price or not. As it stands for me now, I don't see the point.

I've asked for help in understanding how to work with these resources, particularly how they might benefit my message preparation. So far, I'm still at a loss, though I wish I weren't.

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284116#Comment_284116

"I owe my soul to the company store"

Bill, my friend, I totally understand. I have just finished all my repayments...which included NICOT/NT. I paid $1200 at the X-mas sale though...that is so annoying[:@]

And I have been praying about starting another plan to get some of the more expensive products. I am leaving AYB at the moment, but it will be the next on my list. The 3 things I want now are all bundles: http://www.logos.com/product/4655/early-judaism-bundle http://www.logos.com/product/4654/hebrew-bible-bundle & http://www.logos.com/product/4653/ancient-near-eastern-bundle.

And it was such a relief when my last plan(s) were finished...lol!

I already own the Greek Discourse bundle (I don't really understand it yet), and am hoping the video series coming out will shed some light on it...allbeit, for my hobby purposes (I'm no scholar or preacher).

Blessings in your decision.

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284196#Comment_284196

"I owe my soul to the company store"

Bill, my friend, I totally understand. I have just finished all my repayments...which included NICOT/NT. I paid $1200 at the X-mas sale though...that is so annoying

And I have been praying about starting another plan to get some of the more expensive products. I am leaving AYB at the moment, but it will be the next on my list. The 3 things I want now are all bundles: http://www.logos.com/product/4655/early-judaism-bundle http://www.logos.com/product/4654/hebrew-bible-bundle & http://www.logos.com/product/4653/ancient-near-eastern-bundle.

And it was such a relief when my last plan(s) were finished...lol!

I already own the Greek Discourse bundle (I don't really understand it yet), and am hoping the video series coming out will shed some light on it...allbeit, for my hobby purposes (I'm no scholar or preacher).

Blessings in your decision.

Wow! You put me to shame with all my dithering about my "little" bundle. [:)] Seriously, this is where the $5/month administration fee which Logos has is really generous on their part. A lot of sets would be otherwise unafforadable. Then, too, the fee works out well for Logos by selling sets that would have gone unbought.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284144#Comment_284144

You know, Richard, you may have a point about the Discourse material. I'm trying to decide whether working with it will improve my biblical languages

Bill,

You make me jealous. I am paying off monthly my last Logos debt. When I finish I am sure that I will order more, but not until. I want that Anchor yale Bible Dictionary badly. Personally, I want the ICC too.

Hope you enjoy and benefit from all your purchases.

I am not negative about the Discourse material, but I agree with Richard. I have found two things that really work with keeping up with Greek. First, I try to memorize a verse from the Greek NT regularly - one or two a month. Second, I try to set aside 30 minutes three days a week to study and refresh Greek Grammar. I am not sure there is a shortcut for Greek.

Mike

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284212#Comment_284212

Thanks, Mike. More shame. [:$]

I deleted the Discourse video from my pre-pubs and am not going to order the Discourse bundle. It will just sit unused on the virtual shelf in my computer for a good while, I am sure. I still haven't gone through the Learn to Use Biblical Hebrew and Greek in Logos videos, so that's next on the agenda.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284149#Comment_284149

Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (and Lexham High Definition New Testament) include Emphasis highlighting (shows Greek words that have been moved from nominal word order for Emphasis). Likewise background highlighting shows clauses with relevant background information. Currently not have Greek paradigms memorized so lack ability to sight read Greek with correct word parsing; thus parts of Greek New Testament are Greek to me.

Wiki Extended Tips for Visual Filters => Examples of visual filters includes a screen capture showing 10 visual filters, including 1 for Discourse Analysis and 5 for Logos Greek Morphology. Thankful Logos can combine visual filter highlighting showing discourse and grammatical usage.

Personally working on My LDGNT Glossary personal book, follow-up to Suggestion: Discourse Greek NT more customizable discussion with reminders and questions about Discourse Analysis markings (for one line pop-ups):

Keep Smiling [:)]

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284233#Comment_284233

Folks,

I think you'll find the videos very useful if Steve Runge's blogs are anything to go by.

However, the best resource to read first is A Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. It really helps to give you a handle on Discourse Analysis as it sorts the myriad features into a workable taxonomy.

Discourse Analysis is a useful approach to handling and understanding the New Testament at the micro-level. And the Lexham series does all the painstaking analysis for you!

Have a look at how it works in Mark 5 with the interleaved narrative of Jairus' daughter and the woman with the issue of blood. Discourse analysis really helps you to see how the narrative structure works and helps Mark's audience follow and understand what is happening with the use of participles and verb tenses.

I just hope that the OT series will go into production soon!

Every blessing

Alan

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284244#Comment_284244

Thanks, Alan, for your perspective. Always appreciated. After I go through the using biblical Hebrew and Greek in Logos videos, I'll give the Lexham material another look. I'm not writing it off, and I'll look forward to yours and others' input as questions about it arise in the Logos forums.

GregW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284212#Comment_284212

I have found two things that really work with keeping up with Greek.

I know the problem. I set up a Reading Plan on the SBLGNT to read 20 verses a day, five days a week, then increased it to 30 verses a day, and am going to up to a chapter a day before too long. I just find it more heartening (and edifying) to deal with the text directly than to plough through grammar. At the moment I'm within a week of completing all the gospels, so there is also a sense of achievement in it that I never got from studying participles (although I've had to go back and read up Wallace on participles to deal with the text as well!)

The other advantage of using the Reading Plan on Logos is that you can get the parsing, lexical information, etc by hovering if you are struggling with a particular word.

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284426#Comment_284426

I have found two things that really work with keeping up with Greek.

I know the problem. I set up a Reading Plan on the SBLGNT to read 20 verses a day, five days a week, then increased it to 30 verses a day, and am going to up to a chapter a day before too long. I just find it more heartening (and edifying) to deal with the text directly than to plough through grammar. At the moment I'm within a week of completing all the gospels, so there is also a sense of achievement in it that I never got from studying participles (although I've had to go back and read up Wallace on participles to deal with the text as well!)

The other advantage of using the Reading Plan on Logos is that you can get the parsing, lexical information, etc by hovering if you are struggling with a particular word.

Good points, Greg. Thanks for sharing.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/284149#Comment_284149

Discourse analysis is a bit of a new way of talking about communication.

Richard, I realize I'm on the outside of this conversation looking in, but I realized that I had the same questions about the discourse materials when I first started studying the issue too, that's why I thought it best to share what I've found, if it helps, great.

After many conversations with Runge, his collegue Dr. Levinsohn, along with Dr. Porter in McMaster Divinity, Ontario and reading their materials while applying their concepts to the Greek NT (for e.g., Runge, Discourse Grammar; Levinsohn, Discourse Features of Greek NT, Porter, Verbal Aspect of The Greek NT, and a few of Porter's source materials--MAK Halliday, Functional Grammar, Language as Social Semiotic) I can identify with your statement about it being a new way of talking about communication, yes, but only as applied to the Greek NT. Discourse methods of studying communication have been used for decades when it comes to issues of Linguistics when translating one language to another (check out SIL's website, Summer Institute of Linguistics http://www.ethnologue.com/show_catalog.asp?by=all), and since the last 50 years of Bible study have been inundated with Theologians rendering the Koine Greek of the NT, Linguistics has only had its fair shake for a short while now. For me, I have come to trust the conclusions of Linguists much more than those of theologians, only because the Linguist's are more consistently explainable across the board, and always have their conclusions firmly grounded in how the text would have hit the audience, rather than theology informing the text what it should be saying.

For a short (10 page), excellent, simple, and straight-forward approach to the actual benefits of discourse methods on the exegesis itself of the Greek NT (he calls it "discourse critical methods") I could refer you to Robert Bergen's article, "Text As A Guide To Authorial Intention: An Introduction To Discourse Criticism," JETS 30, no. 3 (Sept 1987): 325-335. This very brief, but powerful, article really will open your eyes, as it did mine. Also, the IVP dictionaries have this topic all over the place (just set them as a collection and search for "discourse analysis" to see the 72 results in these dictionaries alone) The deepest and most valuable of these I found to be DJ Watson's section (and bibliography) on "Structuralism and Discourse Analysis" (no pages), where he discusses the trends of recent scholarship's shift away from the "inadequacies of the historical-critical methods," and toward an "interdisciplinary" approach that takes more of the first-century variables into account to render the text from a linguistic (rather than theological) origin.

I only recommend these to you because they have helped me so much in understanding the criticality of understanding the NT materials as a social discourse between participants in the first century Palestinian/Greco-Roman environment who were trying to build, and handle a vastly expanding socio-religious innovation--i.e., Christianity. Discourse studies have deepened my understanding of the text beyond what I thought possible by informing me how that audience would have received the words of our NT docs.

Hope that helps.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326072#Comment_326072

Discourse studies have deepened my understanding of the text beyond what I thought possible by informing me how that audience would have received the words of our NT docs.

Can you give any examples?

I don't have access to JETS and I'm not sure which, in that list of books you point to at ethnologue would be helpful.

I do understand that the Bible is primarily social communication, what I don't understand is how the discourse NT helps me understand a particular passage, beyond the other tools available? In other words, what's unique about discourse grammar that is helpful for Bible study and sermon preparation?

Don't get the idea that I'm opposed to discourse grammar. I'm not. I just don't understand how it's helpful. I'd like to know.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326090#Comment_326090

understand how it's helpful.

You have access to JETS through the theological Journals Logos sells, that is the best source. Also, many JSNTS articles touch this issue.

As far as the SIL resources, you're getting into some actual linguistic resources there. The IVP dictionary article is also great for not only a background and usage of it, but also a super bibliography of resources. Just as a side, Discourse analysis is predominantly a "top-down" approach to Scripture as communication, not a "bottom-up" approach. The difference is that bottom-up approaches try to build up the meaning of the discourse (i.e., Mark's gospel, or Paul's letter to Romans, et al.) out of the combination of individual word, and clause meanings. That's the reason you'll find many of the historical-critical approaches asserting that "this or that element is out of order," or they'll assert that "this certain author doesn't use this word very well." But the bottom-down approach sees the whole of discourse first, and works out the parts and pieces from the panoramic view. That's why Runge's material (Discourse Grammar, not Discourse Analysis, see his blog site) helps readers see how the pieces function in the whole, because he has already worked out "the whole" in his background research, how they fit in the bigger picture. So the real communication for any exegete comes from telling your audience not what "this, or that" word means by a detached, historical study of word definitions that may have nothing to do with how the author is using that specific word, in that specific context, for his specific purpose (en route to his bigger picture goals), but you would communicate to your audience how what word/phrase functions within the author's frame of use (i.e., Runge's, LDGNT) .That way, your congregation sees the NT for what it is--how the words/phrases on that page functioned to accomplish the author's goals.

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.

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, "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.

Because
shifting our exegetical methodology from bottom-up, to a top-down approach
changes everything, there is no easy answer,
because we have been filled with easy answers for so long (easy, bottom-up
approaches) that our mindset struggles with even acknowledging there is a
bigger picture of discourse. Discourse studies reveal what the AUTHOR is doing,
by separating us from what our THEOLOGY wants it to do.

In conclusion, you really need to read the JETS article. I cannot hope to
accomplish in a single blog entry, what a scholar studies in over ten
pages of material and others through entire volumes. It just speaks to how much we need to humble ourselves in allowing God to challenge our entire methodology and start over research-wise. I've done it, countless others have also, and with tremendous rewards.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326090#Comment_326090

I don't have access to JETS

You do, at least if somebody did the research work and gave you a quote with volume number, quarter and page AND you can live with bad-quality pdf: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-3/30-3-pp327-336_JETS.pdf

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326122#Comment_326122

Oh, and I almost forgot, S.E. Porter has some great material in these collections:

Sheffield Reader collection (STELLAR!! for this topic, and very easy to read)

McMaster Collection.

Check these out and you'll begin to see the issues that Discourse studies are raising through Socially Functional Studies of the Greek NT text.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326127#Comment_326127

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.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326122#Comment_326122

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?

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!).

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326141#Comment_326141

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.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326178#Comment_326178

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.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326183#Comment_326183

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.

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).

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.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326141#Comment_326141

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.[:)] 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.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326378#Comment_326378

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.

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.

Bill Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326474#Comment_326474

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

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326178#Comment_326178

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.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326474#Comment_326474

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 [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326576#Comment_326576

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

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326610#Comment_326610

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 [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326622#Comment_326622

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

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326649#Comment_326649

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.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326610#Comment_326610

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.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326576#Comment_326576

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.

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/327439#Comment_327439

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

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/326506#Comment_326506

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

J.R. Woods

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/327443#Comment_327443

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,

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/327439#Comment_327439

Okay, now that I know that, what did I learn?

Looking back in thread, noticed quote was from:

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 [:)]