Hi, I would like your thoughts on this:
Bullinger's FIGURES OF SPEECH
What is it's value and how should I use it in Logos?
I have this resource but don't use it.
Thanks
Paul
Your response is overwhelming![:'(]
Well, Paul ... at least for me, I looked at your message a lengthy period. I looked at the cat and then the part how you didn't use the resource.
Then I looked at the cat again. I thought about whether March was tomorrow or maybe April?
What? No offense, but you have the book and you don't seem to like it.
Ah progress!
I just don't know the best way of using it in Logos.
Please enlighten me.
[:)]
Well, Paul ... at least for me, I looked at your message a lengthy period. I looked at the cat and then the part how you didn't use the resource. Then I looked at the cat again. I thought about whether March was tomorrow or maybe April? What? No offense, but you have the book and you don't seem to like it.
That IS one happy cat... Paul, not so much... but the cat seems thrilled.
[:D]
Ethelbert not Heinreich I see
Removed, because I assumed that I knew what the book was all about, when, in reality, I did not. Sorry, Paul!
Well, ok. We're just talking about 1 person's use. First, recognize it's touch and go on what it knows about the koine, so you have to stick that in the back of your mind.
But quite frequently one of my commentaries finds a rabbit hole explanation (especially in the hebrew), and this book offers a quick comparison, if it addresses the passage. AYB-Mark did that this morning (but in greek).
And if I'm in the OT and looking at Ugarit etc connections, I hook it to the CitedBy just to let L4 warn me.
Personally, the title's misleading (and Logos write up). It speaks more to unexpected usage in the two languages. Some of the forum participants enjoy the UBS Handbook series; this one would fit in well. Also anyone that's not comfortable in the original languages and wants to get more use out of the LEB, it's good (especially the recent OT).
The other area it's handy is when I'm on the Targum side backing into the MT / LXX, and am trying to figure how a difference could have occurred.
Use frequently: no. Handy? yes.
While I am less than thrilled with Figures of Speech, it is the best quick source for identifying figures and schema in a passage. I then check the commentaries that are most apt to mention rhetorical features to see if they concur. My complaint with Bullinger's is the layout, the relative omission of structural elements (e.g. chiasms), and the text/canon covered.
