Comments on: On the relationship between original language study and dead chickens http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/ Removing the mystery from discourse grammar Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:41:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Andrew http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1221 Andrew Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:55:17 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1221 Steve, "I shifted from atomizing to something more like a guided tour, striving to stay out of people’s view so they could see what was really important. I stopped including things that were not necessary to accomplish this, and surprisingly nobody seemed to miss these things I had been taught were near non-negotiables." For clarity, what things did you stop putting in view of your listeners, and what did you replace it with? Steve,
“I shifted from atomizing to something more like a guided tour, striving to stay out of people’s view so they could see what was really important. I stopped including things that were not necessary to accomplish this, and surprisingly nobody seemed to miss these things I had been taught were near non-negotiables.”

For clarity, what things did you stop putting in view of your listeners, and what did you replace it with?

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1208 Steve Runge Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:29:51 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1208 Thanks for the comment, Mark. I think that live chickens are far more engaging than dead ones. I am beginning to think that "discourse approaches" are succeeding to the extent that they help people learn to read, what to read for, and how to synthesize what they have read into a unified message/picture. In this regard, literary approaches seek to do much the same thing. Parsing has a role, but the failure to teach the synthesis phase is the problem area, I think. Thanks for contributing. Thanks for the comment, Mark. I think that live chickens are far more engaging than dead ones. I am beginning to think that “discourse approaches” are succeeding to the extent that they help people learn to read, what to read for, and how to synthesize what they have read into a unified message/picture. In this regard, literary approaches seek to do much the same thing. Parsing has a role, but the failure to teach the synthesis phase is the problem area, I think. Thanks for contributing.

]]> By: mgvh http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1207 mgvh Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:23:38 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1207 Thanks, Steve. I agree with so much of what you say. I also learned Greek via the 'dead chicken' approach, but I had a pretty good 'foundation' when I started. When I teach Greek today, as you note, I cannot count on that foundation. So, first of all, teaching Greek is a wonderful way to help students understand English, especially since we expect them to be fluent, articulate, and accurate in their use of English as teachers/preachers. Second, I now think Greek is important, because it slows down our reading of the English text. That is, we are usually so familiar with the story that we speed right through the textual terrain. We think we already know what it's saying and what it's about... Looking at the Greek forces us to pay attention to details. (And here is where your discourse analysis provides some of the interesting ones...) So, what I'm interested in is this particular chicken. I don't want to dissect it. I want to see how it is distinctive, how it looks differently, how it behaves uniquely compared to the other chickens I know. Okay, now we've beaten the metaphor into the ground, but you get the idea. Thanks, Steve. I agree with so much of what you say. I also learned Greek via the ‘dead chicken’ approach, but I had a pretty good ‘foundation’ when I started. When I teach Greek today, as you note, I cannot count on that foundation. So, first of all, teaching Greek is a wonderful way to help students understand English, especially since we expect them to be fluent, articulate, and accurate in their use of English as teachers/preachers. Second, I now think Greek is important, because it slows down our reading of the English text. That is, we are usually so familiar with the story that we speed right through the textual terrain. We think we already know what it’s saying and what it’s about… Looking at the Greek forces us to pay attention to details. (And here is where your discourse analysis provides some of the interesting ones…) So, what I’m interested in is this particular chicken. I don’t want to dissect it. I want to see how it is distinctive, how it looks differently, how it behaves uniquely compared to the other chickens I know. Okay, now we’ve beaten the metaphor into the ground, but you get the idea.

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1194 Steve Runge Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:02:23 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1194 Davis, B-Greek has entertained a discussion about Greek "urban legends" very much like you have cited above. My hope is to influence things to move in a more productive direction, but there is a lot of inertia heading the other way. Thanks for the comment. Davis, B-Greek has entertained a discussion about Greek “urban legends” very much like you have cited above. My hope is to influence things to move in a more productive direction, but there is a lot of inertia heading the other way. Thanks for the comment.

]]> By: Davis http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1190 Davis Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:31:08 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1190 One more thing. I think it's possible that the way Greek and Hebrew is used today in the pulpit can be taught in probably less than a week. All you have to do is to explain certain constructions that are preachable and just pastors to insert them whenever they come across them in the text. Which made me think that there should be a top twenty list or something of the typical way preachers use Greek in the pulpit. Here's some of what I can think of on the top of my head: 1. Saying a Greek word and relating it to an English word or sound - While dunamis/dynamite is the notorious example, there's also words like gogguzo/clanging gong, baptizo/baptize, musterion/mystery, ktl. 2. Passive verbs - in some contexts shows that it is God working in your life, not you. 3. Imperfect - continual habitual action that should keep on performing 4. Perfect - something that happened in the past but still has an impact on your life today. 5. The definition game - explaining how important a certain word is by elaborating on all the different ways you can define it and all the various situations it is used. I'm sure there's a bunch more and I'd love to see what other people come up with. One more thing. I think it’s possible that the way Greek and Hebrew is used today in the pulpit can be taught in probably less than a week. All you have to do is to explain certain constructions that are preachable and just pastors to insert them whenever they come across them in the text. Which made me think that there should be a top twenty list or something of the typical way preachers use Greek in the pulpit. Here’s some of what I can think of on the top of my head:

1. Saying a Greek word and relating it to an English word or sound – While dunamis/dynamite is the notorious example, there’s also words like gogguzo/clanging gong, baptizo/baptize, musterion/mystery, ktl.

2. Passive verbs – in some contexts shows that it is God working in your life, not you.

3. Imperfect – continual habitual action that should keep on performing

4. Perfect – something that happened in the past but still has an impact on your life today.

5. The definition game – explaining how important a certain word is by elaborating on all the different ways you can define it and all the various situations it is used.

I’m sure there’s a bunch more and I’d love to see what other people come up with.

]]> By: Davis http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 Davis Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:01:20 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1189 It seems like until you can internalize the language and be able to really think in Greek you are almost better off not wasting so much time on trying to mechanically parse and decode in your head. It seems like after pastors get through Greek/Hebrew the only time they interact with the languages is when a commentary points out a dispute or some other nuance that may provide some information when preaching, which they did not really find on their own. There is some notion that Greek and Hebrew are really necessary for good exposition, but I think that it usually does not come from the pastor's own study, but from a dependency on someone else who has studied the passage beforehand. And I'm interested to see more of how Greek/Hebrew can help beyond just preaching on what kind of genitive it is or making a point about how an action should be done in a continual/habitual manner because the verb is in imperfect, because that's basically all that the original languages seemed to be used for in today's preaching. It seems like until you can internalize the language and be able to really think in Greek you are almost better off not wasting so much time on trying to mechanically parse and decode in your head. It seems like after pastors get through Greek/Hebrew the only time they interact with the languages is when a commentary points out a dispute or some other nuance that may provide some information when preaching, which they did not really find on their own. There is some notion that Greek and Hebrew are really necessary for good exposition, but I think that it usually does not come from the pastor’s own study, but from a dependency on someone else who has studied the passage beforehand.

And I’m interested to see more of how Greek/Hebrew can help beyond just preaching on what kind of genitive it is or making a point about how an action should be done in a continual/habitual manner because the verb is in imperfect, because that’s basically all that the original languages seemed to be used for in today’s preaching.

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1185 Steve Runge Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:47:37 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1185 On your last point, not sure that I would consider that exposition, but more topical. If it is not primarily tracking the text, I would not count it as exposition. For that matter, parsing each word in a verse for the sermon and then adding a translation to conclude is not exposition either. On your last point, not sure that I would consider that exposition, but more topical. If it is not primarily tracking the text, I would not count it as exposition. For that matter, parsing each word in a verse for the sermon and then adding a translation to conclude is not exposition either.

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1184 Steve Runge Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:44:59 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1184 JJ, I have only had time to glance through it, but I am very encouraged by what I see. It looks like he follows the same approach, but with far more specificity than my grammar. It will also provide a much more thorough introduction than Levinsohn, since his book is multifaceted rather than just focused on information structure. Finally, Bailey's linking of what are commonly considered interjections to thetic clauses seems spot on. I have been hitting up against this issue in my current analysis of the Torah. I hope for some time over Christmas to work through it more closely. It seems well written, but there is only so much simplification one can bring to IS and mental presentations. I had been hoping to do a post on it, but not yet. JJ,

I have only had time to glance through it, but I am very encouraged by what I see. It looks like he follows the same approach, but with far more specificity than my grammar. It will also provide a much more thorough introduction than Levinsohn, since his book is multifaceted rather than just focused on information structure. Finally, Bailey’s linking of what are commonly considered interjections to thetic clauses seems spot on. I have been hitting up against this issue in my current analysis of the Torah. I hope for some time over Christmas to work through it more closely. It seems well written, but there is only so much simplification one can bring to IS and mental presentations. I had been hoping to do a post on it, but not yet.

]]> By: JJ Miller http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1182 JJ Miller Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:34:58 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1182 Love to hear your thoughts on the recent dissertation by Nick Bailey: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15504/4/4727.pdf Been reading, mostly Chapter 6 for right now. Saw it here: http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/greek-word-order-disseration/ And Rich Rhodes says: We all recognized that Nick’s work has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of information flow in the NT. I’m pushing him to work on pulling the generalizations out of the welter of minor constructions he has cataloged, since it is expected that he will formally publish his findings. We spent the afternoon after the defense talking about the family of constructions involving ίδου/ἴδε. We’ve heard these translated as behold for so long, that we have no clue that that’s not how most of them function in Koine at all. Read his Chapter 6 to see the breakdown. -- JJ Love to hear your thoughts on the recent dissertation by Nick Bailey:

http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15504/4/4727.pdf

Been reading, mostly Chapter 6 for right now.
Saw it here: http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/greek-word-order-disseration/

And Rich Rhodes says:

We all recognized that Nick’s work has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of information flow in the NT. I’m pushing him to work on pulling the generalizations out of the welter of minor constructions he has cataloged, since it is expected that he will formally publish his findings.

We spent the afternoon after the defense talking about the family of constructions involving ίδου/ἴδε. We’ve heard these translated as behold for so long, that we have no clue that that’s not how most of them function in Koine at all. Read his Chapter 6 to see the breakdown.
–

JJ

]]> By: Gabriel Powell http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/on-the-relationship-between-original-language-study-and-dead-chickens/comment-page-1/#comment-1169 Gabriel Powell Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:07:56 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=916#comment-1169 Steve, You bring up some really good issues here. One thing that I would add is that in teaching Scripture the analogy of "missing the forest for the trees" can be unhelpful because of the nature of the beast. A forest is just a collection of trees. No one cares much about how many trees, in what order, or what color. They are just trees and plants. But a pericope is divinely inspired to be exactly how it is, even the very word order and choice of words. Therefore if someone wants to be faithful to the "main point", they must be deeply faithful to the individual parts that make up the point. Since that includes the morph, syntax, and grammar, the biblical expositor must have a good level of knowledge of the original in order to rightly divide the Word. Of course the congregation won't (and shouldn't) have to bear with hearing about the grammatical details of the text in the sermon, but they should hear the results of those grammatical details. One last thing... I've noticed that preachers who seem to try to be faithful to the text and give a light treatment of the text in the message have the opposite affect of what they are trying to accomplish. They try to not bog the people down with the text, so they speak at a more surface level (or big picture level). But when they do that, they necessarily have to drift from the text filling the time with stories, illustrations, and topic related, but not text related material. The people then become reliant on the creativity and giftedness of the speaker to hear from God because they are not hearing God's word and God's thinking and logic. I look forward to your further thinking in this area! Steve,

You bring up some really good issues here. One thing that I would add is that in teaching Scripture the analogy of “missing the forest for the trees” can be unhelpful because of the nature of the beast. A forest is just a collection of trees. No one cares much about how many trees, in what order, or what color. They are just trees and plants.

But a pericope is divinely inspired to be exactly how it is, even the very word order and choice of words. Therefore if someone wants to be faithful to the “main point”, they must be deeply faithful to the individual parts that make up the point. Since that includes the morph, syntax, and grammar, the biblical expositor must have a good level of knowledge of the original in order to rightly divide the Word. Of course the congregation won’t (and shouldn’t) have to bear with hearing about the grammatical details of the text in the sermon, but they should hear the results of those grammatical details.

One last thing… I’ve noticed that preachers who seem to try to be faithful to the text and give a light treatment of the text in the message have the opposite affect of what they are trying to accomplish. They try to not bog the people down with the text, so they speak at a more surface level (or big picture level). But when they do that, they necessarily have to drift from the text filling the time with stories, illustrations, and topic related, but not text related material. The people then become reliant on the creativity and giftedness of the speaker to hear from God because they are not hearing God’s word and God’s thinking and logic.

I look forward to your further thinking in this area!

]]>