Not sure how this will come out, and there were some previous comments that I omitted:
Cliff Kvidahl I'm sorry, but I find Porter's tone appalling. His undermining remark about Steve Runge's DA only available in a software package is comical when you consider his own publications with Brill are far more. Until he publishes something that attempts what Con has attempted-and not something that will cost and arm, leg, and kidney!-he does not have much ground to criticize.
Justin Woods Incisive and penetrating critique from a professional level linguist. He thrusts into the light areas most biblical scholars gloss over in ambivalence that are truly critical areas of linguistic insight. Biblical scholars are tossing the right terms but for all the wrong reasons. Its time to fess up: modern advances in linguistic modeling are required skills for Biblical language study. Those who lag behind in this area will meander around a reality that God is calling us toward for the next phase of Biblical scholarship--new insights from the only thing we have left from that original Jesus movement, the language of the New Testament. I miss being at McMaster dearly. And pray to return.
William Varner I have always hoped that he would never review one of my works. He can be rather sharp in his evaluations. Is that a euphemism?
Cliff Kvidahl Sharp and penetrating are expected. But would you not say this goes a few steps beyond that?
William Varner Cliff Kvidahl Expect it when he is criticized and Runge hit him pretty hard. Interesting that he gets back at Runge through a criticism of Campbell!
Steve Runge I have intentionally opted for accessibility and applicability in my work, both in terms of terminology and publishers. I have been chastised by colleagues for both, but the choices stem from placing a higher value on practicality than prestige. I have no doubt my academic prestige has suffered as a consequence, but I'm more concerned with pursuing my personal mission statement. Stan can hold me to his standards for DA and find me wanting, fair enough; but I know I’m being faithful to what I was called to do.
Below is a juxtaposing view of the same works that Stan finds unhelpful. The scholar has read the commentaries and has used the database. He purchased all of them; none were offered gratis. This suggests that we are dealing with opinions here. Stan seems to have a very specific idea of what qualifies as DA, and I look forward to the day when those of us who haven't studied with him can see his methodology exhaustively worked out on an entire NT book.
"Everyone who reads commentaries on biblical books knows they have different strengths. Some focus on words, others on Greek syntax, others on critical theory, still others on theological reflection -- and a few attempt a bit of everything. This High Definition Commentary: James (which follows up on Steven Runge's earlier HD commentaries on Philippians and Romans) reads James through the discipline of discourse analysis. The focus is less on what James says than on how he says it, so as better to appreciate the flow and emphases of what he writes. Runge's earlier volume, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction of Teaching and Exegesis (2010) unpacks his take on this discipline and tells readers how to use discourse analysis as they study the Greek New Testament, but does not do it for them. These HD commentaries do it for them in a readable, simple, helpful way, pitched at those who who want to understand the flow of the argument but whose Greek is minimal (or even non-existent). Readers who depend on visual learning will appreciate the clear and simple graphics; others will happily skip over them. But all will be helped to ponder with fresh eyes some of the easily overlooked elements of what God has given us through his servant James."
D. A. Carson
From
https://www.logos.com/.../high-definiti ... tary-james