two models?

Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Thu Oct 24 00:51:17 EDT 2002


> Here's what I would like to see someone succinctly state: What makes
> discourse analysis (or other comparable fields) better for studying NT
> Greek than the traditional methods that I imagine most of us learned?
>
> I'll make the first volley based upon what I know (which I'll admit is
> limited), and I look forward to being informed further on this matter: I
> do not see discourse analysis eclipsing morpho-syntactical analysis.
> Instead, I see them as complimentary or perhaps as a pyramid. One must
> learn accidence, morphology, and word formation in order to even start
> reading anything of a Greek text (or any foreign language text for that
> matter). Then one must learn syntax of words and clauses to make more
> sense of a Greek text. Finally, one must learn to handle the discourse
> on its broadest level to understand a Greek text. You can't learn Greek
> without studying the words, phrases, and clauses, but you should not
> stop there either.

Mike, I agree with you that discourse study of Greek should not be seen as
being in competition with more traditional ways of approaching Greek.
Discourse study, in simplistic terms, helps us see the bigger picture which
is typically not dealt with well, if at all, by studying just syntax at the
sentence or lower levels of language. But there is far more to language than
just sentences. There are inter-sentential relationships which are of
critical importance to exegesis. Your mentor intuitively knows this and that
is why he and others like him at DTS worked so hard on the footnotes in the
NET Bible to indicate different exegetical options for discourse-level
exegesis (e.g. options for antecedence of some pronoun, what some GAR refers
to, the function of DE in some passage).

BTW, another way to approach the study of any language, including Greek, is
top-down, instead of bottom-up. This approach has been used, with mixed
success in English comp. classes, encouraging students to, first of all,
just get out their feelings and ideas, and not be too concerned with the
details of grammar. Of course, some curricula or unmotivated students
stopped there and never learned the importance of English subject-verb
agreement, etc. Same goes for "new math" that left some students not knowing
their multiplication tables. And the same would go for those who, with good
intentions, approach the study of NT Greek top-down. They might leave out
studying the more basic levels of the language, from which the higher levels
are formed. We need both.

Our study of Greek is not complete until we, ultimately, get a good idea,
precis (summary), of the highest level arguments or narrative points, and
the relationships among them. Your colleagues do much of this intuitively,
as I read Bible book outlines posted on the BSF website, and some of the
evidence used to create (discover?) those outlines comes from discourse
level relationships.

People have been doing discourse analysis for millennia. It was done by
Greek rhetoriticians. It's been done in literary analysis. It's been done by
commentators who find the major arguments of a book like Romans.

What scholars like Stanley Porter, Bob Longacre, Stephen Levinsohn, Bob
Dooley, and others have done is bring better organization and some new
insights into what is often done intuitively by those who study the biblical
languages.

I think I might have a URL to my Discourse Analysis section of my Bible
translation website. Much of the material there would be relevant to those
studying Koine Greek. Let's see, try:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/index.htm#discourse

The info found on that site is by no means complete, but it is a good start.

Enuf,
Wayne
-----
Wayne Leman
SIL
http://committed.to/fieldtesting

> Michael Burer




More information about the B-Greek mailing list