[B-Greek] Diagramming of Greek Sentences
Barry Hofstetter
nebarry at verizon.net
Sun Dec 5 21:38:59 EST 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Lo Vullo" <themelios at charter.net>
To: "Barry Hofstetter" <nebarry at verizon.net>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Diagramming of Greek Sentences
Let me first say that I am not arguing against diagramming: objectively
speaking, I can see how it can be a valuable exercise, even though I personally
have never found it helpful. However, this discussion is related to our
understanding of language in general and how that relates to reading Greek...
> On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Barry Hofstetter wrote:
>> An addict, huh? You could "just say no..." :)
>
> I don't think I have the strength. You'll have to pray for me. Or perhaps
> organize an intervention. :-)
I'll organize an intervention, but only if you supply snacks and beverages.
>> Yes, but how often do you find it necessary to diagram an English sentence,
>> and why would you bother to do so, apart from your 7th grade English
>> teacher's insistence? In our recent exchange, which of my sentences did you
>> diagram in order better to see all the relationships in the sentence?
> I don't know of any literature in English that I hold in the same esteem as
> the NT, and I don't know of any literature that I would write a commentary on
> or prepare a sermon outline for, etc. In other words, there is nothing in
> English that interests me enough to diagram, including your posts, as
> interesting as they are. :-) I want to understand in as much detail as
> possible how Koine works. I just don't have that curiosity about English,
> though it is my native language.
Well, let me suggest that even if you did, you don't have to diagram English,
because you think in that language. When you read various English sentences,
you don't have to diagram them really, because you intuitively know what the
relationships of the part to the whole are. Even in English class when one
learns diagramming, it is simply an exercise to force the student to think
logically about what he or she already knows intuitively, and to help the
students find things like dangling modifiers and split infinitives so that they
can learn to write proper (prescriptive) English. I hear what you are saying
about the high esteem in which you hold the NT literature (I am assuming that
you might not take the same care with non-literary Koine or other Hellenistic
literature), but even if you did hold some English literature that high, would
you have to do so?
>> I wonder if Paul or Matthew diagrammed sentences in the Hebrew Bible?
>
> First of all, I don't know if diagramming is that anciant. Who knows whether
> they would have used it or not if they could have? [It's pretty well accepted
> that diagramming Hebrew is not near as valuable as diagramming Greek; and
> diagramming the Gospels is not near as valuable diagramming the Epistles.] At
> any rate, if we followed this to its logical conclusion we would have to
> wonder if they used a Hebrew lexicon, or a Hebrew concordance, like we do, and
> if we should eschew such helps because they didn't have or use them. We would
> have to ask whether or not they outlined the the texts for their sermons, and
> if not, eschew that. We would have to say things like, "If Matthew or Paul
> didn't use a computerized tagged Hebrew text why should we?" Different times,
> different places. Diagramming is but one valuable tool in the study of the
> Bible that Matthew and Paul didn't have. Whether or not they would have used
> them is conjectural.
Good observations - I was being somewhat facetious in order to make the point.
If we examine ancient exegetical procedures, we rarely see the ancients
discussing grammar in the same way as we do today. They simply read and
attempted to understand and apply the Scriptures. They would quote passages to
prove their points, but rarely do we see them talking about the usage of a
particular aorist or whether or not the prepositional phrase is used
adjectivally or adverbially. We see this about as often as we see people in
English discussing grammar to interpret the meaning of a particular English
statement. Why is that? Well, we know English -- the grammar is part of the
structure of our thought, so to speak, so we don't have to discuss all that
grammar stuff -- we just talk and write and assume that our hearers/readers will
be sufficiently familiar with the language that they stand a good chance of
properly decoding what we intend. If they don't get it, what do we do? Talk
about grammar and semantic range? Diagram the sentence for them? No, we
paraphrase what we've said until they get it right... It was the same for the
ancients, who habitually thought, spoke, and wrote in Greek even if they learned
it as second language.
Now, that doesn't mean we can avoid talking about grammar -- we are distant from
the context and thought world of the ancients, and the grammar of Greek is
sufficiently different from English as to require quite a bit of attention. But
grammar is only the beginning of wisdom: we want to get to the point of true
reading proficiency, or as Randall Buth said recently, we want to read, not just
translate. If Greek is taught as means of decoding the English translations we
have (which is precisely the approach in many seminaries), then we'll never
develop that proficiency. The only way really to get good is to practice
reading, and the only way to do that is to read lots of Greek, and not just the
Greek of the NT. We will never get the proficiency of native speakers, but I
think we can do a lot better than is often accomplished.
If we reach this level, then our discussion of grammar will be a lot better
informed. I, and probably others as well, have had interaction with self-taught
experts who have a lot of software -- they have software for grammar, software
lexicons, and software that slices, dices, and cooks their Greek. And yet, when
they start taking the next step toward interpretation and application, they
often get it wrong. Why? Because they have very little practice reading Greek.
Finding rules in Wallace and looking up words in _____ [fill in favorite lexical
resource] is just no substitute for knowing Greek through reading. Essentially,
they are trying to do the work, but they have no context in which they can
properly use the grammatical rules they've read or the definitions they've
referenced.
My argument, therefore, is not that the we shouldn't use tools such as lexicons
or software because the ancients didn't have them -- if I were a Luddite, I
wouldn't be writing this message, now would I? My argument is that we should be
so familiar with the language that the tools become nearly unnecessary, and when
we do use them, we use them judiciously. Take parsing: we shouldn't have to
parse very time we see a verb, but the parsing should become so obvious to us
that saying or writing out "3rd person singular aorist active indicative" is
simply unnecessary, because to see the verb is automatically to know the
parsing...
Well, sorry about the soapbox, but now I think I'll go and practice what I'm
preaching with a bit of Xenophon or Epictetus... :)
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty, The Center for Urban Theological Studies
Philadelphia, PA
http://www.cuts.edu
Adjunct Faculty, Reformed Theological Seminary
Washington, D.C.
http://www.rts.edu/campuses/washington_dc/index.cfm
And me:
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/
Opinions expressed by author of this message do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the institutions listed above...
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list