Re: discourse boundary markers in Luke

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Sat Feb 27 1999 - 21:24:01 EST

> What does this kind of analysis tell you? Is it an analysis of the psychology
> of the writer (or, as some believe, God)? It seems to me, solely from reading
> the post, and knowing none of the jargon, that one can determine that Luke
> used Egeneto from time to time, and differently, but what does that tell you?
> Or what are you looking to discover from this analysis?

> Regards,
> Tony Prost


Excellent question. I am not the best one to answer it since discourse
analysis is still kind of new to me. Perhaps someone else would like to
answer this for you.

I see this kind analysis as the logical extension of syntax analysis.
There is structure at the level of grammar which we call syntax and we
analyze that structured to help us understand the text. There is also
structure at the level of meaning (semantics) which can be analyzed for
the same reason, because it helps us decode what the author was trying
to say.

I would speculate that discourse analysis probably has more promise for
unlocking the meaning of an ancient text than syntax analysis does, but
I will not try and argue the case in this forum.

Try asking this question on b-hebrew. There are one or two scholars on
that list that have spend a lot of time looking at discourse structure,
parallelism, etc. They could give you a long technical answer to your

> In other words, and respectfully, what is the point? Is Norman Mailer
> analyzed the same way as Luke (or God)? Does this analysis seek to find some
> relationship between Norman Mailer and Luke?

I gave up reading Norman Mailer after getting about half way through The
Naked and The Dead.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

--- B-Greek home page: You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [] To unsubscribe, forward this message to To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:18 EDT