Results matching “runge lexham” from Logos Bible Software Blog

If you enjoy Greek grammar and linguistics, you'll definitely want to read the fascinating discussion that's been taking place over on Steve Runge's blog, NT Discourse.

Steve's post Markedness, Part 2 is what got things going. Rod Decker, Daniel Wallace, and Steve had a profitable three-way exchange in the comments.

Steve followed up with a second post What does 'syntactic force' mean? The back and forth continued in the comments with Carl Conrad (of the B-Greek list), Daniel Wallace, and Steve.

While Steve's perspective is on the surface quite a bit different from the way Greek is taught in most Bible colleges and seminaries, there is actually significant agreement between well-respected Greek grammarians like Wallace, Conrad, and Decker and Steve.

Wallace, whose Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics has been used by tens of thousands of Greek students, sums it up well when he says, "It shows that we [grammarians and linguists] can cooperate in these projects and learn from each other. I believe that both sides have much to offer."

If you're interested in Greek studies and where they are going, be sure to read the dialog.

To learn more about Steve's important work, check out his three products from Logos Bible Software:

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software and author of the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, Lexham High Definition New Testament, and the forthcoming Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis.

Haddon Robinson is known for what has been called "Big Idea Preaching" based on the importance he places on preaching the central concept of a passage instead of merely the supporting ideas. The key to preaching the big idea is finding the big idea. He cites a really great example from Hebrews 10:19-25. Below is the text in the ESV.

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

There are a whole gaggle of ideas in this passage. It can be tricky to unpack it properly.

One of the primary goals of the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the Lexham High Definition New Testament is to help guide you through the process of digesting the grammar and structure of a passage. In the case of Hebrews 10, vv. 19-21 play the role of setting the state for the big idea that is given in v. 22. When passages get as complex as this, it is a real challenge to successfully find your way through to the big idea.

Now take a look at the same passage in the HDNT:

The "Complex" label on the left tells you that you are headed into a passage that has a lot happening. The "Principle" line is the main idea of the complex sentence, indicated by being indented only one level. All of the other supporting elements like the bullets, sub-points and elaboration are indented at least two places. The labels also help you understand what each of these parts is doing. The grayed text indicates backgrounding, information that helps to set the stage for the main idea, but is backgrounded to make sure the main idea is not missed.

If you are looking for some great resources for preaching, I would encourage you to look at a the Baker Preaching Collection, which is currently on Pre-Pub. If you want to learn more about discourse and its practical application to the New Testament, check out my forthcoming Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. It provides all the background you have wanted to know about the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the HDNT.

See also Haddon Robinson and Discourse Grammar, Part 1.

Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence here at Logos and author of the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, the High Definition New Testament, and the forthcoming Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis has contributed to the blog here on several occasions.

But he has a lot more to say about discourse grammar, his area of expertise, so he's decided to start his own blog, NT Discourse. His stated goal is to remove the mystery from discourse grammar. If it's still a mystery to you, you might want to give it a read.

Steve's hit the blogging ground running, and has been averaging about five posts per week. Here's a sampling of the kinds of things he's been discussing:

If you've purchased the LDGNT or the HDNT and are looking for some help learning how to put them to good use, you'll definitely want to check out Steve's new blog. You RSS folks can grab his newly burned FeedBurner feed.

Even if you're not into discourse grammar, you won't want to miss Steve and his dog singing a duet!

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software and author of the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and Lexham High Definition New Testament.

I have been reading through one of my seminary textbooks, the first edition of Robinson's Biblical Preaching. The more I read, the more I was struck by how closely his approach to exegesis matched up with the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the High Definition New Testament. Grammar professors are usually interested in the detail, the specifics of the words. The homiletics profs focus on the 'big idea', i.e. how the smaller parts contribute to the whole. The hard part is synthesizing these two elements.

This synthesis is captured in Robinson's Stage 3 of preparation, after the lexicons, dictionaries and commentaries have been consulted. He states, "As you study the passage, relate the parts to each other to determine the exegetical idea and its development" (p. 66). What is interesting is that while he lists eight different kinds of resources to help you through your study Stage 2, he does not list any for Stage 3. Apparently, you're on your own.

The core part of Stage 3 is identifying what Robinson calls the Subject and the Complement. The Subject "accurately describes what the author is talking about" (p. 67). Complements "complete the subject and make it into an idea" (p. 67). In other words, any given passage is made up of subjects, to which complements are added. The most important part of identifying these elements, says Robinson, is understanding the structure of the passage. If the structure is understood, then the flow of thought or reasoning can be accurately discerned and communicated. This is accomplished by developing what he calls a 'mechanical layout', essentially a block diagram that charts the flow of the text.

Such a layout points up the relationship of the dependent clauses to the independent clauses. . . . Either a diagram or a mechanical layout brings analysis and synthesis together so that the major idea of a passage is separated from its supporting material. (68)

Here is the sample of his mechanical layout from Appendix 2 of the first edition. It is not included in the second edition.

http://www.logos.com/media/blog/robinson-layout.png

Now let's shift gears and take a look at what is found in the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. It provides the same kind of block outline for the entire New Testament as seen in Robinson's layout.

http://www.logos.com/media/blog/LDGNT-eph4.11-13.png

The independent clauses can be differentiated from the dependent ones by the labels in the left column, by the indenting, and by the discourse annotations like backgrounding (e.g. Text).

http://www.logos.com/media/blog/LDGNT-eph4.16.png

Where the Greek writer uses special devices to highlight that something is part of Robinson's Subject, the LDGNT annotates this as a frame of reference (e.g. [TP Text TP]). Some frames of reference introduce topics, others introduce information that helps you relate what follows to the preceding text. Either way, they are clearly marked to avoid confusing them with Robinson's Complement. Greek writers also used special devices to emphasize the most important part of the Complement. This too is indicated for you using bolding.

The LDGNT was intentionally developed for preachers and teachers. It includes many other devices that help you identify where the writers highlight key themes, or highlight significant connections between ideas, and much more. We felt like this information was so important that it had to get into the hands of folks without training in Greek. This resulted in a slightly simplified version called the Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition.

http://www.logos.com/media/blog/HDNT-eph4.11-16.png

Check out the videos for the HDNT and LDGNT to learn more about each resource.

Those of you who already have the LDGNT will be excited to hear about a forthcoming resource I've been working on: Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis. This text introduces the discourse concepts annotated in the LDGNT, starting with how standard Greek grammars like BDF, Robertson, Wallace and Porter treat them. Keep an eye out for it on the Pre-Pub page.

We just posted a new video from Steve Runge about the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. You can watch it on the LDGNT product page or right here in the blog post.

Steve's been working hard for the last few months on a new discourse-related project, so be on the lookout for an announcement—perhaps even sometime this week.

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

This post is about another one of the discourse devices found in the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. When reading the NT, we come across words like ‘behold’ or ‘truly’ that we do not use much in English. So what purpose do they serve in the Greek NT? These and other words function as 'attention-getters', and serve to draw attention to something unexpected or important that immediately follows. Attention-getters are often used in combination with other devices, especially meta-comments.

When we are telling a story, we will often throw in extra words at different points to add more drama or flair just before something surprising or important. Take a look at some examples:

  • Just as I looked up, just like that this bear appears out of nowhere.
  • While I was turning into the driveway, bang, I ran over my son’s bike.
  • We were walking down the trail when out of nowhere a mountain biker appeared.
  • I was doing some repairs on the house when, get this, one leg of the step ladder gave way and wham, I hit the ground.

In each of these examples, the bolded words could have been left out without significantly altering the meaning of what is communicated. We also find attention-getting devices in the NT that accomplish similar purposes. They tend to be placed just before something that is surprising or important.

Here are some examples from the NT.

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph. (Matt 2:13)

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph. (Matt 2:19)

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. (Matt 3:16)

And behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:17)

In each of these examples from Matthew, the word ‘behold’ is placed just before something surprising or important, like the appearance of an angel or the voice from heaven. The same information could have been communicated without the attention-getter, but it would not have had the same ‘zing’ as it does with ‘behold’.

Examples of other attention-getters that are found in the NT include:

  • ‘he who has ears, let him hear’ (e.g. Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 14:35; Rev 2:7)
  • ‘truly’ (e.g. Matt 5:18; Mark 14:30; Luke 9:27; John 1:51)
  • ‘woe to you’ (e.g. Matt 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29)
  • ‘alas’ (e.g. Matt 24:19)
  • ‘God is witness’ (e.g. 1 Thes 2:5)

The important thing to keep in mind is that these attention-getters could have been omitted without significantly changing the content of what was communicated. The presence of the attention-getter represents the choice to attract extra attention to what follows. If you are interested in devices like these, check out the description on the Pre-Pub pages of the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Links to previous blog posts describing other discourse devices can be found there.

On the subject of Steve and discourse grammar, there was a helpful exchange in the comments of Steve's last blog post, which I thought it would be worth calling your attention to.

A commenter asked,

My main quandary when considering the LDGNT has to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity in conducting discourse analysis. I am inexperienced and basically ignorant of the concept of discourse analysis. I read some of Bill Mounce on the topic. What I would like to know is given that a particular scholar, in this case Dr. Runge conducts the analysis of the entire GNT, would another scholar arrive at the same kinds of results or would there be numerous differences with results? More or less, I am asking about "bias". Would I become a Rungeianite? And I say that in all well intended humor. :)

Perhaps you've had the same question. Some components of grammar are more objective than others. Many—though certainly not all—aspects of morphology tend to be fairly objective and agreed upon by scholars. Syntax, on the other hand, involves a bit more subjectivity. What about discourse? How objective or subjective is the work that Dr. Runge has done?

Here's Steve's helpful response:

You ask a great question. Most of what I have analyzed is fairly objective in nature, and could be replicated by others using a comparable interpretive framework (i.e. a functional, cognitive approach to discourse typology). What I am doing is better characterized as *discourse grammar* as opposed to *discourse analysis*, with the latter focused on trying to find the overall structure and message of a book. My analysis would give you the building blocks for doing such an analysis, but is more focused on documenting grammatical features and describing their discourse function. Each blog post has focused on one grammatical phenomenon and then described the task that it accomplishes in the discourse. I have striven to annotate only well documented, well attested discourse features. Most of what I have annotated relies upon the research of translators and other linguists. Other parts are original research which has either been peer-reviewed or presented at conferences for feedback.

There are indeed aspects that involve subjectivity, as is the case with some of the decisions regarding the block outline. Let's say there is a main clause with a subordinate clause, followed by a coordinate clause (linked by και 'and'). Which clause does the coordinate clause link to: the main clause or the subordinate clause? Grammar alone cannot answer this question. In most cases the decision is fairly objective, but there are times when a good case could be made either way. This project is intended to function as a commentary, something that you interact with in order to ensure you engage all of the relevant issues related to the passage. In the same way that you might disagree with a commentator, I expect that some will disagree with judgments I have made.

I have posted conference papers presented at SBL and ETS at www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge. I also chair a new section at ETS called 'Discourse Grammar and Biblical Exegesis', focused on making discourse-related research more accessible to biblical scholars. These papers document the research underlying the HDNT analysis, and include footnotes and bibliographies for readers.

For more information about what Steve has been working on here at Logos, see the following:

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

I want to introduce one of the remaining concepts that is annotated in the new Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. You have probably heard at some point that sometimes the biblical writers will repeat key words because of their importance. This is not the only kind of repetition found in the New Testament. Bible translators studying both Scripture and other languages from around the world have found that sometimes the repetition of ideas or sentences has a different effect than highlighting the repeated word. Instead, the restatement of already known information is used to intentionally slow the pace of the story just before something surprising or important happens.

One of the ways the New Testament writers will slow things down before a significant speech is by saying ‘and answering he said to . . .’ even though no question was asked. Before significant event, they sometimes restate the action from the preceding sentence as backgrounded information in the sentence that follows (e.g. “They went to town. As they were going to town . . .). This repetition is often left untranslated, or is obscured in translation.

Repetition and other tools are used by writers to point ahead to significant conversations or events that follow, creating something like a speed bump with the unnecessary repetition. Here are some examples of what is called ‘tail-head’ repetition, where the end of one sentence (the ‘tail’) is repeated at the beginning of the sentence that follows (the ‘head’). We use this device in English to build suspense.

I heard a noise upstairs, so I decided to go up and check it out. As I was walking up the stairs, all of a sudden . . .

You can fill in the blank of what you think happens next, but it would likely be something surprising or unexpected, right? The same kind of repetition is found in the NT.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20).

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” (Matt 2:13)

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” (Luke 24:36)

In each of these verses, the bolded content was already mentioned in the previous verse. Note that just after the bolded content, big things happen. The italicized word ‘behold’ is an attention-getter, another forward-pointing device.

Another kind of repetition that frequently is used in the NT involves using extra speaking verbs to introduce speeches. This device is found in contexts where one speaker takes the conversation in a brand new direction, or where the speaker and hearer are both trying to take it different directions. In conversational English, we might report such a speech by saying, “So she says to him . . . then he says to her . . . .” Notice that even though the conversation that is being reported is a past event, it is acceptable to report it using present tense verbs (‘says’ instead of ‘said’). In English, the ‘historical’ present and the emphasis on the bolded words would attach significance to each turn in the conversation. The same kind of effect is achieved in the NT using repetition. Take a look at how Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus is reported. The bolding identifies the repeated elements. The repeated words omitted in the ESV translation are in brackets.

Jesus answered [and said] him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

Nicodemus [answered and] said to him, “How can these things be?” (John 3:9)

Jesus answered [and said to] him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? (John 3:10)

In v. 2, Nicodemus describes Jesus as a teacher sent from God. Jesus ‘answers’ even though Nicodemus has not asked a question. Jesus' declaration that one must be born again takes the conversation in a whole new direction. Both Nicodemus’ reply and Jesus redirection are encoded using repetition. In v. 9, the Greek verb ‘answered’ is left untranslated, represented by a bullet in the ESV text.

As I have stated in earlier posts, the same basic content could have been just as easily communicated without the repetition (like what you often find in English translations), but would not have carried nearly the same zing as using the repetition. The use of these discourse devices represents the writer’s choice to attract extra attention to something, ostensibly because of its importance to the context.

If you are interested in devices like these, check out the description on the Pre-Pub pages of the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Links to previous blog posts describing other discourse devices can be found there.

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

I am currently teaching a class on the parables of Jesus at my church. We are looking at the parables that occur in more than one gospel and taking note of how they are used in each. Along the way we have come across differences in wording, begging that question: ‘So what?’

This week we looked at the ‘salt’ passages, found in Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:49-50; and Luke 14:34-35. We noticed that there are some significant differences in how this parable is related to the preceding context in the different gospels. There are two new resources called the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament that provide some really helpful insight into issues like this. These resources annotate where the NT writers used various devices to get our attention, emphasize things, build suspense, etc.

Another important contribution of these resources is a description in the left column that tells you what each line of the text is doing. This analysis is informed by things like the Greek conjunction used, the morphology of the verb, and the role that it plays in the larger context. We were using the Lexham High Definition New Testament in class, and it was really easy to point out how the different gospel writers wanted to connect the salt parable to the preceding context, since it was plainly spelled out in the left column. ‘Proposition means that there are no specific instructions about how to relate what follows to what precedes.  ‘Support’ indicates that what follows in intended to strengthen or support what precedes, but does not advance the story or the argument. ‘Principle’ indicates that what follows is a summary or conclusion drawn from what precedes, often providing the big idea for the section that follows. Take a look at the highlighted descriptions in the left column.

In Matthew’s gospel, the saying follows right on the heals of the Beatitudes. In Greek there is no specific conjunction that tells the reader how to connect it; it is just the next saying.

In Mark the section just before describes how it is better to cast off a part of you that causes you to sin than to keep it and risk being thrown into hell. The saying about the salt is connected to this with the Greek conjunction γάρ (for). This instructs us to understand what follow as supporting or strengthening what precedes, rather than introducing a new point. In other words, Mark has signaled with γάρ that the saying about the salt is connected to what precedes, supporting and strengthening it.

If you look at Luke 14:34, you will see that the verse begins with a bullet. In the ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament, you can see that the bullet stands in the place of the Greek conjunction οὖν (therefore). This word signals that what follows is a principle or summary drawn from what precedes. In other words, it either summarizes what precede, or introduces a new principle that is drawn from what precedes. The preceding section in Luke describes counting the cost of discipleship, illustrated by the consideration that should be given before building a tower or going to war against a superior force. This means that Luke wanted us to read the saying about the salt as drawing from and building upon what precedes.

In each of these gospels, the saying about the salt losing its saltiness warns us about the hazard of losing the distinctive quality that makes us who we are, illustrated by salt losing its saltiness. In Matthew Jesus has just taught that when we encounter persecution for pursuing righteousness, we should rejoice and be glad. In such circumstances, one might be tempted to water down their faith, or put their light under a basket (cf. 5:15). The reference to salt adds to this same point by asking the question: ‘What good is salt if it loses its saltiness?’ If we water-down or hide our faith, then what’s the point?

In Mark, the same point is made by the reference to salt. If there is some part of us that is causing us to sin, that might destine us for hell, is it really worth hanging on to? The reference to salt presents the same issue from a different angle. The salting with fire suggests a refining process. But if this process does not produce real, salty salt, then what’s the point? The Christian life is not about hanging on to what Jesus died to free us from, but about being the salt and light that he redeemed us to be.

In Luke, Jesus has just given a summary principle in v. 33 drawn from the illustrations of building a tower and going to war: “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (ESV). The saying about the salt is building upon this point, providing a practical illustration of what happens when someone follows without renouncing all: he or she is salt that is not salty. If the salt is no longer salty, then what’s the point?

This is just a one example of the kind of help that the left column information of the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament can provide. It can really pay dividends in helping you understand the really hairy passages that use very complex grammar, unpacking it one bit at a time. Check out Romans 2:17 in the HDNT:

Paul wants to set up a very complex state of affairs, one which can get confusing in a hurry if you are just reading it in a continuous paragraph. His main point is this: Do you not teach yourself? The ‘complex’ marker tells you that the line that is only indented one place is the main idea of the complex clause. In this case, the main thought is the ‘principle’ line. The rest of the parts are indented and labeled to help you understand what role each plays, and to let you easily find the main idea.

We are nearing completion on this project, which means two things: it will be shipping soon, and the price will be going up when it is removed from Pre-Publication. Take warning; buy soon if you haven’t already!

If you missed them, be sure to check out Steve's previous posts.

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

One of the many valuable life lessons I learned growing up came from Sesame Street’s esteemed blue monster, Grover. One of my favorite bits he did (besides Super Grover) was teaching about ‘near’ and ‘far’. Do you remember that? He would run up to the camera (I know, his puppeteer moved him, but indulge me here) and say ‘Near’. Then he would run way into the background and say ‘Far’, repeating it a few times to drive the point home. Believe it or not, this information can really help your Bible study, especially in John’s writings. There are some new Pre-Pubs, the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, that provide access to some great new insights that can really impact how you read and study Scripture. Today I want to introduce you to another device: the near/far distinction. Just like Grover taught about how things can be near and far in terms of distance, we also use the near and far distinction to signal what is thematically central (‘near’) to the story and what is non-central (‘far’).

If I was clothes shopping (argghh!) and my wife held up two items for me to help her chose between, she might ask, “Do you like this one or that one?” Chances are that ‘this one’ is the one that she is more interested in. I might respond “I like this one better than that one” even though both are the same distance away. This is an example of creating a near/far distinction in order to communicate that one thing is more important than another. We tend to use ‘this/these’ for things that are of central importance, and ‘that/those’ for things that are of only passing importance, not central to the story.

John creates near/far distinctions all the time in his writings to distinguish important things from those that are less important. Unfortunately, many of them are smoothed over in translation to English. He uses this distinction in order to clarify what he is primarily interested in, especially when there are other things competing for our attention that are not of central importance. Let’s take a look at some examples, and see how Grover has equipped us for better Bible study. In John 5:19, there are a whole gaggle of devices that are used to draw attention to Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees that are questioning him. Here is what it looks like in an alpha version of the HDNT:

What we are interested in today are the ‘near distinction’ symbols () and the ‘far distinction’ symbols (). In the Greek of the ‘Support’ line of v. 19, the words ‘the Father’ are not there; instead He is referred to as ‘that one’. This is not to say that the Father is not important, just that He is not central to what Jesus is saying here. What is important is the things that the Father is doing. It is these things that the Son does, not just whatever seems right in his own eyes. Jesus is stressing here how dependent his actions are on the will of the One who sent him. Here is what it looks like in the LDGNT, notice ‘that one’ and ‘these things’ in the interlinear line.

Do you see how the near/far distinction works? There are a bunch of topics here that are competing for our attention: the Father, the Son, and what the Son sees the Father doing. So which one is of central importance? If you only had the ESV text, it would be difficult to tell, you are left to make the decision on your own. In the HDNT, the near and the far distinctions are clearly marked, even though the ‘that’ has been translated as ‘the Father’. If you had the LDGNT (which includes everything from the HDNT as well), you would be able to look at both to see what is going on, just like we did above.

The same kind of near/far contrast is found again in John 5:38; take a look.

If we were to do an RLV (really literal version), it would read “ . . . for you do not believe in this one whom that one sent”. Once again, ‘that one’ refers to the Father, whereas ‘this one’ refers to Jesus. In this instance, Jesus himself is of central importance, since he is the object of belief (or unbelief in this case). The translation has obscured the near/far distinction that clearly exists in Greek, one that the writer purposefully used to make sure that his main point would be our main point. The HDNT brings back this detail that is lost in translation, drawing your attention to significant things that you might otherwise miss. The LDGNT allows you to see the underlying Greek, plus includes the English HDNT in a bundle.

Did you wonder what all of those other symbols were in John 5:19? There are other blog posts that explain them, if you are interested in reading more. Here they are:

and signal point-counterpoint sets, part 1 and part 2

signals a ‘meta-comment’

If you haven't yet placed your order, don't miss out while it's still available at the discounted Pre-Pub pricing.

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

We do not often take much time to think about how and why we say things the way we do. We tend to just do ‘what seems right’ in the context. Studying how and why we use language has helped me not only be a better English speaker, but has opened doors into studying the Bible in ways that I never thought possible. Two of the latest Pre-Pubs, the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, allow you to have access to these insights that have so changed how I read and study Scripture. I want to introduce another concept that is included in both resources, and let you see the practical difference it can make in your Bible study.

If you have read many blogs, you may have noticed that sometimes the comments about the blog ending up shifting to comments about the comments. This has come to be known as a ‘meta-comment’. We use meta-comments all the time in our speech, too. Each time we stop saying what we want to say, and start talking about what we are going to say, we are making meta-comments. Take a look at the following examples and see what a difference the added meta-comments make.

  1. Your opinion is very important to me.

    versus

  2. I really want you to know that your opinion is very important to me.

    or


  3. Don’t you know that your opinion is very important to me?

    or


  4. I am going to speak slowly and use small words: your opinion is very important to me.

    or


  5. Now you listen here, your opinion is very important to me.

    or


  6. I want you to get it though your thick skull that your opinion is very important to me.

    or


  7. You may never have guessed this, but your opinion is very important to me.

    or


  8. I cannot emphasize enough that your opinion is very important to me.

Do any of the meta-comments added in options 2-8 ring a bell for you? Think about the contexts that you might hear them in. When we stop saying what we want to say and start talking about what we are going to say, it is because what follows is either surprising or important. But English is not the only language that uses meta-comments. Even ancient Greek and Hebrew show the use of meta-comments, and they are found in very similar contexts as in our spoken English. There are literally hundreds of instances of meta-comments in the New Testament, but few commentators draw our attention to them and what they are doing. The primary purpose of the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament is to help you find important devices like meta-comments that the NT writers used to draw our attention to something that they felt was important. Here are just a few examples.

One of the most common meta-comments used by Jesus in Matthew’s gospel is ‘I say to you’. Not every instance is a meta-comment, only the ones where Jesus has stopped saying what he is saying and is talking about what he is about to say. Here are the instances from the Sermon on the Mount:

“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." —Matt 5:18

“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." —Matt 5:20

“Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent." —Matt 5:26

“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." —Matt 5:39

“When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." —Matt 6:2

“And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." —Matt 6:5

“And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." —Matt 6:16

“For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing?" —Matt 6:25

“Yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these." —Matt 6:29

If you look at the ideas and statements that immediately follow the meta-comments, you will see that these are Jesus’ key principles or conclusions. They communicate the point that he is trying to make in that section of his teaching. In 5:18, he has just stated that he did not come to abolish the law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Verse 18 reinforces this by the declaration that not even the smallest jot or tittle of the law will pass away until it is all accomplished. Notice also that some of the examples include ‘truly’, which functions as another attention-getting device to draw the reader’s attention to something important that follows.

In 5:26, Jesus is drawing his conclusion about the need to be reconciled with your neighbor or opponent. In 5:29, he focuses on the need not to seek revenge, giving the surprising command not to resist him who is evil but to turn to him the other cheek. In both cases, Jesus includes a meta-comment for the same kinds of reasons we do in English today: to draw people’s attention to something surprising or important that follows.

Meta-comments represent the writer’s or speaker’s choice to add an optional device to help direct the reader’s attention to something surprising or important. Jesus could have just as easily made the same statements without the meta-comment, just as I did in option 1 above.

“For until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter . . . ” —Matt 5:18

“For unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees . . . ” —Matt 5:20

“You shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.” —Matt 5:26

“Do not resist him who is evil . . . ” —Matt 5:39

“They have their reward in full.” —Matt 6:2, 5, 16

“Do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat . . .” —Matt 6:25

“Even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these.” —Matt 6:29

Now before you go out and try this at home, you need to know that not every instance of ‘I say to you’ plays the role of a meta-comment. If you were to do a speed search for ‘I say to you’, you would have found three other occurrences in the Sermon that I did not include in my list which are not meta-comments: Matt 5:22, 28, and 34. In these verses ‘I say to you’ is required, and does not function as an optional attention-getting device. The phrase is required to indicate that Jesus is switching from what the ancients said to what he says. A meta-comment, by definition, is where someone stops saying what they are saying, and starts talking about what they are going to say. Don’t worry, all of the meta-comments in the entire New Testament are identified for you using symbols in the text, like this in Matt 5:26.

Lexham High Definition New Testament

Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament

The symbol that looks like a speech balloon denotes the beginning and ending of meta-comments, while the explanation point identifies attention-getting devices.

If you are interested in learning more about other devices that are included in these new Lexham resources, read the previous blog posts listed below.

If you haven't yet placed your order, don't miss out while it's still available at the discounted Pre-Pub pricing.

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

Logos has just posted a Pre-Pub for a whole new kind of Bible study tool—the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Over the last few weeks I have described a few of the concepts that are included in these resources:

This post is a follow up to tell you about another strategy that the New Testament writers used to create point-counterpoint sets. This device allows the writer to highlight important connections that they did not want us to miss. In the first post, I talked about how words like ‘while’ can be used to create anticipation that ‘another shoe’ is going to drop. Here is the example again, just to refresh your memory. Notice the difference that adding the italicized word makes regarding your expectations about what might follow:

  1. “I have really appreciated your work over the last few months . . .”

    versus . . .

  2. While I have really appreciated your work over the last few months . . .”

    or . . .

  3. “I have appreciated most of your work over the last few months . . .”

In this post, I am going to tell you how negative statements can be used to create the same kind of effect that something more is coming, ‘another shoe’ so to speak. When I was growing up, I remember being told not just what I was supposed to do, but also what I was not supposed to do. Think about the following sentences.

  1. Get up and help.
  2. Don’t sit there. Get up and help.
  3. Don’t just sit there; instead, get up and help.

When I read these words, I hear my mom’s voice in my head. I could tell how frustrated she was by which option she used. Option 1 communicates what she wanted me to do, but without much force. Option 2 has a bit more oomph (read ‘frustration’), a bit more zing. Telling me what not to do does two things. First, it makes me wonder what I am supposed to do, if I am not supposed to ‘sit there’. Second, the negative statement provides a backdrop against which to contrast the positive statement. Option 2 sounds sharper because the contrast between the negative and the positive is sharper. Finally there is option 3, which adds some extra words (‘just’ and ‘instead’) that really forces me to link these two statements together in ways that option 2 just implied.

We make decisions like this all the time when we are speaking, but not by stopping and thinking “Hmm, should I create a counterpoint?” We just do what 'fits best' in the context, based on whatever it is that we want to communicate. My mom made decisions about whether to use option 1, 2, or 3, depending upon how much force she wanted to use (Believe me, I made option 3 look pretty attractive far too often).

The negative statement is called a ‘counterpoint’ ‹›, and serves as a contrast and a set-up for the ‘point’ ‹› that follows. In most cases, the ‘point is the more important of the two. In the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, every point-counterpoint set that is explicitly signaled in the New Testament is marked right in the text, making sure you don’t miss any important connections in your Bible study or sermon preparation. It will look something like this:

‘Don’t just stand there ›,‹ DO something’.

The pairing of negative and positive statements is used all over the New Testament to create special connections called ‘counter points and points’. Let’s take a look at some NT examples.

In Matthew 4, Jesus is being tempted by Satan after having fasted for 40 days. Satan tempts Jesus to turn stones into bread to relieve his hunger. Jesus responds in v. 4:

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Γέγραπται ‹ Οὐκ ἐπ ̓ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος › ἀλλ ̓ ‹ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ But he answered, • “It is written, ‹ “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, › but ‹ by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

This is a quote from Deuteronomy 8:3. Notice that is says what you shall not live on before telling you what you shall live on. Stating ‘what not to do’ is a powerful way of both creating an expectation that more is coming, as well as setting up a contrast with what follows. Not every negative statement creates a counterpoint, but the Lexham High Definition New Testament and the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament shows you where they do. Going back to Matt 4:4, Jesus not only rejects what Satan had tempted him to live upon, but he also sets the stage for what he (and we) should live upon—the Word of God.

In Romans 1:32, Paul creates a powerful point-counterpoint set using a ‘not only . . . but also’ framework.

οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, ‹ οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν › ἀλλὰ ‹ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, ‹ they not only do them › but ‹• give approval to those who practice them.

It is bad enough that those who know God’s decrees are not obeying them, but it is actually far worse. Not only do they do them, but they also/even give approval to others who do them. The bullet (•) at the beginning of the ‘point’ in English is the ‘also/even’ that I added in my translation. This Greek word makes the contrast even sharper than just the negative/positive order. It would have been much easier for Paul to just state that ‘they give approval to those who . . . .’ Providing the negative first followed by the positive really adds some zing to the force of the statement, which is strengthened even more by the ‘not only . . . but also’ structure. The ESV did not maintain the ‘also’ connection that is there in Greek. The use of ‘also/even’ to strengthen connections of one of the special devices that is annotated in the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (called ‘thematic addition’), but is not included in the HDNT.

There is a whole series of point-counterpoint sets in Ephesians 5:15-18 that create the same kind of contrasting connections as in the other examples we have looked at.

Βλέπετε οὖν ἀκριβῶς πῶς περιπατεῖτε ‹ μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι › ἀλλʼ ‹ ὡς σοφοί, 16 ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν. 17 διὰ τοῦτο ‹ μὴ γίνεσθε ἄφρονες, › ἀλλὰ ‹ συνίετε τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου. 18 καὶ ‹ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, › ἀλλὰ ‹ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, Look carefully then how you walk, ‹ not as unwise › but ‹ as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore ‹ do not be foolish, › but ‹ understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And ‹ do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, › but ‹ be filled with the Spirit,

Paul gives us a series of commands, and uses the counterpoints to sharpen the contrast between what we are not supposed to do and what we are supposed to do. Sharpening the contrast also helps to tighten the connection between these commands. Remember, he could have just as easily said, “walk wisely . . . understand the will of the Lord . . . be filled with the Spirit.” Leaving out the counterpoints would have been easier, but would also have removed much of the zing and punch that these commands have in their current form.

Point-counterpoint sets are just one of more than 15 different devices included in the HDNT, and of more than 35 that are found in the LDGNT. Every place a point-counterpoint set is clearly marked in Greek, it is annotated in the resources using the ‹ counterpoint › ‹point › symbols. If you are interested in learning about other devices that are included in these resources, check out my previous blog posts.

If you haven't yet placed your order, don't miss out while it's still available at the discounted Pre-Pub pricing.

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

Over the last few years, I have learned the importance of expectations. Expectations play a huge role in our lives, even in how we use language. Read the following statements, and compare the difference that adding a single word to the sentence can make in changing our expectations about what follows.

1. "I have really appreciated your work over the last few months . . ."

versus . . .

2. "While I have really appreciated your work over the last few months . . ."

or . . .

3. "I have appreciated most of your work over the last few months . . ."

Notice the difference in expectations that was created in the last two sentences compared to the first sentence? What changed? Figuratively speaking, adding 'while' or 'most' in this context has the effect of signaling that the 'first shoe' has dropped. It creates the expectation that something more is coming, and it probably won't be good. Another way of looking at this is to say that the last two sentences create a 'counter point', signaling that a more important 'point' is about to come that connects back to the counter point.

We make decisions like this all the time when we are speaking, but not by stopping and thinking, "Should I create a counter point so that Rick will expect that more is coming, or should I connect these thoughts using another device?" No. We just do what 'fits best' in the context, based on whatever it is that we want to communicate. Creating the expectation that a second shoe will drop using a counter point is a powerful way to connect two things together, things that otherwise might not have been connected. It is not just English that can create this kind of expectation. Most languages have some means of doing this, including Greek. You guessed it, we are headed into the New Testament to introduce another device that is included in the Lexham High Definition New Testament, which is now on Pre-Pub along with the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Today's topic is point-counter point sets, using a words like 'while' or 'in as much as' to create a 'counterpoint' to connect and draw extra attention to a 'point' that follows. The point is the 'second shoe'.

In the same way that we can use words like 'while' to create an expectation of something more (a counter point), Greek has a tiny three letter word μέν (men, Strong's number G3303) that accomplishes the same thing. Its primary purpose is to produce a counter point, creating the expectation that some related point is about to follow. The point is typically more important than the counter point. Using a counter point has the effect of attracting attention to the point that it would not have received otherwise.

There is just one problem: Greek is not English. Since Greek has such an easy way of creating counter points, it is often difficult to capture what is going on in Greek in a smooth English translation. Words like 'on the one hand' would be too clunky in most cases. As a result of this mismatch between the languages, well over half of the counter points signaled by μέν are lost in translation. They show up in your reverse interlinears as a bullet (). The great thing about the Lexham High Definition New Testament is that it helps you find all the places where things like counter points are signaled, and even shows you the 'point' that it is connected to.

Take a look at Jesus' statement about the fields being plentiful for harvest (Matt 9:37). The bullet () after 'harvest' stands in the place of a Greek word that does not have an English equivalent in the translation. It stands in the place of our counter point marker μέν. I will use symbols to help you find the ‹ counter point › and the ‹ point ›. The brackets ‹ and › let you know where the point or counter point begin and end.

τότε λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ‹μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς › ‹ οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι   Then he said to his disciples, ‹ "The harvest is plentiful, › ‹ but the laborers are few; › (ESV)

Without the use of μέν, the positive statement about the harvest might sound like it is the last word on the matter, rather than a counterpoint to highlight the great need for more harvesters. The use of 'but' captures the contrast, but does not convey the anticipation. Jesus' hearers were expecting something important would follow when they heard μέν, just like we would if we were to hear, "While the harvest is plentiful . . ." The call for more laborers is much more powerful when you realize it is a set-up to attract our attention to the point that follows, but the counterpoint is obscured in the translation to English.

Take a look at the counter point in Matthew 26:24.

μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ › ‹ οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ διʼ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται › καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος   The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, › ‹ but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! › It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." (ESV)

While it was necessary for the Son of Man to be betrayed in order to fulfill prophecy, the betrayer has no excuse for his actions, he will be held fully accountable. What a frightening warning, one which is made all the more powerful through the use of a counter point to attract extra attention to the point that follows.

Another counter point example used to create a connection is found in Acts 2:41-42. Here again, the particle μέν is untranslated.

οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθησαν καὶ προσετέθησαν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι. › 42 ‹ ῏Ησαν δὲ προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς.   • So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added • that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. › (ESV)

You are probably thinking, "Why in the world would these two verses be connected?" Great question. The answer is that the writer wanted to make sure that we connected these verses. He could have left out the μέν, but his choice to include it reflects his intent that we make a connection that might otherwise be missed.

There are actually two Greek conjunctions at the beginning of v. 41. The conjunction οὖν (translated here as 'so') tells us how to relate v. 41 to what precedes, summarizing the people's response to Peter's sermon. The μέν creates a counter point, raising the expectation that another shoe is going to drop. The 3000 being added and baptized is not the final word. As significant as this response is, the writer wanted to connect the response of the 3000 to the events that follow. Verse 42 describes how the people devoted themselves to the teaching, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer. Creating a counter point here suggests that while 3000 'getting saved' and baptized is significant, it is only the beginning and not an end in itself. The Great Commission calls us to make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded us. This is exactly what we see being highlighted here by making the connection between vv. 41 and 42. The apostles are obediently fulfilling their commission. We see a picture of the new believers moving on to obey all that was commanded. The writer's choice to create a counter point connection helps drive this point home. However, this connection is impossible to find in English.

Point-counter point sets are only one of roughly 15 other devices that are included in the Lexham High Definition New Testament. This resource not only provides an introduction to these devices, it marks every place they occur right in the English text. Using the symbols keeps you in the Bible instead of in study notes or a commentary. It also lets you see 'at a glance' the devices that the writer is using in the passage you are studying, allowing you to quickly and easily identify the key ideas, to understand the flow of the passage.

See Steve's previous posts about the Lexham High Definition New Testament:

See also the recent announcement of Steve's two products now on Pre-Pub:

Logos is pleased to announce another first in the study of the Bible: a visually marked-up discourse analysis of the entire New Testament in both English and Greek!

Dr. Steve Runge has spent countless hours studying the devices that speakers and writers of all languages use to communicate and tagging those devices in every book of the New Testament. Most of us use many of these devices in our everyday communication, but figuring out what they are, what they signify, and how to identify them in the Bible is something that the vast majority of people are not equipped to do.

The Lexham High Definition New Testament

For the English-only reader, we've created the Lexham High Definition New Testament (LHDNT), which comes with three Libronix resource files:

  • Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition
  • Lexham High Definition New Testament: Glossary
  • Lexham High Definition New Testament: Introduction

The text of the NT is marked up with visual representations for the 15 different devices. Hovering over any of the devices gives you a pop-up window with a concise definition, allowing you to stay right in the text. Right clicking on the device gives you the option to jump to the glossary for a definition, explanation, illustrations, and questions to ask yourself to understand why the author used that specific device. Since all of these devices are tagged, you can even search for the various devices across the entire NT or in specific corpuses of Scripture. And for those who want to go even further in their study, the introduction to discourse grammar will give you an excellent starting point.

The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament

Those with even a little knowledge of Greek (or plans to learn some Greek in the future) will want to purchase the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (LDGNT) instead. The LDGNT is the Greek counterpart to the LHDNT, and it has several advantages over the English version.

  1. The analysis is more detailed. Instead of 15, more than 30 devices are annotated in the Greek text, allowing for even greater precision. The glossary and introduction are larger and more detailed as well.
  2. The Greek version has a more powerful search interface making more advanced queries possible.
  3. Finally, the LDGNT includes all three resources from the LHDNT, enabling you to view the Greek and the English side by side—the perfect setup for those who are still learning Greek and for those whose Greek is a bit rusty.

Find out more and place your order at the two product pages:

For even more information, read Dr. Runge's three blog posts:

For those faint of heart who would prefer to avoid another of my long-winded blog posts, just order this. The rest of you, read on.

When it comes to the Greek New Testament, Logos Bible Software has a great host of tools to help you see the trees. Lexical tags in the various tagged editions of the GNT (including the various interlinears and reverse interlinears) link to lexicons and help you find the range of meanings possible for a given word. Morphological tags in the same texts provide some contextual clues to help determine the meaning and use of the word in the particular instance under study. Learning grammars help students recognize the most common morphological and lexical trees for themselves.

But, while one can learn a lot of useful things by examining the trees, some of the greatest riches of studying the New Testament in Greek come when you can step back and see the forest. That is, at some point the student needs to look at things above the word level. ‘Syntax’ is the term we use for describing how words form into phrases and clauses, and how those structures are used to form sentences. Logos Bible Software has tools for working at the syntax level as well. Reference grammars tend to contain a lot of word- (tree-) level detail on areas like morphology (how words are formed) and phonology (how a language sounds), but they will frequently contain some good information on larger structures like phrases and clauses as well. But few reference grammars approach the Greek New Testament above the level of the sentence. Last year, Logos Bible Software released an edition of the OpenText.org syntax database, which graphs out sentence, clause, and phrase relationships and provides a powerful searching interface for working at the syntactic level. Other syntax databases for the Greek New Testament are also in the works.

There are, however, a growing number of scholars who are looking at much larger units of text than the sentence. The branch of linguistics dedicated to looking at larger blocks of text and analyzing how language is used to convey meaning on a much broader scale is ‘discourse analysis’. (‘Text-linguistics’ is another term sometimes applied to this field.) Recent posts on this blog by Dr. Runge have been giving you a taste of some of the data we’ve been working on to show discourse level features. But I wanted to call your attention to a new collection of books just posted on the prepub page. The Studies in New Testament Greek Collection contains a number of insightful books and essays on the topic of discourse analysis. The books provide some of the theories for how to analyze texts, and then apply the theories so you can see the results. This collection introduces other fields related to discourse analysis, such as ‘rhetorical criticism’ (an examination of how authors use various language elements to persuade or make an argument) and essays on how the cultural context of the New Testament should inform our exegesis. (For example, there are many essays on the topic of how bilingualism in 1st century Palestine should effect how we read the New Testament.)

If you skim the authors and editors of the volumes in this set, you’ll notice several by Stanley Porter (Author of Idioms of the Greek New Testament) and Jeffrey T. Reed (with Stanley Porter, one of the OpenText.org fellows) as well as D.A. Carson (author of Exegetical Fallacies), just to name a few. In addition to discourse and rhetoric, there are many essays in this collection that treat on other intersections between linguistics and biblical studies. This collection serves as an excellent introduction to the value of linguistics for interpreters of scripture.

The preorder price is only $240 for 16 volumes – I paid more than $100 for each of those Greek books in print! I’m very excited about this offer, and hope it generates enough interest to go into production quickly. Order yours today!

Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.

Have you ever wondered about the changes in names, or the orders of names, that you see in the New Testament? A common answer to these kinds of questions has been that the changes represent “stylistic variation” by the writers, and are not very significant. Depending on your view of inspiration, you might not be satisfied with such an answer. I know that sometimes I vary the names I use to refer to my kids, and there is meaning to be associated with the changes. If they have been behaving badly while mom was out running errands, I might say to her, “Your children were . . . .” You can fill in the rest. If my wife heard these words, she would immediately know that I was not well-pleased with them. Calling my kids ‘your children’ in certain contexts has predictable, repeatable effects.

If I were to ask my wife, “How’s the most helpful and caring wife in the world doing this morning,” she will likely wonder if I am buttering her up for something. Using these kinds of expressions to refer to my kids and my wife is not the norm; they stand out in the context. They each serve to ‘characterize’ the people they refer to in a specific way.

About 11 years ago, this question of characterization got stuck in my craw, and it took a good bit of reading to figure out what was going on. I found examples of it all over the Bible, but was not satisfied with the typical answers I found. These kinds of questions ended up becoming the focus of my doctoral studies. John 11, the chapter where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, provides a great chance to look at some of the devices that the biblical writers used to carefully shape their words and message. The patterns they used are found not only in Greek, but in Hebrew and many other languages as well. Understanding these devices will help us better understand the point the writers are trying to make, and can really help you with your Bible study. So if you are interested in learning more about this, keep reading! These concepts are part of a new resource we are working on called the Lexham High Definition New Testament. Here is the ESV version of John 11:1-5.

1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.

Three people are mentioned in v. 1: Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. This is the first mention of Lazarus in John’s gospel, so he needs to be introduced from scratch. His introduction in v. 1 could be translated something like, 'There was this sick guy, Lazarus of Bethany . . . .' Mary is the most well-known character, which John reminds us of in v. 2. Finally, Martha is introduced, and linked to Mary as ‘her sister’ so that we know how she fits into the story.

In v. 3, Mary and Martha are referred to collectively as ‘the sisters’. Lazarus is referred to as ‘he whom you love’. Why not just call him ‘Lazarus’? One reason for making a change like this is to make the reader think about Lazarus in a particular way, just like I did with my wife and kids above. In this case, the sisters are appealing to Jesus not just to heal Lazarus. They are appealing to Jesus’ love for Lazarus as an encouragement for him to come and heal their brother. Calling him ‘he whom you love’ also lets us know that Jesus has a close relationship with Lazarus, something that is important for understanding Jesus’ actions later in the story.

This strategy of switching from a proper name to a thematically-loaded expression is frequently used to characterize participants in a particular way. It forces us to think about them in a way that we would not otherwise have had in mind. Such changes are often motivated by wanting us to think about a particular person in a particular way, based on its importance to the big idea of the passage. In the context of John 11, this thematic characterization lets us know that when Jesus does not immediately heed the sisters’ request that he is not blowing them off because he doesn't care about Lazarus. It also lets us know why he weeps in v. 35.

In verse 5, we learn that Jesus loves all of them, not just Lazarus. Take a look at how Lazarus, Mary and Martha are now referred to in this verse. Do you see the changes from v. 1?

3 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.

There are several of them. The order of the characters has changed, with Lazarus last and the sisters first. There is also a change in Mary’s referring expression from a proper name ‘Mary’ to the less-specific ‘her sister’. Do these changes make any difference? Yes!

There are three basic reasons for switching from a proper name like this. One reason was already mentioned above, (re)characterization. The change makes you think about the character in a particular way that is important to the context. The second reason for changing from a proper name is to background one character with respect to another. Most main characters are given a proper name, while less-important ones are assigned less-specific expressions like ‘his servant’ or ‘one of the Pharisees’. If both sisters had been referred to using proper names, it would have placed Mary and Martha (and Lazarus too, for that matter) on an equal level of importance, perhaps with the more important one occurring first in the list. In v. 5 we have both Lazarus and Martha assigned proper names. Changing from ‘Mary’ to ‘her sister’ has the effect of pushing her into the background, figuratively speaking. This raises a question. Which of the two named characters is more important, Martha or Lazarus? This is where the third function of these name changes comes into play.

Use of ‘her sister’, either as a substitute for a proper name or as a supplement to a proper name (like ‘Mary, her sister’), can indicate who the current 'center of attention' is. It is something like the writer putting a spotlight on the character he wants us to focus on. Notice that Mary is linked to Martha as ‘her sister’. She also could have been called “Lazarus' sister”, but this would have made us think that Lazarus is the center of attention, not Martha.

Why is she more important than Lazarus? After all, it is Lazarus who is raised from the dead, not Martha. Martha is the center of attention because of the importance of her conversation with Jesus in vv. 20-30. This dialogue is with Martha, not Mary, not Lazarus. John is foreshadowing this through the changes that he makes, and he uses these kinds of devices consistently throughout his gospel. If he had called Mary by her proper name, there would be no explicit signal about who the center of attention is. Calling her, ‘Mary, her sister’ in v. 28 accomplishes the same thing, reinforcing that attention is still focused on Martha.

When the chapter opened, Mary was the one that the village and Martha were connected to, since she was the best-known character of the three. John needed to tell us how to connect these new characters to the story, and he did it by connecting them to someone we already knew: Mary. However, once everyone is introduced, John shifts gears in v. 5 to put Martha in the spotlight because of the importance of her dialogue with Jesus.

John has a point that he wants to make sure we understand, and he uses every means available to make sure we get it. These kinds of changes are one of the many tools the biblical writers used, and they are comparable to tools found in many other languages. The Lexham High Definition New Testament identifies the most practical of these tools every place they occur in the New Testament. We have looked at how John used ‘characterization’ in John 11, but he is not the only writer to use this convention. Look at how Paul refers to the Father in Eph 1:3: “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places”. He is not trying to tell us which ‘God and Father’ he is referring to with “who has blessed us…” He is characterizing God in a particular way based on its importance to what follows. He wants us to recall these qualities and characteristics of God because of their importance to what he is about to tell us in the letter that follows.

Now, the Greek New Testament is not the only place you find (re)characterization used to shift the center of attention back and forth between the actors in a narrative. Most every language does this: The devices may differ from language to language, but the basic task and its effects are the same. For some great examples of shifting the center of attention onto different characters, take a look at Genesis 27. There are SEVEN re-characterizations in ONE chapter. They all coincide with switches in the initiator of the action within the story. Below is a chart with excerpts from the ESV text in one column and a description of what is going on in the other.

If you read the story, take a close look at v. 21. At the point that Isaac is not sure whether to believe Jacob or not, there is no explicit indication of the center of attention. Once he decides to go along with Jacob’s plan, Isaac is referred to as “Isaac his father” in v. 22.

The same device is used in Gen 2-3 to indicate shifts in the center of attention. Take a look at how 'Eve' is referred to. She starts as 'Adam's wife' in 2:25, then shifts to 'the woman' as she interacts with the serpent in 3:2-6. Then she gives the fruit to 'her husband' who eats it, which is consistent with Eve being the center of attention (Adam was last referred to as ‘the man in 2:25). Eve is the initiator and the center of attention for the first part of Genesis 3, which is a shift from Genesis 2. The writer unambiguously communicates this shift through the changes in referring expressions. When the two of them hide from the LORD God in 3:8, 'they' hear Him coming and 'the man and his wife' hide themselves. Another switch! There is no need for saying 'the man and his wife' since saying ‘they’ would have been just as clear. But making this switch from ‘the woman’ to ‘his wife’ explicitly signals the shift in center of attention from Eve to Adam just before the LORD God addresses Adam as the one responsible for the Fall.

This are just of few examples of ‘characterization’, one of fifteen devices that is included in the soon-to-be-prepubbed Lexham High Definition New Testament. If you found this post helpful, take a look at the post on backgrounding of action or the making of the Lexham High Definition New Testament. Tune in next week to learn about another practical device from this new resource that can help make a difference in your Bible study!

Update: Both products are now available for pre-order:

[Today's guest post is from Dr. Steve Runge, a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, whose work focuses on the discourse grammar of Hebrew and Greek.]

This is a follow-up to a blog entry that I posted last Thursday entitled “Who Cares About Participles? I Do!” It described how the New Testament writers used Greek participles to push less-important action into the background in order to keep attention focused on the main action of a verse. At the end, I gave the warning that this principle about ‘backgrounding’ action did not apply to every participle. This prompted a great comment from a user. He said:

I wasn't the best student at English grammar either so to figure out that what you have shown us in this blog would have been impossible for me as I don't understand all the different parts of English speech and writing. So, my question is this: with my ineptitude with both Greek and English, how can I use this tool well and know even what to look for? Perhaps that is an impossible question to ask.

This is a great question. The reality is there is no possible way for him to have known or done what I did without knowing the grammatical principles I used. Even knowing the principle, he would still need enough grammatical background to do the analysis. In other words, he wants access to this information, but his grammatical skills are too rusty for him to do the analysis himself. On top of this, he was probably never taught this principle in his studies. If you read the participles blog post and are a few years out of school, you will probably empathize with his frustration. Maybe you never even had the chance to attend Bible school. Here are some questions.

  1. Were you able to understand the idea of 'backgrounding' the action in a sentence using participles?
  2. Did you understand the meaning that could be gleaned from the choice to use a participle, and not a finite verb?

If so, then the problem is not with your understanding of grammar, the problem is with your access to the analyzed data. Right now, there is no access without years of study, and in this user’s case, keeping his Greek skills fresh, right? My personal mission in life is to address the ACCESS issue.

I have spent the last 12 years studying the problem, proposing and testing solutions, and coming up with a plan. What if ALL of the backgrounded actions in the NT were identified? What if there were a visual-filter type label on them so that as you were reading the text you could distinguish main actions from backgrounded ones? Would that be helpful? What if I did the same with 15 other of the most useful devices I found in my research? What if you could see all of these devices identified right in the text? This way you would not be distracted from the biblical text by reading a separate commentary. What if the text was organized into a block outline, breaking down the complexity of the text to help you better understand how it flows and how it is organized hierarchically?

If these questions pique your interest, then you will be interested in a resource that is set to go on Pre-Publication in the next few weeks. It is called the Lexham High Definition New Testament, part of a new series of original language resources that we are working on. It catalogs and graphically identifies all occurrences of a specific set of devices, like backgrounding, that the biblical writers used, but which are largely invisible without knowledge of Greek.

Many of these devices are based on the work of Bible translators, and are not even taught in seminary classes. The only way to learn them at this point is to slog through the linguistics literature like I have done for the last decade. This required developing an extensive knowledge of cognitive linguistics, pragmatics and syntax. Having done that, and having annotated where all of the devices occur in the text, the problem of access to the data is only partly solved.

The next step is to explain the concepts based on our idiomatic usage in English. Every language has to accomplish the same basic set of tasks. Since the annotated devices accomplish a specific task, I can explain the Greek device by analogy to how the same task is accomplished in English, regardless of how it might be translated. In other words, it would not matter if a Greek participle is translated as a main verb in English as long as you understood that it is backgrounded, right? This is a new way of thinking about these issues, a great complement to working with your preferred translation.

There is another problem. My analysis of these devices is based on the Greek text, not an English version. This means that somehow the data needs to be exported and mapped to an English version so that non-Greek or 'rusty-Greek' folks can access it. Until two years ago, this would have been impossible. Logos has invested the time and money into creating reverse interlinears, where the original language words are aligned to the corresponding words of the English translations. This allows the data that I have annotated to the Greek to be exported and displayed in English translations. I’ll let you in on a little secret: Greek is not English! Not every Greek device maps well into English, so we combined and culled down from about 40 concepts in Greek to 17 in English.

What is displayed in English is actually Greek data. If you find concepts like backgrounding valuable, and the want to get access to things that you would likely not even have learned if you had done advanced Greek study, it will soon be accessible to you mapped onto an English translation.

Not every concept is easy enough to understand with a thumbnail sketch for an introduction. However, a good many of them ARE that simple, but access to the data has been the ongoing problem. We have taken the very best of these devices and mapped them into English in the Lexham High Definition New Testament. There will be another, more detailed and more technical version of the data that is mapped onto the Greek text that will also be released, called the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament.

I appreciate the frustration people have felt about helpful information being restricted to the few that had the aptitude and discipline to reach the advanced levels of original language study. There is a tremendous amount of information that will remain restricted to this domain, based on the nature of it. However, there is a lot of practical stuff that can be exported and applied by folks if only they had the access to it. This frustration has been my motivation for getting up at 4:30am several days a week since 1993 to do research. I worked construction for the last 15 years to provide for my family and fund my study. Logos hired me in October 2006 because they believed that the insight into Scripture that users would gain from this project was worth the investment to produce it.

There is not another resource like the Lexham High Definition New Testament, where a collection of the most useful discourse devices are pulled together and practically applied. I will be blogging about a different device from the Discourse NT series each week for the next few months. I do not want information that would be beneficial to people like you, people who are smart and motivated to study God's Word, to remain restricted to the few. I have had several scholars rebuke me for taking on such a project, saying people might misuse it. People are already misusing English versions, so why not give them something that might curb some of the abuse and misunderstanding?

Update: Both products are now available for pre-order:

[Today's Guest Post is by Dr. Steve Runge, who is a scholar-in-residence here at Logos Bible Software. Steve is working on projects to annotate discourse function in the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Bible. More importantly, he's a really smart guy with a passion for explaining the exegetical significance and importance of discourse functions in language that non-academics can understand — so that sermons and lessons can take such things into account, resulting in better preaching and teaching. Look for more posts from Steve in the future. — RB]

My name is Steve, and I wanted to give you some ideas about how you can use some technology you probably already have to enhance your Bible study. One of the great features of the Biblical Languages Addin is the Morphological Filter (click View | Visual Filters) that lets you markup Greek and Hebrew Bibles based on their morphological coding (Click for video demo; here's a blog post with similar information). And you are probably saying, “Steve, I don’t know Greek. Why would I want such a tool?” I am glad you asked!

One of the basic tenets of Bible study is to identify the main idea of each verse, which in turn allows you to build toward understanding the big idea of a passage, and so on. Believe it or not, the New Testament writers wanted the same thing. Not every action is of equal importance, and so the writers made choices about which actions to make the main idea of a sentence. One of the ways they did this was by using different kinds of verbs for different kinds of actions in order to prioritize them.

If you were to picture a line of soldiers, there are two ways I could make some of them stand out. The first way is to have the important ones take a step forward. This is essentially what emphasis does, it brings something out front. The other way to make something stand out is to have the less-important ones take a step back. By pushing the less-important things into the background (‘backgrounding’ them), I can focus your attention on the ones that are left in their original position. This is exactly what the writers did through the use of participles. Wait, it’s okay, don’t be afraid! Grammar can be a great friend and ally! Let me show you how.

Every sentence in the New Testament required the writer to make decisions. We make them all the time without even thinking about it, whether writing or speaking. We choose wording that fits best with what we want to communicate. The same is true of the NT writers. If they wanted something to be viewed as a main action, they used a main verb form (technically ‘finite’ verbs like the indicative, subjunctive or imperative moods for fellow grammar geeks). If they wanted to describe some action to set that stage for the main action, the writers would use participles before the main action to push the less important action into the background. Here is a quick example from English.

  1. I was writing a blog post this morning. I spilled my coffee on my keyboard.
  2. While writing a blog post this morning, I spilled my coffee on my keyboard.

In the first line, both actions are described as though they were equally important, both use main verbs. The second line backgrounds the first action using a participle in order to set the stage for the main action that follows—spilling my coffee (Don’t worry, Bob. I didn’t really spill, just needed an example).

This same kind of backgrounding happens all the time in the New Testament. And even if you don’t know Greek, you can use the tools available in Logos to find these backgrounded actions. Here’s how.

If you have an ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear of the New Testament and the Morphological Filter from the Biblical Languages Addin, you have all that you need to start your study. Open up the ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear in Logos Bible Software, and then click View | Visual Filters. This opens up the Visual Filter dialogue. Then click on Morphological Filter in the left pane, then click Add.


Click image for larger version
(works for all images in this post)

Then click Details. This opens up another dialog box that lets you choose the grammatical characteristics that you want to visualize. We want to check Verbs, and then Participles under Verb types. Then click Add on the lower left, and finally pick a how you want to represent it in the text using the Palettes (I chose the Gray highlighter pen). This will identify all of the participles.

Now you need to identify the main verbs. All we have to do is repeat the steps. Click Verbs, and then under the ‘Tense, Voice, Mood’ menu click Finite under ‘Verb types’, then click Add.

Now pick a visualization from the Palettes (I chose green highlighter pen), and finally click Okay. You are ready to look for backgrounded actions!

In your ESV reverse interlinear, go to Matthew 28:19, we can take a look at how Matthew uses a participle to prioritize the actions of the Great Commission. English does not use participles like Greek does, so a lot of them get translated into English as though they were main verbs. This is not incorrect translation, it is just a consequence of Greek not being English. But you can pick out the backgrounded actions from the original Greek using this Visual Filter in the Reverse Interlinear.

In English, there are two main actions of the Great Commission: Go and Make disciples. But if you look at ‘Go’, you’ll see that it is a participle. Does this mean it doesn’t matter at all? No, it does matter. Matthew used a participle to make sure that we got the main idea of the verse: MAKING DISCIPLES. Both actions need to happen, but they are not of equal importance. Using a participle backgrounds the less-important action.

This idea of backgrounding only applies to participles when they precede the main action, not when they follow it. The participles that follow the main action tend to spell out more specifically what the main action looks like. Here, ‘making disciples’ is spelled out as ‘baptizing’ and ‘teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded’.

Another good example is found in Acts 9:1-2, where Saul is seeking to arrest the believers in order to keep ‘The Way’ from spreading.

In v. 1 there are two actions described: ‘breathing’ and ‘went’. But we can tell from the Morphological Filter that both of these actions are backgrounded. That means that these actions are setting the stage for the main action, and are not the main action themselves. The main action doesn’t come until v. 2; it is Saul ASKING for the letters. ‘Going’ to the high priest was just something that had to happen before he could ‘ask’ them for the letters. Luke’s choice to use a participle reflects how he chose to prioritize the action. Understanding how he prioritized the action will help us better understand the main point of the passage. The other participles in v. 2 function as ‘verbal adjectives’, describing whom Saul is seeking (the ones ‘belonging to the Way’) and how he will bring them (‘having been bound’). The principle of backgrounding only applies to the action participles that precede the main action.

The biggest, hairiest chain of backgrounded actions that I have yet found is in Mark 5:25-27, where SEVEN backgrounded actions before we finally get to the main action. Nearly all of these are translated in the ESV as though they are main verbs. Remember, this is not bad translation, it just reflects that Greek is not English. Take a look!

Look at all of the actions that are backgrounded! The one main action that is left standing is ‘touched’, all of the rest are simply setting the stage for this action. Mark clearly indicates this by using participles instead of main verbs. He could have just as easily chosen to make ALL of the actions main ones, but then ‘touched’ would not have stood out. They would have all been equal. By backgrounding the less-important actions before the main action, the writer lets us know which action we need to focus on. There is good reason to focus on ‘touch’ in this context, because it is the key action that sets off a whole series of events that follows. Touching Jesus is what heals this woman (v. 27). Look at how Jesus’ response is described in v. 30.

Three participles are used to describe the actions that lead to Jesus’ response (‘said’), and what he says is the most important part of the verse: ‘Who touched me?’ Mark has carefully framed his message to make sure that we do not miss the main point of the story!

The gospels and Acts by far make the most use of backgrounding through the use of participles before the main action. Here are a few more examples from Matthew. In Matt 13:46 in the parable about the pearl of great price, look at which actions have been backgrounded.

There are only two main actions in this verse: ‘selling all that he had’ and ‘buying’. The ‘finding’ and ‘going’ set the stage for the main actions. Do you see how the backgrounding fits with the main idea of the passage?

Another example is found in the description of Jesus preparing to feed the 5000 in Matt 14:19.

There are three backgrounded actions leading up to one main action in the first sentence. ‘Ordering the crowds’, ‘taking’ the loaves and fish, and ‘looking up to heaven’ are all backgrounded, keeping attention on the main action: he said a blessing. In the next sentence, ‘breaking’ is backgrounded, keeping attention focused on ‘giving’ it to the disciples who in turn give it to the crowds.

By the way, you do not need to use the visual filter to find out if an action is a participle in Greek or not. If you hover over ‘ordered’ in v. 19 of the reverse interlinear and look at the display in the lower left corner of the main window, you will see some information displayed.

The G2753 is the Strong’s number; the rest is the grammatical information for the Greek word. You can get the same information as what we have visualized using the Visual Filter, but it is does not let you see the big picture, and it is not nearly as cool!

As you may have noticed, not every participle backgrounds an action. Some participles don’t even describe action, but instead function as verbal adjectives to describe a person, place or thing. The participles that follow the main action usually spell out more specifically what the main action looks like (a topic I will take up in a future post). But there is hope!

I have been working for the last year in a super-secret department (next to Rick!) on a project that identifies all of the New Testament occurrences of cool devices like backgrounded actions. There are 15 other devices that are all explained and marked up using something like the visual filter right in the text to help you better understand what the writers were trying to draw your attention to. Stay tuned for more details.

Update: Both products are now available for pre-order:

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Bible.Logos.com

Bible Search

Verse:
John 3:16; Jn 3:16; John 3

Keyword:
Salvation, Jesus, Gospel

With Operators:
AND, OR, NOT, “ ”

Add this to your site!

Social Networking

RefTagger

Bible Options

Add this to your site!

Recent Comments

  • John H Doty: O man, where have I been? It's good to have read more
  • Richard L: Very helpful for me too. But how does it apply read more
  • Maurice Collins: Steve just wanted to echo the same appreciation for such read more
  • Roger Scarborough: This is a great breakthrough for those of us that read more
  • Larry: Thank you for this very informative article. As a non-academic, read more
  • Jay Winter: Well written article with enough screen shots to make it read more
  • Rev. Msgr. R.J. Friske, C.S., Sp.: This is great--about time someone gave greek a pratical spin, read more
  • dh: Steve: Great post! As a pastor and Logos user I read more
  • David Cortes: I liked this article. It shows and reminds us all read more
  • Ken Johnson: Keep up the good work, this is very informing, looking read more

November 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Archives

Employee Blogs

Bob Pritchett
RSS FireSomeoneToday
RSS BobPritchett.com
Rick Brannan
RSS Ricoblog
RSS PastoralEpistles.com
Mike Heiser
RSS The Naked Bible
RSS Scribal Practices
RSS PaleoBabble
Steve Runge
RSS NT Discourse
Bill Nienhuis
RSS OriginalExpression
Sean Boisen
RSS Blogos
Phil Gons
RSS PhilGons.com
Ryan Burns
RSS Going to Seminary
John Barry
RSS The Infinite in Everything

Poll

  • What’s your favorite kind of blog post?