Possessing common sense is harder than it sounds. Despite it being so very common by even its definition, it suffers from the fate of the familiar. It too suffers contempt. It can even sound boring. Actually, it has a very significant role to play, because it is so very common. That gives it a strength that the other kind of our sense lacks. Some times in life, there is a call for common sense. Sometimes in life, there is a call for specialized sense, like in the race to space in the 1960s. Sometimes there is a call for common sense and specialized sense together Altogether we call common sense and specialized sense expertise. I want to talk about my expertise in the area of communication surrounding one very special tool.
But let's talk a little history, so we know why Americans make so much noise about common sense, but get so little of it. It played such a big role in the American Revolution. Without Thomas Paine's famous book, Common Sense, it could be argued that there would not have been an American Revolution. It belongs in that set of important documents including the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights (attached usually to the Constitution).
In communication, common sense is also very important, because there have to be things we all share for us to be able to share information, etc. with one another. What is shocking is that most of what is written on communication today is running along a line perpendicular to common sense. I call it specialized sense. Technology developments during the 20th ct. and their use in war, have driven us to also highly prize specialized knowledge. Some of us possess both kinds of sense, but we usually are not self-aware of when we switch from one to another.
So I want to use a specialty that I know well to illustrate the difference between common sense and specialized sense. Because I am a former athlete (somewhat) , former referee, former coach, and former athletic director; therefore I ought to possess a special sense of what is going on in sports. It goes beyond just common sense. It is the knowledge that is as unique as each sport is unique. Knowing how to coach football, cross country, men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, and track did not automatically equip me to coach soccer. There is specialized knowledge for each sport that is unique to that sport. Even officiating, I could not easily cross from one sport to the other. There are specialized rules for each type of game.
What did allow me though to understand every sport more quickly is the use of my common sense. That is why, when I was offered a position as a college soccer coach without any previous soccer coaching experience, I knew I did not need to turn it down entirely. What I did need to turn down was the idea that I could be as good as someone with previous coaching experience in that sport. So I asked to be last on their list. I lucked out and they found someone. But I was prepared to add another person's specialized knowledge to my common sense coaching experience if called upon. Specialized knowledge did matter, even if common sense matters even more.
So what I need to point out to people is that when I speak of common sense communication, I am speaking of only one major part of communication. Specialized communication matters too as the lesser behind the greater. But the ideal or greatest is a communicator who possesses both common sense first and specialized sense second altogether.
I say all of that as a long introduction to what my common sense and my specialized sense are that I try to contribute to communication. First, people must understand that I use both common sense and specialized sense when I approach even the basics of communication. For me, the basic level must start out by acknowledging that the best communicators possess both common sense about communication and specialized sense about communication. This brings me now to a very specific tool that I regard as the key to effective basic communication. But let's clear up one thing right here. Without both my common sense and my specialized training, I have no right to say what I am about to say. I get my training for each from different sources.
I get common sense from the common people, who I know that are not linguistic experts. I like to say that they keep me grounded. My dad always taught me to respect their insight as to what is common and what is not. My danger as a specialist would be to not respect their expertise on common sense communication. I get my specialized sense from lots of scholars in the areas of linguistics and biblical interpretation. But if I am forced to choose one among them to play a role like my father, I would have to say it was Dr. William A. Smalley, who I studied under at Bethel College (now University) in St. Paul, MN. He acquainted me with all the big experts in linguistics from Chomsky to Brewster and all persons in between. My danger as a local vocal from Northern Wisconsin would be that I did not respect their expertise on specialized communication.
It was while I was studying under Dr. Smalley that I was first introduced to a tool from Wycliffe Bible Translators called the TEAR method. It did not catch on with me immediately and it actually took some 10 years later for it to finally begin to really become something that I used fairly frequently. The problem under Dr. Smalley was that I turned down a summer opportunity to work with the TEAR method as a teacher at SIL-Toronto (no longer in existence sadly). So I instead learned how to use it primarily from Dr. P. Daniel Shaw at Fuller Theological Seminary, when I again to a number of linguistic classes. Once I learned how to use the tool, I realized more its value. But it was not until another 10 years after that, where I was forced to use it due to my desire to teach the Bible to the common members of a church on a level they could grasp and use themselves at home. Until that point, I had largely relied on a teaching method from Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, Dr. John S. Piper, and Tom Stellar. But I now had a great group of students who gave me adequate feedback to show I need to change my ways.
So I did. I switched over to TEAR. I thought surely they could grasp this much easier tool and I also realized that this tool also gave me a larger outlook. Using it I could fit Dr. Daniel P. Fuller's arcing method into it rather than outside of it. I had a ready-made full size tool box for all my tools. One little problem. The common person in a Sunday School class could not grasp it.
As I explored its failure to connect with the common level of knowledge through direct feedback from students in classes, I realized I had to simplify TEAR. TEAR is an acronym for classes of words. The classes were THINGS, EVENTS, ATTRIBUTES, AND RELATIONS. All but THINGS were too complex at a common sense level. So I eventually re-worked each class until I had in a new order AMOUNTS, RELATIONSHIPS, WHOLES, ACTIONS, and THINGS. This many years later I started calling the ARWAT method pronounced like, "Are what?".
This method I tested in a lot of classrooms at the private and public school level with great responses. Students who grasped it called it things like "Cool". You don't hear that from students too often at the high school level. The students really loved it and they realized there was something special about the method, though they and I would have had a hard time expressing its main benefit. Even as this continued to develop, I was unable to have the kind of long term success from it that I expected.
So I took another step. I re-entered seminary, but this time at the post-graduate level at Nashotah House Seminary near Delafield, WI. Here, as part of my research for my final paper in the S.T.M. program, I discovered a lot more about the origins of the TEAR method as well as modifications that had been made to it by people associated with Wycliffe Bible Translators and by SIL.
It is at this point that I became more aware of the role of Eugene A. Nida in the advancement of this method and also of the latest developments by him and others with using new terminology. What is interesting is that while I went the direction of what I call the common sense approach along a vertical axis, SIL and others were advancing instead along a more horizontal axis that took the tool to new levels in terms of scholarship. So TEAR continues to advance in two directions, but now under different names on the scholarly level.
As I have used this method over the years and starting in 2004, I really began to understand just how powerful the tool could be with modifications made based on the common sense level of language. That does not mean it does not have a scholarly role as well, but that the really exciting development is if it can be used by all those who have a conscious level of common sense. This is where I think I am beginning to see the future of Christian communication skills advancing the most. It is making the Bible more accessible to the ordinary common sense level reader or listener.
What is exciting for me right now is to realize that what I have developed is supported at the most common sense level, where words that are very common support it more than any other level of language. But it also continues to advance on the technical side with greater and greater precision for scholarly use as well. That to me, suggests it has the highest capability of being useful because it stands not only on a foundation of common sense, but also it continues to advance to deeper and deeper levels of scholarship when it comes to communication. I also have found it is a tremendous tool for time management as well as other applications.
So, I am convinced that what is needed now is a larger text written, as part of my upcoming book or as a separate book, so that people can see its power more thoroughly. While this blog helps with getting the news out, it is hardly the place to make a longer statement that proves its superiority over other techniques like that of Dr. Fuller's arcing, not because those methods are not valuable, but rather because their value falls under this method's larger umbrella.
If you really want to understand what I am saying, then you really have to learn the method and actually learn to use it as I use it That is when its power becomes most evident. Like any tool, it is in using it that you really learn to use the tool's power and leverage over other tools.
If I have whet your appetite enough, please let me know and I will gladly go long distances even to teach you and others how to use it. It comes with my "unconditional guarantee". Like the old Life commercial, if Mikey likes it, then everyone will like it. It has changed my outlook on many things in school from I don't like it to I do like it. Maybe that is its greatest advantage! God bless.
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, March 28, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Communication: Basing the Basics on Common Sense
I am NOT opposed to people having a good technical sense. The race to get to the moon using the heightened abilities of electronic invention was a great thing. It helped give birth to the microprocessor that drives so many technologies today like the cell phone. As a result, most of us have heard of an Intel microprocessor. But I think there is an invention that could eclipse this improvement of electronic devices. I think it lies not in the direction of an external electronic device, but in the direction of improving our ability to use the minds each of us are equipped with as standard equipment.
The human mind is still a wonder. It has incredible capacities. But lately, I am noticing that technical sense does not mean common sense. Many people have high technical abilities, but their minds have little common sense. Here lies the tragedy, because the mind is capable of both.
I think common sense is greater than the lesser ability of technical sense, but it is when the two are combined together that the greatest ideal is achieved. We seem to have come out of the 20th century with lots of the latter and few of the former. We need now common sense to match our technical achievements.
This is what I believe the majority of people yearn for, when it comes to even technology. I like to call my under-developed smart phone a "dumb phone". More times than not it fails to demonstrate smarts. Rather it shows a great lack of common sense features. It can make a pocket call right after I shut it down. It can start up by simply bumping another object in my pocket. It has immense capabilities, but few of which follow even the most basic common sense.
My goal on this blog in this year will be to lay out what I consider to be a common sense approach to communication based on the very common words that we use to communicate every single day. I hate to state the overly obvious, but the common is found among the very common, and not among the unique or exceptional.
I saw this in a commercial: "Great minds think alike" followed by "Great minds think differently". These slogans in the commercial were meant to be mutually exclusive of one another. But I think they are not. The ideal is common sense, where great minds think alike, and technical sense, where great minds think differently.
I recently realized that my communication basic method of "ARWAT" is not common sense enough. The categories of: 1)Amount, 2) Relationships, 3) Wholes, 4) Actions, and 5) Things are not on a list of most frequent words in English. They are closer than the word categories that I had previously used called "TEAR" with the categories of !)Thing, 2Event, 3)Attribute, and 4) Relation. Recently, I took the final step toward "very common". That is where I found common sense! It is alive and well once you know where to find it.
[Sorry, I have to come back and finish this later. You can contact me if you like to learn more sooner. Thank you.]
Sincerely,
Jon
The human mind is still a wonder. It has incredible capacities. But lately, I am noticing that technical sense does not mean common sense. Many people have high technical abilities, but their minds have little common sense. Here lies the tragedy, because the mind is capable of both.
I think common sense is greater than the lesser ability of technical sense, but it is when the two are combined together that the greatest ideal is achieved. We seem to have come out of the 20th century with lots of the latter and few of the former. We need now common sense to match our technical achievements.
This is what I believe the majority of people yearn for, when it comes to even technology. I like to call my under-developed smart phone a "dumb phone". More times than not it fails to demonstrate smarts. Rather it shows a great lack of common sense features. It can make a pocket call right after I shut it down. It can start up by simply bumping another object in my pocket. It has immense capabilities, but few of which follow even the most basic common sense.
My goal on this blog in this year will be to lay out what I consider to be a common sense approach to communication based on the very common words that we use to communicate every single day. I hate to state the overly obvious, but the common is found among the very common, and not among the unique or exceptional.
I saw this in a commercial: "Great minds think alike" followed by "Great minds think differently". These slogans in the commercial were meant to be mutually exclusive of one another. But I think they are not. The ideal is common sense, where great minds think alike, and technical sense, where great minds think differently.
I recently realized that my communication basic method of "ARWAT" is not common sense enough. The categories of: 1)Amount, 2) Relationships, 3) Wholes, 4) Actions, and 5) Things are not on a list of most frequent words in English. They are closer than the word categories that I had previously used called "TEAR" with the categories of !)Thing, 2Event, 3)Attribute, and 4) Relation. Recently, I took the final step toward "very common". That is where I found common sense! It is alive and well once you know where to find it.
[Sorry, I have to come back and finish this later. You can contact me if you like to learn more sooner. Thank you.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Communication Basics: A Fun Analogy at the Cellulor Level
I have written before about what I consider to be the whole of four essential things in communication:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
I ran across today a fun analogy that goes beyond the surface level of these obvious things to the cellular level that is beyond my expertise. But what I did find there is a fun example of how the essentials of communication work for our cells.
What was pointed out is that at a cellular level cells communicate to each other a series of things:
1) Feed me
2) Cleanse me
3) Defend me
4) Repair me
5) Regulate me
6) See me, and
7) Help me*
The last is my own add to fill out what two others are essentially saying already. Here is how I see these communications on a basic level:
1) Feed me is a communication about the essential needs of the whole cell
2) Cleanse me is a communication about amounts that are purified down to the cell only
3) Defend me is communication about relationships that go before the cell rather than after the cell
4) Repair me is communication about the whole cell, if parts have been left out or damaged
5) Regulate me is communication about action that should or should not happen
6) See me is communication about a thing being noticed rather than being ignored
7) Help me* is communication about the whole again just to close with the whole after beginning there and middling there.
So even at the cellular level communication tends to continue to be quite basic, getting at the needs for the whole of:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
So if you want to communicate well, you might want to try with someone the basic messages of your cells. You especially might try it at your favorite nutrition store. Remember too, to listen to your body at the surface level. What is it saying? Is it saying "Feed me!" or something else. Have fun with it and remember all communication can eventually be broken down into the essential parts. Don't leave any of them out and don't feed yourself a part after your body says it is full. I imagine another cell knows that when it stops saying, "Feed me!". Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
* I added help me as just another take on "Feed me". I see both as dealing with the whole like "Feed me", but I am not saying that at a cellular level there is another message. That is for the experts to determine. I just wanted to balance the opening communication with a closing communication. .
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
I ran across today a fun analogy that goes beyond the surface level of these obvious things to the cellular level that is beyond my expertise. But what I did find there is a fun example of how the essentials of communication work for our cells.
What was pointed out is that at a cellular level cells communicate to each other a series of things:
1) Feed me
2) Cleanse me
3) Defend me
4) Repair me
5) Regulate me
6) See me, and
7) Help me*
The last is my own add to fill out what two others are essentially saying already. Here is how I see these communications on a basic level:
1) Feed me is a communication about the essential needs of the whole cell
2) Cleanse me is a communication about amounts that are purified down to the cell only
3) Defend me is communication about relationships that go before the cell rather than after the cell
4) Repair me is communication about the whole cell, if parts have been left out or damaged
5) Regulate me is communication about action that should or should not happen
6) See me is communication about a thing being noticed rather than being ignored
7) Help me* is communication about the whole again just to close with the whole after beginning there and middling there.
So even at the cellular level communication tends to continue to be quite basic, getting at the needs for the whole of:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
So if you want to communicate well, you might want to try with someone the basic messages of your cells. You especially might try it at your favorite nutrition store. Remember too, to listen to your body at the surface level. What is it saying? Is it saying "Feed me!" or something else. Have fun with it and remember all communication can eventually be broken down into the essential parts. Don't leave any of them out and don't feed yourself a part after your body says it is full. I imagine another cell knows that when it stops saying, "Feed me!". Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
* I added help me as just another take on "Feed me". I see both as dealing with the whole like "Feed me", but I am not saying that at a cellular level there is another message. That is for the experts to determine. I just wanted to balance the opening communication with a closing communication. .
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Communication Basics: The ARWAT Method
The major tool I use to make observations in life is what I call the ARWAT method. It is directly descended from the TEAR method largely popularized by Eugene Albert Nida.
[Under Construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
[Under Construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
Monday, February 11, 2013
Communication 101: Using it to Read the Bible (and every other book)
I grew up a "chapter and verse" guy, before I ever entered school. That meant that reading was important. In my parents' house, if you had an opinion on religion, then you had better know the chapter and verse you are getting it from. But as one of my former college professors points out that means the rules of interpretation or the rules of communication are very important. It comes down to method to help remove some of the differences in interpretation.
I am currently writing a great deal about the meaning of holy. It is a topic above the basics, but it is also built on a basic method. The basics come first, but they also are there in the highest and most complex projects as well. It is a good idea to start with them to handle all the complexity of communication that is going to come our way in a lifetime.
My method is basically semantic. It deals with meaning. It begins with classes of meaning. It does not begin with grammatical categories, though it certainly thinks they are valid for the average adult. But before grammar really gets very clear to us, meaning has already gained the primary foothold.
I learned this through my linguistics classes in college, especially when we learned about how children learn language and also when we learned about how people learn a second language. They both really expose the importance of meaning over grammar, but not without some consideration for grammar as well.
It is not meaning versus grammar, it is meaning followed by grammar, that is, meaning and grammar in that order. My method of going from one language to another is as follows (from Nehemiah chapter 8):
Translate
Transfer
Total
Train
Teach
This is my basic method in communicating from one language to another. The total is necessary of the four other Ts. It is that simple. You need them all.
I agree with those who say translating the Bible is not enough. It is though the beginning and an important one. Total is used in this method not as a separate step so much as the summary and reminder that the four other T's are required and not just one.
So for basic translation workers, it is important to realize that even communication 101 has not happened, unless all four as a total are present. Then we can talk about communication that works between languages. Thank you for taking some time to read this entry.
Sincerely,
Jon
I am currently writing a great deal about the meaning of holy. It is a topic above the basics, but it is also built on a basic method. The basics come first, but they also are there in the highest and most complex projects as well. It is a good idea to start with them to handle all the complexity of communication that is going to come our way in a lifetime.
My method is basically semantic. It deals with meaning. It begins with classes of meaning. It does not begin with grammatical categories, though it certainly thinks they are valid for the average adult. But before grammar really gets very clear to us, meaning has already gained the primary foothold.
I learned this through my linguistics classes in college, especially when we learned about how children learn language and also when we learned about how people learn a second language. They both really expose the importance of meaning over grammar, but not without some consideration for grammar as well.
It is not meaning versus grammar, it is meaning followed by grammar, that is, meaning and grammar in that order. My method of going from one language to another is as follows (from Nehemiah chapter 8):
Translate
Transfer
Total
Train
Teach
This is my basic method in communicating from one language to another. The total is necessary of the four other Ts. It is that simple. You need them all.
I agree with those who say translating the Bible is not enough. It is though the beginning and an important one. Total is used in this method not as a separate step so much as the summary and reminder that the four other T's are required and not just one.
So for basic translation workers, it is important to realize that even communication 101 has not happened, unless all four as a total are present. Then we can talk about communication that works between languages. Thank you for taking some time to read this entry.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics 101: Academic Freedom
Those who are teachers like to speak of academic freedom as a prized possession handed down from previous generations. I totally agree! The problem is that sometimes it becomes misused as a basis for sloppy thinking and sloppy communicating. I like to define it as a freedom from broken rules.
I believe in both rule and freedom, and that one without the other is dangerous. In my writing, I am practicing freedom by suggesting ways to improve on the past rules of communication.
In the past, there was a lot of focus on reading, writing, and speaking; but not enough on listening. So I want to re-write the rules in that regard to put listening in front of reading as a critical part of communication. After all, humility is a virtue. When did you last take a listening course as a requirement in school?
I also want to re-write the rules with regard to grammar. I think it has a long and proud tradition, but there is a great complement to it in the discoveries of linguistics. Linguistics does not provide license for overturning the learning of grammar, but it does shift its importance into its proper sphere. So I would like to re-write the rules on that.
See some rules we get as part of our inheritance are broken while others are just fine. Eugene Nida, formerly with the United Bible Societies, tried to re-write the universals of language through semantic categories rather than through grammatical categories. I like his freedom in that regard. I think he helps, through his categories or classes, to lead people to a better understanding of the parts of speech among the grammatical categories. John Beekman and John Callow, I think demonstrate this in their work for the Summer Institute of Linguistics. They too show freedom, but a freedom that leads to better rules and away from broke rules.
So you bet I believe in academic freedom! Without it we are doomed. We can't make many of the improvements that are needed and that I recommend. Only make sure of one thing. It is discarding only the broken rules and not throwing out the good rules of communication with it. Thank you for taking time to read my entry.
Sincerely,
Jon
I believe in both rule and freedom, and that one without the other is dangerous. In my writing, I am practicing freedom by suggesting ways to improve on the past rules of communication.
In the past, there was a lot of focus on reading, writing, and speaking; but not enough on listening. So I want to re-write the rules in that regard to put listening in front of reading as a critical part of communication. After all, humility is a virtue. When did you last take a listening course as a requirement in school?
I also want to re-write the rules with regard to grammar. I think it has a long and proud tradition, but there is a great complement to it in the discoveries of linguistics. Linguistics does not provide license for overturning the learning of grammar, but it does shift its importance into its proper sphere. So I would like to re-write the rules on that.
See some rules we get as part of our inheritance are broken while others are just fine. Eugene Nida, formerly with the United Bible Societies, tried to re-write the universals of language through semantic categories rather than through grammatical categories. I like his freedom in that regard. I think he helps, through his categories or classes, to lead people to a better understanding of the parts of speech among the grammatical categories. John Beekman and John Callow, I think demonstrate this in their work for the Summer Institute of Linguistics. They too show freedom, but a freedom that leads to better rules and away from broke rules.
So you bet I believe in academic freedom! Without it we are doomed. We can't make many of the improvements that are needed and that I recommend. Only make sure of one thing. It is discarding only the broken rules and not throwing out the good rules of communication with it. Thank you for taking time to read my entry.
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Communication 101: Basics for Bible Readers
I love to outline sermons that I hear in church to see if their is an organizational pattern of some kind to what they are saying. Recently, I outlined a sermon as it was being preached that had some great individual pieces of content, but that had nearly no organization other than an opening and a closing. It was hard to listen to from that standpoint both for me and others, but also everyone of us agreed there was valuable content. It is too bad that the sermon did not have both together! I want to say something about organization of speaking or writing on a basic level.
Now when I say basic I mean something that even children shortly before age 13 can grasp. I also mean something that all of them can grasp assuming there is not some form of disability associated with their learning. Some of the words that I will use today will go beyond that level, but I want to reduce those ideas to a more basic level and I want to do it with a solid form of organization. So I want to simplify content and also outline it.
I recently ran across a fairly great book for exegesis. What it boils down to is the rules for reading the Bible. Usually exegesis does not get much press outside that arena. I say fairly, because it belongs alongside some of the best books on exegesis. I also want to clarify that when I call it great what I mean is that:
1) it has great content
2) it has practical use
3) it has simplicity in comparison to its competitors, and
4) it is comprehensive.
The only thing that is not as strong as these areas of strength is that of its own outline or organization. It is somewhat like the sermon that I and others heard. It too has great content, but it lacks organization.
The name of the book is: A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. The authors are: Craig L. Blomberg (he is not among my Blomberg relatives for those concerned with bias) and Jennifer Foutz Markley. I want to repeat that there is a great deal of good in this book.
This is how they outlined their book:
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction xi
Abbreviations xix
1. Textual Criticism 1
2. Translation and Translations 37
3. Historical - Cultural Context 63
4. Literary Context 93
5. Word Studies 117
6. Grammar 143
7. Interpretive Problems 167
8. Outlining 195
9. Theology 219
10. Application 239
Summary 269
Appendix: Checklist for Doing Biblical Exegesis 273
Select Bibliography 277
Scripture Index 285
Subject Index 291
From the start they make an error in starting with textual criticism. This is typical since many evangelical scholars consider themselves to be part of the grammatical-historical tradition of interpretation. The key word is "historical". Due to the battles over the bible and due to the historical critical tradition, history tends to get the front seat. I disagree with that tendency, because it puts history in the wrong organizational position.
To re-organize the book, I will use five universal classes of things to determine the best organization for the book. Those five classifications are the following (notice the italics in the examples):
Amounts (ex. the big kitty)
Relationships (ex. mom and dad are here)
Wholes (ex. the tail of the doggy is wagging)
Actions (ex. run Spot run)
Things (ex. the car is gone)
Let me give you some of the support for this system of classification. Eugene Nida of the United Bible Societies, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible translators have used these universal categories with slightly different names (Things, Events, Attributes, and Relations) and lacking one category (wholes) for a long time in the field as translators. It has been field tested in many languages and many cultures. I have never seen one person who is skeptical of this method produce one language or one culture where it does not work. It is universal unless there is an example of failure among the data available in translation. This is the empirical proof for its universal use.
There is also another source of support. All of these are included a longer list of what are called semantic universals. So if the l longer list is universal (it is more debatable), then certainly the shorter list is universal as well. You can find that longer list in: Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. That will have to suffice for the evidence at this point.
Let me now reorganize their list in two steps. The first step is to classify each section according to its primary category and the second step is to then create a new outline. I am also going to clarify each class a little further with what I call the ten universal questions in English.
Here is step one (listed in order that they are found in the book under each classification):
Amount [Am] (How many? How much?)
1. Translation and Translations [R] of {Am}
Relationship [R] (Where? When?)
1. Textual Criticism [T] of [R]
2. Historical-Cultural Context [R] of [R]
3. Literary Context [T] of [Ac] of [R]
4. Select Bibliography [Am] of [R]
5. Scripture Index [T] of [Am] of [R]
Whole [W] (Who? Whole?)
1. Acknowledgements [W] of [R]
2. Introduction [W] of [W]
3. Grammar [T] of [W]
4. Outlining [R] of [W]
5. Summary [Am] of [W]
Action [Ac] (How? Why?)
1. Application [R] of [Ac]
2. Appendix: Checklist for Doing Exegesis [Ac] of [Ac]
Thing [T] (What? Which?)
1. Abbreviations [Am] of [T]
2. Word Studies [T] of [T]
3. Interpretive Problems [Am] of [R] of [T] of [T]
4. Theology [R] of [W] of [T] of [T]
Now you might argue that this is not simple! That is absolutely correct. If there is more than one (the simplest), then the argument can be made that these words are not simple. I warned earlier about this issue. Sometimes to make things simple, you also have to expose actual complexity. Bot writers of this book assume that what they are saying is quite simple. We can all see that is not quite true though I do not question their motives. What is simple still is the primary or core classes that each one of these complex words can be simplified into by using the basic classes of meaning from Eugene A. Nida and other translators.
The way that I have classified each category is where the basics can be discussed. You and I may disagree on some of these classifications, but at least we now have a simple way to discuss the issues. We also have our basic ideas fully out in the open. We cannot hide behind unnecessary complexity any more. I now have revealed to you what I am thinking at the most basic and universal level. The work of discussion now will be easier than it was before, without denying any complexity where it honestly exists. Try this, you will like it! It does take time to acquire this skill, but it is not difficult after a little practice.
Here is step two (my re-organization of the book):
Whole
Acknowledgments (Who?)
Introduction (Whole?)
Amount
Translations (How many?)
Translation (How much?)
Clear and Meaningful (How many?) (How much?)
Relationship
Literary Context (Where?) [internal] (When?)
Historical-cultural Context (Where?) [external] (When?)
Textual Criticism (Where?) (When?) (Which?)
Whole
Grammar (Who?) (Whole?)
Outlining (Who?) (Whole?) (Where?) (When?)
Action
The Motive Behind Exegesis (Why?)
Checklist for Doing Exegesis (How?)
Application from Text to Today (How?) (Why?) (Where?) (When?)
Thing
Interpretive Problems (What?) (Which?) (How many?) (How much?)
Word Studies (What?) (Which?)
Theology (What?) (Which?) (Where?) (When?) (Whole?)
Whole
Summary (Who?) (Whole?) (How many?) (How much?)
Select Bibliography (Where?) (When?) (How many?) (How much?)
Scripture Index (Where?) (When?) (How much?)
Subject Index (What?) (Which?) (Where?)
Abbreviations (What?) (Which?) (How much?)
In this section, you will notice that I used questions to help classify things rather than the class labels themselves. I did this to test which method of classification is more effective. I think a combination of both together words the best, especially since the questions break out the two major aspects of each class. I also have yet one other way to test where a word should be classified, but that is dealt with elsewhere (ex. Culture and Revolution, etc.).
I did split a title into both "Translations" and "Translation" to answer both questions individually. I also added a chapter on motivation for exegesis since I think motive is always critical to providing an incentive for "why" anyone should use exegesis over another method.
I should make one other note. I do think there is an awareness in their book of the contribution of linguistics and semantics (a sub-set of linguistics), but I also think it could use a little additional discussion of the modern study of languages and its terminology. That would demonstrate more the contributions of people like Nida, Black, Silva, Barr, and others. I would have to read with a closer eye on this issue to give a better evaluation of this topic. I plan on adding this book to my library, so maybe I will have more time to evaluate this then,
So back to the issue of basics. Their book is much simpler than many that I have examined. It is also highly practical. But I think simplicity gets overused. There are 4 personality types for the Myer-Briggs approach to personality differences. That is pretty basic. But it is also a bit more complicated, when you produce 16 types by taking into consideration combinations of these 4 basics. It can also go beyond just 16 types to even more complexity, since personality can vary widely beyond just 16. Just look at how many different temperaments there are in the world! The same holds true here.
The 5 basic classes of definition or meaning are basic. But that does not mean that no words refer to a combination of more than one of these. That is where things can get more and more complex as needed to fit with reality. Just look at the complexity of technology in the 21st Century and the technical terminology that has developed with it. I'm for simplicity where it applies and for complexity where it applies. We can use more simplicity, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible or any book. The book A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis moves exegesis in that direction. We need to keep working on simplicity and organization so that there is both great content and great organization. Both will make the reading more enjoyable!
Sincerely,
Jon
Now when I say basic I mean something that even children shortly before age 13 can grasp. I also mean something that all of them can grasp assuming there is not some form of disability associated with their learning. Some of the words that I will use today will go beyond that level, but I want to reduce those ideas to a more basic level and I want to do it with a solid form of organization. So I want to simplify content and also outline it.
I recently ran across a fairly great book for exegesis. What it boils down to is the rules for reading the Bible. Usually exegesis does not get much press outside that arena. I say fairly, because it belongs alongside some of the best books on exegesis. I also want to clarify that when I call it great what I mean is that:
1) it has great content
2) it has practical use
3) it has simplicity in comparison to its competitors, and
4) it is comprehensive.
The only thing that is not as strong as these areas of strength is that of its own outline or organization. It is somewhat like the sermon that I and others heard. It too has great content, but it lacks organization.
The name of the book is: A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. The authors are: Craig L. Blomberg (he is not among my Blomberg relatives for those concerned with bias) and Jennifer Foutz Markley. I want to repeat that there is a great deal of good in this book.
This is how they outlined their book:
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction xi
Abbreviations xix
1. Textual Criticism 1
2. Translation and Translations 37
3. Historical - Cultural Context 63
4. Literary Context 93
5. Word Studies 117
6. Grammar 143
7. Interpretive Problems 167
8. Outlining 195
9. Theology 219
10. Application 239
Summary 269
Appendix: Checklist for Doing Biblical Exegesis 273
Select Bibliography 277
Scripture Index 285
Subject Index 291
From the start they make an error in starting with textual criticism. This is typical since many evangelical scholars consider themselves to be part of the grammatical-historical tradition of interpretation. The key word is "historical". Due to the battles over the bible and due to the historical critical tradition, history tends to get the front seat. I disagree with that tendency, because it puts history in the wrong organizational position.
To re-organize the book, I will use five universal classes of things to determine the best organization for the book. Those five classifications are the following (notice the italics in the examples):
Amounts (ex. the big kitty)
Relationships (ex. mom and dad are here)
Wholes (ex. the tail of the doggy is wagging)
Actions (ex. run Spot run)
Things (ex. the car is gone)
Let me give you some of the support for this system of classification. Eugene Nida of the United Bible Societies, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible translators have used these universal categories with slightly different names (Things, Events, Attributes, and Relations) and lacking one category (wholes) for a long time in the field as translators. It has been field tested in many languages and many cultures. I have never seen one person who is skeptical of this method produce one language or one culture where it does not work. It is universal unless there is an example of failure among the data available in translation. This is the empirical proof for its universal use.
There is also another source of support. All of these are included a longer list of what are called semantic universals. So if the l longer list is universal (it is more debatable), then certainly the shorter list is universal as well. You can find that longer list in: Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. That will have to suffice for the evidence at this point.
Let me now reorganize their list in two steps. The first step is to classify each section according to its primary category and the second step is to then create a new outline. I am also going to clarify each class a little further with what I call the ten universal questions in English.
Here is step one (listed in order that they are found in the book under each classification):
Amount [Am] (How many? How much?)
1. Translation and Translations [R] of {Am}
Relationship [R] (Where? When?)
1. Textual Criticism [T] of [R]
2. Historical-Cultural Context [R] of [R]
3. Literary Context [T] of [Ac] of [R]
4. Select Bibliography [Am] of [R]
5. Scripture Index [T] of [Am] of [R]
Whole [W] (Who? Whole?)
1. Acknowledgements [W] of [R]
2. Introduction [W] of [W]
3. Grammar [T] of [W]
4. Outlining [R] of [W]
5. Summary [Am] of [W]
Action [Ac] (How? Why?)
1. Application [R] of [Ac]
2. Appendix: Checklist for Doing Exegesis [Ac] of [Ac]
Thing [T] (What? Which?)
1. Abbreviations [Am] of [T]
2. Word Studies [T] of [T]
3. Interpretive Problems [Am] of [R] of [T] of [T]
4. Theology [R] of [W] of [T] of [T]
Now you might argue that this is not simple! That is absolutely correct. If there is more than one (the simplest), then the argument can be made that these words are not simple. I warned earlier about this issue. Sometimes to make things simple, you also have to expose actual complexity. Bot writers of this book assume that what they are saying is quite simple. We can all see that is not quite true though I do not question their motives. What is simple still is the primary or core classes that each one of these complex words can be simplified into by using the basic classes of meaning from Eugene A. Nida and other translators.
The way that I have classified each category is where the basics can be discussed. You and I may disagree on some of these classifications, but at least we now have a simple way to discuss the issues. We also have our basic ideas fully out in the open. We cannot hide behind unnecessary complexity any more. I now have revealed to you what I am thinking at the most basic and universal level. The work of discussion now will be easier than it was before, without denying any complexity where it honestly exists. Try this, you will like it! It does take time to acquire this skill, but it is not difficult after a little practice.
Here is step two (my re-organization of the book):
Whole
Acknowledgments (Who?)
Introduction (Whole?)
Amount
Translations (How many?)
Translation (How much?)
Clear and Meaningful (How many?) (How much?)
Relationship
Literary Context (Where?) [internal] (When?)
Historical-cultural Context (Where?) [external] (When?)
Textual Criticism (Where?) (When?) (Which?)
Whole
Grammar (Who?) (Whole?)
Outlining (Who?) (Whole?) (Where?) (When?)
Action
The Motive Behind Exegesis (Why?)
Checklist for Doing Exegesis (How?)
Application from Text to Today (How?) (Why?) (Where?) (When?)
Thing
Interpretive Problems (What?) (Which?) (How many?) (How much?)
Word Studies (What?) (Which?)
Theology (What?) (Which?) (Where?) (When?) (Whole?)
Whole
Summary (Who?) (Whole?) (How many?) (How much?)
Select Bibliography (Where?) (When?) (How many?) (How much?)
Scripture Index (Where?) (When?) (How much?)
Subject Index (What?) (Which?) (Where?)
Abbreviations (What?) (Which?) (How much?)
In this section, you will notice that I used questions to help classify things rather than the class labels themselves. I did this to test which method of classification is more effective. I think a combination of both together words the best, especially since the questions break out the two major aspects of each class. I also have yet one other way to test where a word should be classified, but that is dealt with elsewhere (ex. Culture and Revolution, etc.).
I did split a title into both "Translations" and "Translation" to answer both questions individually. I also added a chapter on motivation for exegesis since I think motive is always critical to providing an incentive for "why" anyone should use exegesis over another method.
I should make one other note. I do think there is an awareness in their book of the contribution of linguistics and semantics (a sub-set of linguistics), but I also think it could use a little additional discussion of the modern study of languages and its terminology. That would demonstrate more the contributions of people like Nida, Black, Silva, Barr, and others. I would have to read with a closer eye on this issue to give a better evaluation of this topic. I plan on adding this book to my library, so maybe I will have more time to evaluate this then,
So back to the issue of basics. Their book is much simpler than many that I have examined. It is also highly practical. But I think simplicity gets overused. There are 4 personality types for the Myer-Briggs approach to personality differences. That is pretty basic. But it is also a bit more complicated, when you produce 16 types by taking into consideration combinations of these 4 basics. It can also go beyond just 16 types to even more complexity, since personality can vary widely beyond just 16. Just look at how many different temperaments there are in the world! The same holds true here.
The 5 basic classes of definition or meaning are basic. But that does not mean that no words refer to a combination of more than one of these. That is where things can get more and more complex as needed to fit with reality. Just look at the complexity of technology in the 21st Century and the technical terminology that has developed with it. I'm for simplicity where it applies and for complexity where it applies. We can use more simplicity, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible or any book. The book A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis moves exegesis in that direction. We need to keep working on simplicity and organization so that there is both great content and great organization. Both will make the reading more enjoyable!
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
