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

Communication Basics: A Synergy of Methods

There is a very helpful book written by Steven Covey called The Third Alternative.  That is a great way to describe the alternative that I am suggesting for communication basics.  Most of what is written about listening, speaking, reading and writing is based either on the classic view of grammar or on a contemporary advance in some part of the field of linguistics (the scientific study of language).  Very rarely is a third alternative proposed, where the strengths of each is equally combined together.  The path I am proposing combines the best of classical grammar with the recent insights from linguistics.

My experience is primarily, yet not exlusively, in the field of biblical study and interpretation. What I say can be applied anywhere, but my examples come mainly from the context of a Christian college and later three different Christian seminaries.  An example of how I was given only two alternatives is that a semiary professor in the historical-grammatical tradition of biblical scholarship refused to show interest in the linguistic developments used by Wycliffe Bible Translators.  In a very recent class experirence, I noticed that the professor was still not aware of some valuable insights from linguistics that could have been very helpful.  He had no idea about the basic semantic classes of meaning: Whole, Amount, Relationship, Action, and Thing (Whole is my own addition based on classical grammar). These two streams for the most part flow apart from one another seldom combining their strengths into one stream.  As an avid trout fisherman, I have seen how the power of two streams coming together can vastly increase their force, when they combine.  I believe that is what is missing in the broad field of communications!

To have a break through, you must break from the currient views that are held.  This does not mean that you are breaking from the classic past or the promising future.  It only means you are breaking from the present.  I believe we need a break through in the current field of communication basics.

On the classical grammatical side it is important to realize that within its banks is not just the Greek tradition, but also the traditions of Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Arabic.  On the side of present day advances, there are many specialities including the advances in the field of semantics (a meaning focused approach within lingusitcs).   Both provide insights into communication.  Neither has the corner on the market, despite what advocates of either stream may say. 

I was fortunate enough to study under professors at my college and seminary levels of education, who placed each of these two alternatives in their best light.  I found the insights of inductive bible study to be very valuable for reading and interpreting, even while contemporary linguistic insights were overlooked.  My primary professors following a classical alternative were Dr. John S. Piper and Tom Stellar.  Later at the seminary level, I followed up on their teaching with studying under their mentor, Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. Most recently I was able to study this tradition under Dr. Garwood Anderson, Dr. Walter C. Kaiser and Dr. Allen P. Ross.  This teaching and experience are invaluable to me, because they represented this tradtion in its best light and provided me with a number of new tools for reading and interpretation that I did not previously possess.  The other alternative that provided me a great deal of value was that of courses in the field of linguistics.  I was extremely fortunate to study the ideas and insights of many great linguists and to even meet some of the more famous and some of the more humble.   I studied primarily under Dr. William A. Smalley and did a project on behalf of Dr. Donald A. Larson.  I also was taught by Lois Malcolm, who is now is a seminary professor.   Later I was fortunate to study linguistics for a short time at UW-Madison and got to talk to Dr. Noam Chomsky.  Besides meeting him I was earlier introduced to Dr. Kenneth Pike, a one-time President of Wycliffe.  But also I cannot leave out Dr. R. Daniel Shaw. 

Each of these names I have tried to list with some detail like their middle initials in case that some people like yourself may wish to examine the credential of each of them.  I owe each of them a great deal, because at one time I was by all my scores in the classroom very poor  in reading and writing.  Through them I have become much stronger, though I still have a good distance to go.  The greatest witness I can give to their legacy is that they have each made school much easier for me by giving me superior tools to work with rather than leaving me with inferior tools to work with in trying to reach lofty goals.   I used to just work hard to compensate for poor tools.  Now I work hard with great tools.

What I could not say as clearly before, as I can now because of Covey, is that I have synergized these two traditions into one higher powered tool for understanding basic communication.  Each alternative has allowed me to make improvements to what I was taught by the other.  For example, historical-grammatical exegesis provides sentence diagramming as one of their tools.  Quite honestly, I really struggled with this tool in the beginning.  It overwhelmed me and a number of my classmates.  It also can be very time consuming.  I think that is why too many of my fellow classmates likely no longer use this tool.  The only reason I am still using it is that I learned the tool of a semantic structure analysis (S.S.A.) from the alternative of linguistics and it helped me greatly simplify the tool of sentence diagramming. 

This combined tool also saves me a great deal of time.  I can now prepare my structure analysis in a short enough period of time that I can do a complete one from scratch for every sermon I preach.  The first key opening the door to ease was to focus on action words, as I analyzed a text into its parts.  The second key opening the door to ease was understanding the primary meaning classes of words, so that I could quickly identify any of them in the original text or in a translation.  The structure analysis is also more technology friendly, because of its straight line layout versus the arcing method of sentence diagramming which uses curved lines .  It is easy to do in Excel without any fancy extra enhancements or technical training!

So fundamentally I want you to know that I am synergizing two alternatives that are greater than using either of the other two alternatives all by themselves.  I am offering the two alternatives together that form a much stronger third alternative to either of them alone.  It is like the streams of water in your state, county or country.  As they merge together like the tributaries of the Mississippi, they form together the mighty Misssissippi.

Sincerely,

Jon