On my desk: Steven Runge’s High Definition Commentary: Romans

Logos Bible Software has recently released Steven Runge’s High Definition Commentary on Romans. In the forthcoming months, I will review his work. In the meantime, here are a few features of his commentary: Describes the features of Greek and discourse …

1892 Club Housh Talk — Discourse Features and the Historical Present

Yesterday marked the last 1892 Club meeting of the Spring 2014 semester. This gathering of PhD students, across academic disciplines, is a vital component to the PhD community at Southern Seminary. It’s one of my most anticipated times all week. It’s so anticipated that I pick my classes, rearrange writing blocks, and move my work schedule so that I can participate in this club.

The 1892 Club is a time devoted to cultivating the mind and virtue of PhD students. Professors and students are able to enjoy a wonderful cup of coffee with exquisite cheese, and have a designated space to converse over ideas. It is here where my relationships with peers and professors turn into a “think-tank”, a time for mentoring, and a cherished time for intellectual thinking. It has been through the relationships and opportunities at the 1892 Club where I have flourished in dialectical thinking, publishing ideas, and a respite of good relationships.

Overview and Conclusion: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 6 of 6)

This is a conclusion/overview of a series we (Brian Renshaw and I) are writing on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

Before reading Runge’s article or our blog series, please read Runge’s post on “Porter’s Use of Contrastive Substitution” on his blog, NT Discourse. This serves as the informative background to Runge writing an article deconstructing Porter’s contrastive substitution argument.

Personal Anecdote

Porter’s Claims from Contrastive Substitution: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 5 of 6)

Brian Renshaw and I are blogging through a new journal article by Steven Runge. Here is his post (part 5 of 6).

*     *     *     *     *

This is a continuation of a series Shawn Wilhite and I are writing on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

In part I, we introduce the problem and define contrastive substitution.

In part II, I highlight the background and the reason Runge reexamines Stanley Porter’s analysis of constrastive substitution.

In part III, Shawn highlights how Stanley Porter misrepresents Curtius and Collinge, two of three sources Porter uses to confirm contrastive substitution.

In part IV, Shawn engages Porter and his final of three sources, Carl Bache.

In the following post I analyze Porter’s claims from contrastitive substitution. Porter claims on the basis of contrastive substitution that the Greek verb does not encode absolute tense. One issue is how Porter attempts to seperate tense from aspect. Porter then takes his statement one step further and argues that the Greek indicative verb does not encode any tense.

Bache’s Linguistic Framework and Selected Contrastive Examples: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (Part 4 of 6)

Early this week, Brian Renshaw and I began a six-part series on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

In part I, we introduce the problem and define contrastive substitution.

In part II, Brian highlights the background and the reason Runge reexamines Stanley Porter’s analysis of contrastive substitution.

In part III, I highlight how Stanley Porter misrepresents Curtius and Collinge, two of three sources Porter uses to confirm contrastive substitution.

In the following post, I engage Stanley Porter and his final of three sources (Carl Bache). Prior to fully engaging Porter and Runge, I help clarify Bache’s four-fold linguistic framework for verbal semantics. As Steven Runge demonstrates, Porter fails to use Bache’s linguistic framework. When Porter provides his examples for atemporal semantics and contrastive substitution, Porter (1) conflates Bache’s final two categories and (2) is selective with his evidence to favor of his view.

Contrastive Substitution and the Nature of Tense: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 3 of 6)

Early this week, Brian Renshaw and I began a six-part series on Steven Runge’s recent article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 154–73. (see here)

In part I, we introduce the problem and define contrastive substitution.

In part II, Brian highlights the background and the reason Runge reexamines Porter’s analysis of contrastive substitution.

In the following post, I engage Porter and two of his three sources (Curtius[1] and Collinge[2]). As Runge demonstrates, and I elaborate, Porter misuses and misrepresents Curtius and Collinge when describing contrastive substitution.

Contrastive Substitution and the Nature of Tense[3]

Methodology and Background: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 2 of 6)

Brian Renshaw and I are blogging through a new journal article by Steven Runge. Here is his post (part 2 of 6).

*     *     *     *     *

In this second post examining Steven Runge’s article, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument”, I will examine the background, leading him to reexamination of Porter’s analysis of contrastive substitution.

Methodology

The purpose of Runge’s article is not necessarily to disprove Porter’s use of contrastive substitution but rather to “demonstrate his failure to develop a linguistically sound methodological framework.”[1] Runge argues that Porter misunderstands his sources, which leads to incorrect conclusions regarding contrastive substitution. In Porter’s writings it appears that he is in agreement with the linguists he cites but as Runge points out, the evidence is to the contrary.

Series Introduction: Runge on Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb (part 1 of 6)

In the Spring 2014 volume of Novum Testamentum, Steven Runge published an article entitled “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb.” My good friend, Brian Renshaw (NT Exegesis), and I have had extensive conversations on the Greek language and the status quaestionis of verbal aspect. So, upon reading this recent article, we have decided to blog through it in order to highlight its arguments.

We have been influenced by Runge’s Discourse Grammar and other articles (find here), and we find his theoretical framework not only highly valuable, but extremely convincing. Therefore, this series not only provides us a way to write and think through his argument, but also to help others in their struggle with verbal aspect discussions.

Pragmatic vs. Semantic Descriptions of Greek Conjunctions

Currently, I’m rereading Steven Runge’s Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. It isn’t a full-fledge discourse grammar but contains elements of discourse features when approaching the NT text.

Chapter 2: Connecting Propositions (sample PDF) is the worth the price of the book, 3-times over. In this chapter, he speaks of pragmatic definitions of conjunctions in modern grammars. The problem is, grammars utilize english and other functional categories to describe conjunctions. To provide an example, Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is a case in point. Consider the amount of overlap between the following conjunctions (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 761):