Knowable Word

Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible

Copyright © 2012–2024 DiscipleMakers, except guest articles (copyright author). Used by permission.

You are here: Home / Archives for Todd Scacewater

Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings: Profitably Intense

By

Discourse Anaylsis of the New Testament Writings, edited by Todd A. Scacewater, is an ambitious text that seeks to explain the structure and chief arguments of every book of the New Testament. I am grateful to Fontes Press for a complimentary copy given in exchange for an honest review.

Each book of the New Testament gets a chapter, where the contributor seeks to map out that book’s structure and chief arguments. Before doing so, however, each contributor takes a few pages to describe their methodology for “discourse analysis” (which is essentially the process of mapping out a book’s structure and chief arguments). A variety of contributors employ a variety of analytical methods, though many of them overlap, sharing the same theoretical influences.

But will this book help the ordinary believer in their Bible study?

Assessment

For many years, I have enthusiastically commended David Dorsey’s Literary Structure of the Old Testament as providing much help with the literary structures of every book of the Old Testament. I have long hoped for a companion volume to recommend that does a similar thing for the New Testament. Does Scacewater’s edition fulfill that role?

Yes and no.

Yes, it does complement Dorsey’s work — in that I can and will regularly reference this book when I seek to get a broad overview of an NT book. There is much insight here worth gleaning, and this book is well crafted to encourage us readers to dive back into the Scripture ourselves and continue to observe, observe, observe.

But sadly, no, it doesn’t complement Dorsey’s work — in that this book is clearly written with a strongly academic audience in mind. Dorsey is academically robust, yet still comprehensible to average Bible students. But the contributors to Scacewater’s work use a very high degree of technical terminology, both theological and grammatical, without defining terms. Many of them quote the Greek NT text without translating it. And they presume a high degree of background knowledge in the field of discourse analysis.

Therefore, I am happy to recommend this book as worthy of your time if you’re wishing to work hard and be stretched far. For a sample, see this reflection on the state of structural studies stimulated for me by the chapter on John’s gospel. But for most folks seeking to study the Scriptures, I will not be recommending this book as a matter of routine.

Finally, I’ll mention that one of the book’s endorsers, Stephen E. Runge, wrote of the varied approaches to discourse analysis demonstrated from chapter to chapter: “Some succeed more than others.” I heartily agree. Some of the contributions are not as clear as they could be in presenting a clear argument or distinct structure for some of the NT books. I found some others not especially helpful. But I find the chapters on the following NT books particularly strong and insightful: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter. I would more quickly recommend Discourse Analysis to someone seeking help with one of those particular books. (And in the interest of full disclosure: I have not yet finished reading the book. I’ve made it through 1 Peter and believe that has given me enough exposure to write an accurate review. As I finish the remaining chapters, I may add to the list in this paragraph.)

You can find Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings on Amazon or directly through Fontes Press.

Amazon links are affiliate links. If you click them and buy stuff, this blog will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support.

Why is Structural Ignorance or Agnosticism Tolerated in Biblical Studies?

By

Fontes Press recently sent me a review copy of Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings edited by Scacewater, and a review is forthcoming, once I can blaze a trail through this mammoth volume. (Thanks to Robert Hatfield for tipping me off to this intriguing text!) But I recently hit a priceless quote worthy of your reflection.

Structural analysis is a glaring weakness of NT studies. The absence of any structural consensus for most NT texts is frequently admitted … The failure to resolve this issue can be attributed to one of two opposite extremes: a dismissive attitude that mistakenly minimizes the significance of structural analysis, or a reliance upon complex terminology and intricate diagrams that obscures the analytical impotence and fundamental flaws of the underlying linguistic paradigm. Both extremes are roadblocks to exegetical clarity. Since how an author shapes a message is often as critical for interpretation as what the author’s explicit message is, one should wonder why this state of affairs is tolerated regarding such a foundational issue.

Michael Rudolph, Discourse Analysis, ed. Scacewater, 127.

In the contributors’ bios at the front of the book, Michael Rudolph is described as “a Theological Educator with World Venture in Kyiv, Ukraine.” This introductory paragraph, which I have now quoted for you, to his essay on the structure of John’s Gospel nearly makes me want to relocate my family to Kyiv, Ukraine so we can sit under more such theological education. In the rest of his essay, Rudolph’s insights into the structure of John’s Gospel are worth their weight in vibranium, inviting me to observe, as I have never observed before, the structural breadcrumbs dropped throughout the text, in black and white, to help us grasp the author’s message.

But my goal in this post is not to discuss the structure of John’s Gospel but to serve as something of a wifi extender to Rudolph’s presenting problem. Why is the following state of affairs tolerated in biblical studies?

  1. Scholars often appear unwilling to engage with or resolve the lack of consensus on the structure of New Testament books.
  2. The reason given by some is that structural analysis is not all that important anyway (structural agnosticism).
  3. The reason given by others boils down to outlines and jargon so impenetrable or complex that nobody recognizes how flawed the presenter’s assumptions are to begin with (structural ignorance).

Rudolph’s not exercising a vague hand-waving, either, in order to pull his own structural rabbit from his own touch-not-able, high-priestly hat. He goes and names names in his extensive footnotes. On point number 3, he cites the example of Mlakuzhyil (never heard of him). On point number 2, he cites well-knowns such as Kostenberger, Carson, and Keener. Hear Keener:

Any modern outline of the Fourth Gospel is somewhat arbitrary … But given the expectation that a commentary will divide sections, we have offered a division as likely as any.

Quoted in Discourse Analysis, 127-8

Regarding the attempts to hide ignorance behind impenetrable scholastic lingo, I can’t help but think of my favorite giggle-inducing quote from sociologist Rodney Stark:

I have tried to write everything else in plain English. I do not concede that this in any way compromises sophistication. What it does do is prevent me from hiding incomprehension behind a screen of academic jargon.

From the Preface to Discovering God, viii

On this blog, I have argued that structure provides the very shape of the author’s intended meaning. In other words, structure is not irrelevant for meaning; it is one of the most important expressions of it. Therefore, it is worth our time and effort to learn how to observe it so it can help us to avoid errors or pointless excursions in interpretation or application.

In addition, structure provides us with the very raw materials we require to follow the logic of an author’s argument. It gives us the nuts and bolts of the context, which always matters. Without a grasp of the structure, we might be right about a text, or we might be wrong about it; perhaps we’ve excluded from our study the divinely inspired tools to render a confident judgment either way.

So what do you think? Why is structural ignorance or agnosticism tolerated so widely? And how can we further improve that state of affairs for the next generation? And not just in the academy or publishing houses, but also in our pulpits, Sunday schools, and small groups?

Amazonian digital connective interfaces found within the present writer’s subtext, compiled and rendered for premium convenience on behalf of anonymous inquisitive participants, render no judgment on the value of one’s economic interactions but remain copacetic to the originating body. Let’s see if you can verstehe that prior sentential communicative event sans compromising your bid for respectable sophistication.