A Discourse Analysis of 1 John 1 1-2-11

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF 1 JOHN 1:1-2:11:
A PROPOSAL TO INTEGRATE LINGUISTICS AND TRADITIONAL
HERMENEUTICS
A Thesis
Presented to
The Administration and Faculty of the
Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Divinity
by
Kevin M. Adams
May 2005
© 2005 Kevin M. Adams
All rights reservedApproval Sheet
HERMENEUTICS
The following faculty members approve the thesis of Kevin M. Adams:
Faculty Reader
__________________________________________
Dean of the Graduate School
__________________________________________
Abstract
HERMENEUTICS
Kevin M. Adams, M. Div
Baptist Bible Graduate School. of Theology, 2005
Program Advisor: Gregory T. Christopher
This thesis demonstrates that 1 John 1:5-2:11 is a cohesive unit. This is
determined by using discourse analysis methodologies to complement traditional
grammatical-historical hermeneutics. The thesis demonstrates that traditional
grammatical-historical hermeneutics fails to approach the text as a cohesive whole.
Because of this oversight lexical cues such as organic ties, semantic cohesion, and
boundary markers are missed and meaning is skewed.
Discourse analysis approaches a text from the understanding that it is a
communication act. As such, each text is structured in such a way as to communicate the
author’s intention to his audience. Thus, there is meaning in the text. Because the author
has so structured the text, it is possible to arrive at an understanding of a text thousands of
years after it was written.
1
Illustrations
Figure
1. Center of Authority in Various Hermeneutical Systems..........................................46
2. Primary Semantic Genres........................................................................................53
3. Thematic Elements in New Testament Discourse....................................................65
4. Structural Outline of 1 John 1:1-4...........................................................................79

List of Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible Commentary
ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New
Testament
BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. A Greek English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
BC Baker Commentary
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
ConBNT Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series
DSBS Daily Study Bible Series
EBC Expositors Bible Commentary
GTJ Grace Theological Journal
ICC International Critical Commentary
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JOTT Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTS Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
NA27 Nestle-Aland Green New Testament 27th edition
NAC New American Commentary
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
1
2
NeoT Neotestamentica
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NOT Notes on Translation
NovT Novum Testamentum
NT New Testament
NTS New Testament Studies
NTSSA New Testament Society of South Africa
OPTAT Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics
PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
RSV Revised Standard Version
SIL Summer Institute of Linguistics
START Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation
THLJ Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

WBC Word Biblical CommentaryCHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
A cursory perusal of commentaries on 1 John reveals the lack of consensus on the
structure of the text (as well as the author, setting, and purpose). Proposals range from
two to fifteen major units. Since structure is tied to meaning, commentaries are at a loss
to adequately explain the meaning of the text.
Significance of the Problem
The inability to determine the structure of the text results in a plethora of
interpretations of the text. Because the structure is undetermined, interpretations are often
based on theological ideologies or reconstructed historical settings.
Possible Approaches to the Problem
In the zeal to arrive at the truth, additional exegesis at the syntactical level is often
suggested. Scholars advance more word studies, historical studies, and similar traditional
approaches. Recently, some have suggested additional models of study such as literary
analysis, rhetorical analysis, and linguistic analysis (specifically discourse analysis).
These additional models, usually of foreign origin, are often treated with skepticism if not
outright disdain.
Central Claim of the Study
The study claims that not only are alternative methodologies compatible with
traditional biblical studies, they are to be welcomed. Due to the constraints of this study
and the breadth of alternative methodologies this study will focus on just one of these
alternative methodologies, namely, discourse analysis. This study will specifically
1
2
demonstrate how discourse analysis, a branch of linguistics, has significant contributions
to make in understanding the structure of texts and, therefore, their meaning. Not only
should discourse analysis be explored by biblical exegetes, it must be integrated into their
hermeneutic.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to demonstrate that: (1) discourse analysis provides
insight into texts that traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics does not; (2)
discourse analysis asks questions that traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics
does not; (3) discourse analysis approaches the text holistically, more so than traditional
grammatical-historical hermeneutics; (4) discourse analysis approaches the text from a
communication perspective, which traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics does
not; (5) discourse analysis views the structure of the communication process to be
integral to the meaning of the communication, which traditional grammatical-historical
hermeneutics does not; (6) discourse analysis understands the communication process to
be shaped by individual contexts that are shared between the speaker (author) and the
receiver (addressee), which traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics does not.
Summary of the Study
The study will (1) determine how language functions, (2) determine how language
communicates meaning, (3) determine what should be included in a biblical hermeneutic,
(4) determine what discourse analysis is, (5) determine how discourse analysis works, (6)
demonstrate discourse analysis from 1 John 1:1-2:11. Section 1 will develop items (1)
and (2); section 2 will develop item (3); section 3 will develop items (4) and (5); and
section 4 will develop item (6).

3
Limitations of the Study
The study is limited to linguistic concerns, namely discourse analysis. Other
disciplines are referred to where appropriate, but not exhaustively. Appendix A provides a
list of resources for further study of rhetorical analysis. Further research needs to be done
concerning the use of rhetorical analysis, as well as other disciplines, and their integration
into a biblical hermeneutic.
The study is also limited to chapter 1 of 1 John. The approaches advocated here,
need to be integrated into a larger project that includes analysis of the entire text.
Reference is made to several works that make such attempts. Further analysis is
necessary to compare these works and provide a more comprehensive and cohesive
method of analysis.
Assumptions of the Study
The study assumes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that the Apostle
John is the author of the Gospel of John, 1-3 John, and the Revelation, traditionally
attributed to him. Appendix B provides a list of resources for the further study of
authorship and related Johannine issues.
The study assumes that language is a universal phenomena and that language
meaningfully communicates. The study assumes that understanding a text is not only
possible but imperative in the case of the Bible, so that God’s revelation to man can be
understood and acted upon.

CHAPTER 2
A THEORY OF LANGUAGE
Linguistics: How Language Works
4
5
This chapter will explain what language is and how language works. Since the
Bible is a record of God’s revelation to mankind and is written in a language, a proper
understanding of what language is and how it works is essential for a proper
understanding of the recorded text of the Bible. The discipline (linguistics) is not “new”
to the scene of textual interpretation. History demonstrates this. Understanding the
communicative process is necessary to fully understand texts.
Assumptions
Language is taken to be a phenomenon of divine creation endowed to the first
man, Adam, at his creation, and inherent in all subsequent humanity. This is in contrast to
an evolutionary (biological – gradualism or geographical – catastrophism) development
of language.1 This view (divine creation) admits to the adaptation of language, based on
geography or other factors, into dialects and even new languages (language families).
Linguistics Defined
Linguistics may be briefly defined “as the scientific study of the language systems
of the world.”2 This is but one branch of the larger science called semiology. Semiology
is a branch of social psychology and, therefore, a descendent of psychology.3 The field of
semiotics is very broad,4 being defined by some as being “concerned with everything that
1 These are the only two explanations for language. John Lyons, Natural language and Universal
Grammar: Essays in Linguistic Theory 1 (New York: Cambridge UP, 1991) 79-80.
2 David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and
Applications (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 5. Charles J. Fillimore provides an expanded explanation: “The
science of linguistics concerns itself with discovering, describing, and (where relevant) explaining (1) the
units of linguistic forms or content, (2) the structures or patterns in which these units are defined and
situated, (3) the roles or functions that these units serve in these structures, and (4) the dependencies or
interpretive links that obtain between different units in the same text. Charles J. Fillimore, “Linguistics as a
Tool for Discourse Analysis,” Disciplines of Discourse, Vol. 1 of Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed.
Teun A. van Dijk (New York: Academic P, 1985) 11.
3 Semiology comes from the Greek semeion (“sign”). See Daniel L. Chandler, Semiotics for Beginners
(Routledge, 2001), 13 May 2005 <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html>.
4 Chandler states, “Semiotics represents a range of studies in art, literature, anthropology and the mass
media rather than an independent academic discipline. Those involved in semiotics include linguists,
philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, literary, aesthetic and media theorists,
6
can be taken as a sign.”5 A sign in this context is anything that stands for something else.
A sign, therefore, may take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects.
Lyons explains:
There are certain concepts relevant to the investigation of all

communication-systems, human and non-human, natural and artificial.6 A
signal7 is transmitted from a sender to a receiver, and (or group of
receivers) along a channel of communication. The signal will have a
particular form and will convey a particular meaning (or message). The
connection between the form of the signal and its meaning is established
by what (in a rather general sense of the term) is commonly referred to in
semiotics as the code: the message is encoded by the sender and then
decoded by the receiver.8
Some have argued that semiotics focuses on “how signs mean,” whereas
“semantics focuses on what words mean.”9 In the world of signs, those involved (an emic
perspective) may be so accustomed to the manner of signage that they are not even aware
of the “process” taking place. An outsider (etic perspective), on the other hand, may be
confused as to how the sender and recipient of a “sign” interpreted the given sign,
because on its surface it does not appear to mean what the recipient understood it to
mean.10 This enigma is in large part due to contextual issues and the nature of language.
psychoanalysts and educationalists.”

5 According to Umberto Eco as quoted in Chandler
6 Sadock states, “No language has been reported to be completely without a system of grammatical
distinctions among main clause types that is partially correlated with illocutionary force. Such a system we
will call a system of sentence types.” Jerold M. Sadock, “Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar,” Linguistic
Theory: Extensions and Implications, Vol. 2 of Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, ed. Frederick J.
Newmeyer (New York: Cambridge UP, 1988) 184. Sadock further notes that sentence type may be marked
by “intonation, word order, verbal mood, and particles with no other use” (185).
7 Lyons states, “A distinction must be drawn between language-signals and the medium in which the
signals are realized.” Language is independent of the medium in which the signals are realized. It “has the
property of medium-transferability.” John Lyons, Language and Linguistics: An Introduction (New York:
Cambridge UP, 1981) 11.
8 Lyons, Language 17. Emphasis in original.
9 John Sturrock as quoted in Chandler.
10 Chandler states, “We can be so familiar with the medium that we are ‘anaesthetized’ to the mediation it
involves: we ‘don’t know what we’re missing.’”
7
Realizing this is crucial to the interpretive process of any text, especially as the distance
between the sender and recipient, or the time of sending and time of receiving, increases.
Linguistics is a more established discipline than the broader “semiology.”11 Within
the discipline of linguistics there are various sub-disciplines. For example there is a
synchronic and a diachronic view of linguistics.12 Within linguistics are the elements of
phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. These deal with sound patterns, word
formations, sentence patterns, and meaning, respectively.13 Additionally, linguistics
includes the study of writing systems (graphemics), spelling (orthography) and other
disciplines that are related to language. Discourse analysis is also a category of
linguistics.
Linguists characterize language as being composed of sounds that are linear,
arbitrary, conventional, systematic, unique, and similar.14 Realizing the universal nature
of language, the ultimate task of linguistics is to develop a universal grammar.15
Linguistics In History (From a Diachronic Analysis to a Synchronic Analysis)
The earliest extant work on linguistics dates to the fifth century BC.16 As is
common in much of Western culture, the Greeks began this endeavor, cultivating an
11 Chandler.
12 A synchronic approach is descriptive studying language as it stands in a particular context (culture,
time, etc.). A diachronic approach is historical studying language as it changes/evolves over time.
13 Black, Linguistics for Students 10.
14 Sounds refer roughly to the speech act. Linear refers to symbols representing the ordered production of
sounds. Arbitrary refers to the fact that there is no natural or necessary connection between a word and the
thing or idea it communicates. Conventional refers to regular and specific patterns. Systematic refers to the
ability to be described and combined in terms of a finite number of ways. Unique refers to the idea that
each language, by its inventory of sounds and the manner in which these are used to form meaningful
sentences are different. Similar refers to the understanding that all languages have certain features in
common (Black, Linguistics for Students 15-18).
16 David Alan Black, “The Study of New Testament Greek in the Light of Ancient and Modern
Linguistics,” New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991) 379.
8
interest in grammar. They studied their language17 to determine what language “should”
be18 and determined that grammatical distinctions were real distinctions in the mind.
Their study of literature concluded that written language was somehow superior to that of
the everyday tongue19 and that there was a definite resemblance between the word used
and the object referred to.
Challenges to this “naturalist” assumption led to a new “conventional” school,
which denies a resemblance between the word and the referent.20 This latter position,
according to Black, “provides the most valid and accurate position.”21
Since the early Greeks there have been several advances in the field of linguistics
that have altered the course of this discipline. After the fall of Rome (70 AD), grammar
became firmly established as a major area of study, especially during the Middle Ages
(500-1500 AD). The study changed from that of Greek to Latin until about the middle of
the twelfth century, when Greek was “rediscovered.” As the desire to develop a unified
theory of language crystallized, the idea of a linear order of development gave way to an
order that proposed a common ancestor of languages, an ancestor that may no longer
exist.22 With this suggestion by Sir William Jones, the history and development of
language began to be studied with the realization that language was in a constant state of
flux. Thus there was no longer a need to explain language strictly in terms of written
records.23
17 Black, “The Study of NT Greek” 381.

9
This led to Carl Brugmann’s assertion that “all sound change takes place in
accordance with regular laws that have no exceptions.”24 As the search for the history of
language developed throughout the nineteenth century, many advances were made. It
became clear that the New Testament Greek was a natural development of the Greek
language25 and not a superior language from God;26 new grammars were written, and
study of languages intensified.
The twentieth century led to a change from an historical search (diachronic
analysis) to a descriptive search (synchronic analysis). This was in large part due to the
Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure’s (1857-1913) work. According to Black, “de
Saussure’s crucial contribution was his explicit statement that all language items are
essentially interlinked – an aspect of language that had not been stressed before.” This
approach to language became known as structural or descriptive linguistics. Since de
Saussure all linguists have been structural in the sense that they recognize “that language
is a system of interdependent elements rather than a collection of unconnected individual
items.”27 In 1957 Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures presented a methodology that

25 See James Hope Moulton, “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery,” The Language of
the New Testament: Classic Essays, ed. Stanley E. Porter, JSNTS 60 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic
P, 1991) 60-97; G. Adolph Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. Alexander Grieve, 1901 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1988); G. Adolph Deissmann, “Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek
Bible,” The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays, ed. Stanley E. Porter, JSNTS 60 (Sheffield,
Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1991) 39-59; G. Adolph Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New
Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M.
Strachan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980); G. Adolph Deissmann, New Testament in Light of Modern
Research, 1929. CD-ROM, Ages Digital Library Vers. 5.0, 1997.
26 See for example Nigel Turner “The Language of Jesus and His Disciples,” The Language of the New
Testament: Classic Essays, ed. Stanley E. Porter, JSNTS 60 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1991)
174-90.
Black, “The Study of NT Greek” 401.
27 Black, “The Study of NT Greek” 401. Faber notes, “Structural linguistics of any sort is based on the
presumption that linguistic facts are not isolated data but rather constitute parts of systems. Given this
presumption, it is illegitimate to analyze any piece of data independently of the systems of which it
constitutes an element.” Alice Faber, “Innovation, Retention, and Language Comparison: An Introduction
to Historical/Comparative Linguistics,” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona
10
broke sentences down into constituent morphemes, revealing more of the inner structure
of language. He theorized that grammar should not simply classify the elements in
sentences that already exist, but be a system of generating sentences in the first place. He
questioned how a sentence is changed from passive to active voice, from simple to
compound, from singular to plural, from present to future.28 This became known as
transformational-generative grammar. “Transformational-generative grammar tries to
encapsulate a speaker’s knowledge of his language by generating all the possible
sentences in that language.”29 Works such as J. P. Louw’s Semantics of New Testament
Greek (1982), Eugene Nida’s Toward a Science of Translating (1964), and Louw and
Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2nd
ed. 1989) implement these ideas.30
The range of disciplines31 and issues in the field of linguistics32 as it relates to
Biblical Studies is seen in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT) series
and its supplement series in which the essays discuss the relationship of linguistics to
various other disciplines.
Linguistics Defended (Not a “New” Approach)
This brief overview of the advances in linguistics illustrates that the discipline is
really not “new” although later advances in the field have certainly refocused efforts
within the study of linguistics. The question is why have commentators and interpreters
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 206.

31 See Jerold A. Edmondson and Donald A. Burquest, A Survey of Linguistic Theories, 3rd ed. (Dallas,
TX: SIL, 1998).
32 In America, anthropology was the field that began studying linguistics (Black, “The Study of NT
Greek” 399).
11
of the Bible neglected such a wealth of information?33 If it is due to philosophical or
theological objections, then, as Black notes since linguistics is a descriptive discipline,
“linguistics does not, because it cannot, prove or undermine any theological or
philosophical position.”34 However, it does contribute to the understanding of the
structure and, therefore, purpose behind a text.35 In this way, it can be beneficial to the
exegesis of Scriptures.
New Testament scholars have been reluctant to adopt discourse analysis. Reed
states, “In terms of an organised, programmatic agenda for the linguistic analysis of
biblical texts, New Testament scholars are well behind their Old Testament counterparts
[…] despite the fact that there are a wide array of linguistic analyses of the New
Testament […].”36 Cotterell and Turner offer a similar comment. They write:
33 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) page xv
for instance. He does not include a discussion of discourse analysis in his work because discourse analysis
(1) is still in its infancy, (2) its approach does not begin with the word and the sentence, (3) it is only at the
perimeter of the issue of syntax, and (4) it deserves a fuller treatment than can be accomplished in the work.
He does partially acknowledge the potential usefulness of the field, and he does make reference to
discourse on at least several occasions (see for example 66-67, 321 n11). However, he also notes that it is
too new to be very predictable. Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy in their Biblical
Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture (Nashville: Broadman, 1996) have
just a short paragraph on the subject on page 127.
34 Black, “The Study of NT Greek,” 403.
35 While this statement sounds like pure structuralism, which holds that a text may have multiple
understandings and none of them have priority over the other (Stancil 324), it must be held in check by the
biblical belief of the one making the statement. In other words, while a structural reading of the Bible,
“independently of any other kind of reading, can ultimately lead to ahistoricism and antirationalism”
(Stancil 339), the Biblical scholar can use it profitably alongside other disciplines in determining the
meaning of the text. Bill Stancil, “Structuralism,” New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, eds. David
Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991) 324.
36 Jeffrey T. Reed. “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament,” Approaches to New Testament Study,
eds. Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs, JSNS 120 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995) 222.
Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) has produced the Semantic Structure Analyses (SSA) on the
following texts: 1 Timothy (1977), 2 Timothy (1981), Titus (1980, 1987), 2 Thessalonians (1982),
Colossians (1983), 2 Peter (1988), Galatians (1989), Philemon (1990), the Johannine Epistles (1994), and
Philippians (1996). Additionally, they publish Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics
(OPTAT) and its successor Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics (JOTT). Additional works on Romans,
Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, James, and Philemon have been published variously.
Philippians has received various treatments in Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds. Discourse Analysis
and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995), as has 1 John (see Works
Cited). David A. Black has also edited a work entitled Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation:
Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broadman, 1992). See Simon Crisp, “Discourse Analysis and the
12
The situation, then, appears to be as follows: biblical scholars are aware

they need new tools the better to accomplish some of the interpretive tasks
they attempt daily to perform. Several of the disciplines within linguistics
have begun to fashion some of the tools required. And yet, for the most
part, they are left to stand untried on the workbench! It is surely time for
biblical scholars to engage linguistics.37
Louw’s criticism of traditional hermeneutics is important. He writes, “except for
occasional references to historical or cultural issues, words and ‘what they mean’ have
become the beginning and end of most attempts to arrive at a proper understanding of a
passage.”38 In reading a text, he maintains that three main features condition the reading:
extra-linguistic features such as time and place, typography, format,

medium of presentation, and background and history of a text; para-
linguistic features such as punctuation, intonation, pause, speech acts,
genre (e.g., epic, lyric, drama, conversation, parable), discourse types
(narrative, exposition, description, dialogue, lists), communicating
functions (informative, imperative, emotive, phatic, etc.); and linguistic
features such as word order, embedding, nominalization, levels of
language, style, and, in particular, the discrepancy between syntax and
semantics. All these features are but part of the structure of a text.39
Black notes that the difference between traditional grammar and linguistic grammar is its
scientific base (empirical, exact, objective), descriptiveness (concern with what is said,
not what ought to be said), and its emphasis on the spoken language (writing being
merely a form of talking).40 This methodology understands the New Testament as
Study of Biblical Greek,” Part 1, TIC Talk 37 (1997) and “Discourse Analysis and the Study of Biblical
Greek,” Part 2, TIC Talk 38 (1997) for a further list. Many more works on the Old Testament have been
published as well. See especially, David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A
Commentary on Genesis – Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).
37 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1989)
31.
38 Johannes P. Louw, “Reading a Text as Discourse,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation:
Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 17.
39 Louw, “Reading a Text” 18.
40 Black, Linguistics for Students 12-14. Chandler notes that linguistics offers a more empirical method
than semiotics in general. This is not to say there is uniformity of theory or practice in linguistics, however,
because as will be seen there is much diversity.
13
essentially “recorded speech.” Understanding the communicative process will be
imperative to using linguistics in biblical studies.
The Communicative Process
Language is by its very nature communicative. Someone (sender) communicates
(message) to someone else (receiver). Within this act multiple other processes are
simultaneously occurring. The sender is choosing words (grammar) to express his
intentions in a way (syntax) that is understandable to the receiver (situation). As the
communication continues both the sender and the receiver are constantly monitoring the
conversation to determine comprehension levels, changes in topic, tone, feeling, etc.41
Additionally, there may be distractions, or “disturbance,”42 that detract from the
comprehension of the parties involved. The pool of knowledge that each party brings to
the communication process is also very important. This pool affects not only their ability
to comprehend what is said but also the significance (or extent of the implications) of
what is said.
Due to the complexity of the situation43 it is very conceivable that
miscommunication not only can take place but it surely does. In fact it could be argued
that it is almost miraculous that more communication is not misunderstood than
understood. The complexities and the fact that generally speaking most communication is
understood point to the fact that there must be some universal elements of language that
allow individuals to comprehend the communicative act.
41 Cf. Kathleen Callow, Man and Message (Lanham, MD: University P, 1998) 39.
42 Moises Silva “Contemporary Theories of Biblical Interpretation,” New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1994). 13 May 2005 <http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/silva.htm>.
43 These complexities are often subconscious.
14
Semantics: How Language Means
This section of the chapter defines semantics and meaning. Furthermore, it
provides an understanding as to how language provides meaning in the communicative
process. Lastly, syntax is explained.
Semantics Defined
“Semantics as a sub-discipline of linguistics was largely a neglected area of study
until relatively recently.”44 Semantics deals with “meaningful, symbolic, behavior.”45 It
was only after Chomsky’s work in the 1950s that semantics emerged (in the 1960s) as a
scientific discipline.
“Semantics,” […] is the study of the information provided by an utterance

due to its distinctive combination of grammatical and lexical patterns. The
semantic features of a sentence are more or less fixed meaningful
references that do not change from speaker to speaker or social setting to
social setting. […] Basically, then, semantics is the study of the variations
of meaning that occur in a language when grammatical and lexical forms
change.46
The issue is: How do the components of a sentence relate to each other to form meaning?
And how do these sentences relate to one another to form more complex meanings?
Ultimately, this leads to the question: How do all the parts relate to the whole (discourse)
as a function of meaning as intended by the text (and author)? The various propositions
in the discourse are related by “spatial, conditional (e.g. causal), or temporal
organization.”47 The natural order and logic of language necessitates constraints on how
these components are structured. While there may be multiple possibilities, there are not
44 Harold P. Scanlin, “The Study of Semantics in General Linguistics,” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,
ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 125.
45 Teun A. van Dijk, “Semantic Discourse Analysis,” Dimensions of Discourse, Vol. 2 of Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (New York: Academic P, 1985) 103.
46 Peter J. MacDonald, “Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation,” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,
ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 126. Emphasis in original.
47 van Dijk, “Semantic” 108.
15
unlimited (without restraints) possibilities. Van Dijk illustrates with the following
example.
a. Next month we will be in Berkeley.

b. We will be staying with friends.
He indicates that reversing the order of the sentences would result in a less meaningful
discourse. The information contained in statement “a” is important for creating a
knowledge base (pool), into which “b” fits. The statement “a” provides the “state of
affairs, possibly with indication of time and place.”48 In other words “a” sets up the
context for “b”. This also illustrates that the entire endeavor is a spiral, constantly
informing other aspects of the interpretive process.
This aspect of study presupposes that words do not carry meaning in and of
themselves. It is the context that provides the meaning of the words. Due to this
understanding an etymological study may not necessarily reveal the meaning of a word in
its context because words change meaning. This elevates the importance of the current
and immediate context (synchronic analysis) of a word over the historical or
etymological baggage (diachronic analysis) the word may supposedly carry.49 Biblical
scholars are also pointing out such errors.50
48 van Dijk, “Semantic” 109.

49 Silva notes, “authors cannot have in mind what they and their audiences are unaware of, etymology
seldom has a role to play in the interpretation of texts.” Moises Silva, God, Language and Scripture:
Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 89. Similarly,
Hebrew scholar Robert B. Chisholm states, “The meaning of a word is established by usage among a
community of speakers in a given time period.” Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 32.
50 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). Moises Silva, Biblical
Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).
16
Reed lists several maxims regarding semantics:51
1. Meaning implies choice.

2. Texts typically transmit less information than the sum of their
linguistic parts.
3. Grammar and lexis both contribute to the senses of words;
consequently, syntax and semantics (form and function) are inseparable
components of a semantic analysis of discourse.
4. Words as physical objects do not ‘possess’ meaning, they are
‘attributed’ meaning by speakers and listeners in a context.52
5. A reconstruction of a discourse’s context should at least partly be
explained in terms of the lexico-grammar of the discourse.
6. An explanation of the grammar of a particular part of discourse
should take into account the context.
Meaning Defined
The goal of the communicative act is to convey something, whether that is factual
information, effecting change, or sharing emotions and attitudes.53 In order for this to
occur, meaning must be part and parcel with the communicative act. Callow states,
“Language exists in order to communicate meaning. It is therefore appropriate to study
language with meaning not on its periphery but at its heart.”54 Yet, “Anyone who wants to
say something is immediately confronted with a variety of possibilities that language
offers him. This means that the same thing can be said in various ways.”55 How is this to
be explained?
51 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the NT” 226.

52 Several factors work in tandem to constrain the meaning of the text. Co-text (morphemes, words,
clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and discourse) constrains by the syntagmatic structure. The immediate
context of situation constrains by the pragmatic principle of relevance. Genre constrains by reflecting the
situation in the linguistic choices. Culture (world view) constrains by limiting linguistic choices based on
social conventions. To break these social conventions is to create “new collocations, new world views, and
new registers, which is simply another means of organizing and hence restricting meaning.” (Reed,
“Modern Linguistics and the NT” 232-33).
53 These are the three purposes in human communication according to Kathleen Callow. These correspond
to Informational Import, Volitional Import, and Expressive Import, respectively (Man 97).
54 Kathleen Callow, Man 12.
55 Louw, Semantics of NT Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992) 91.
17
Meaning is inextricably linked to words, but what exactly is the relationship? Do
words determine meaning? Callow notes that meanings come first. Words are the
expressions of those meanings. The words themselves do not really mean anything, it is
people who give them meaning. Words do not have meanings, they signal them.”56 The
same meaning for instance can be expressed in multiple ways or in different languages.
She continues, “If meaning is considered to be inherent in words, it is impossible to
explain either of these familiar facts. But as soon as we locate meaning in heads rather
than in words, explanations of these phenomena come within our grasp.”57 Not only are
the meanings actually a concept that is in the mind, but what is being referred to is
determined by the speaker, not the words themselves. The question is not “What do these
words mean?” but “What does the message sender mean in using these words?”58 Words
are signals pointing to meanings, which are in people’s minds. Scanlin states,
It is important to distinguish between meaning and translational

equivalence, or “glosses.” The problem alluded to by Barr suggests
another truism: “The last place to look for the meaning of the word is in
the dictionary.” By this I mean, first, that the meaning of a semantic unit
(generally a word) is composed of referential meaning and associative
meaning. The former can only be determined by knowing the relation of
one lexeme to others in the same semantic domains. The latter is
determined by the context – grammatical at the level of syntax and
discourse, and emotional (sometime described as “connotative meaning”).
Second, when a lexicon offers glosses, receptor language equivalence to
apply to specific context, the user can mistakenly assume that the gloss is
the meaning of the word.
Therefore, definitions should be given in terms of Componential features,

rather than glosses. The Componential analysis of meaning is a useful
means for determining meaning and not merely to usage.59
56 Kathleen Callow, Man 19. Emphasis in original.

58 Kathleen Callow, Man 20-21.
59 Scanlin 134.
18
“Contrary to popular assumptions, terms really do not carry meaning by themselves.”60
The beginning of the communicative process begins with a shared base of
knowledge. “The sociocultural context of a discourse is the worldview behind the
discourse that is shared by a large segment of the cultural community to which the
speaker and hearer belong.”61 The speaker then uses specificity or generality based on the
recipient’s shared pool base. In moving to written communication, generally there is a
presupposition of a “lack of here and now”62 of the audience. If the communication is
being sent to an unknown audience the recipients must be envisaged, prior knowledge
and feedback estimated. If a shared cultural milieu, there are fewer hindrances to the
communication. If an unintended recipient receives the communication, the likelihood of
miscommunication increases in proportion to the specificity of the communication itself.
Callow goes so far as to say this is not really communication because it is no longer
oriented to the hearer/recipient.63 There has been a breach. In reaching a secondary
audience, in an unmonitored form, with a potentially different shared pool, an entirely
different communication is taking place, one that was not intended by the sender.64
Words are therefore a verbalized sign of a concept that exists in the mind. These
concepts are developed from experience, and therefore are related to specific contexts in
which they were experienced. Hence, one’s understanding of any concept cannot be
60 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991) 75.
61 MacDonald 158.
63 Kathleen Callow, Man 44ff.
64 This illustrates how critical it is to understand what was meant to the original audience/recipient prior to
any attempt to gain meaning for a secondary recipient. Practically speaking this means that the 21 st century
Christian must first determine the meaning of the biblical communication to the first century Christians (for
the New Testament) before attempting to determine its meaning, relevance, or application to them today.
For the study of the Old Testament the gap increases even more significantly.
19
isolated from the manner in which they have experienced (i.e. created) that concept.65 The
context is part of that concept; hence house to a suburban resident of the United States
will not carry the same conceptual notion as it will to a resident of the slums of Mexico
City. The difference is not based on the dictionary denotation of the word. Rather it is
based on the concept in the mind of the person, the connotation rather than the
denotation.
When something unfamiliar or unusual is encountered, the reason it is unusual is
that it is not part of one’s conceptual context. Since there is no concept for the unfamiliar
to “hang on to,” disconnect develops. There is a lack of experience and/or awareness of a
related concept to which the new concept may be attached.
Learning is a series of building upon known concepts.66 Hence, to understand
what a derringer is one must first have a concept of gun. Realizing that derringer is, a
small, easily concealable type of gun enables one to build upon the concept one already
posseses, which will further enable one to make comparisons and build on the concept of
derringer in the future. This is not only limited to the category of guns. Concepts can
carry over into other categories (semantic domains) creating new sections like small
weapons of which not only derringer may be a subclass, but also dagger -- even though it
is also a subclass of knives. Hence “fuzzy boundaries”67 abound when discussing
concepts.
65 This is potentially similar to how language is learned naturally. The understanding of what things are is
comprehended by observation and experience. When the phrase “close the window” and someone moving
the glass-framed structure to a position where no air can flow through it occurs in close proximity several
times, the connection and “concept” are grasped. Further experience may refine or clarify this concept but
the concept at this point has been created.
66 Callow (Man 60-63) further notes that concepts occur as a unit: They must be some recurrent or
continuous feature or features, and these must be significant. They must function as a unit, and this not
once only, but on repeated occasions. They do not function alone as they are derived from experience and
are contextually based.
20
Callow poses the question, “Where does blue turn into green? Angry to furious?
Jump to Leap? Etc.” to illustrate the point.68 Since these concepts are events (not things)
it is sometimes difficult to be precise in verbalizing concepts; hence, synonyms are often
used to flesh out, contrast, and further explain, what is meant from what is not meant.
Derived concepts are those outside one’s experience and are arrived at by deductive
reasoning. These are something less than an individual’s personal experience. At the
other end of the spectrum, those concepts that are more than one’s experience, like
recession or inflation, are made up of an individual’s personal experience plus others’
personal experience.69
People refer; words do not. The act of referring does not reside in having
verbalized a thought but in the thought itself.
Words are the signals that trigger concepts (for the recipient) but concepts
are not the objects of our thinking processes, they are those processes in
action. Words, therefore, do not refer to concept-things but stimulate
concept-events. Concepts are not what we think about; they are what we
think with.70
This is why it is words that are easy to forget, not concepts. That is why paraphrasing of
communication is so popular, not repetition verbatim. Words are stored in association
with concepts, not vice versa.71
Words are simply signals and over years of constant exposure these signals
have become so associated with particular ideas in our minds that so far as
conscious processing is concerned we simply think of something and say
it and the hearer, for his part, is virtually unaware of the signals used, but
only of the message conveyed.72

21
Hence, it is the context in which the word is verbalized that specifies what is meant. The
context reduces the ambiguity that exists within a single conceptual idea. For instance to
verbalize bank would be very ambiguous to any hearer. Some may think of where their
money is held, other may think of fishing, other may think of a type of shot in basketball.
However, when it is put into a sentence such as “She went to the bank to get some
money” the ambiguities are significantly decreased. Now the questions may center on
which specific physical branch of the bank, or which company bank, but the concept has
been clarified. Callow lists two restrictors on the free association of words: (1) the
familiar experiential frame in which the word is located and (2) the familiar grammatical
context in which it is found.73 Anything understood is done so only by attaching to some
concept already in one’s mind and building upon it. Therefore, meaning is equal to the
concept meant by the speaker.
Determining Meaning
What the speaker meant must be distinguished from how it was expressed.74 The
former is the concern of meaning; the latter provides the cues. A crucial question to ask is
“Why was the speaker presenting this thought to his hearers?” Is it to give knowledge
(Facts Mode), to effect change (Planning Mode), or to evaluate or express an attitude
about something (Expression Mode)? Depending on the mode used, the message will be
informational, volitional, or expressive.75 If the hearer already has the information being

74 Vanhoozer discusses one aspect of this situation when he states: “In sum the Word of God for today
(significance) is a function of the Word of God in the text (meaning), which in turn is a witness to the living
and eternal Word of God in the Trinity (referent).” The following formula represents his thesis. “Biblical
relevance = revelatory meaning + relative significance.” The meaning of Scripture is revelatory and fixed
by the canonical contexts; the significance of the Word is relative and open to contemporary contexts.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary
Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) 423. Emphasis in original.
22
communicated, the intent of the speaker must not be to simply inform.76 Several
combinations of these types of communication are possible. Utterances with
informational import may be combined with expressive import if an emotion or
evaluation is simultaneously expressed, either by intonation or lexical choices.
Expressive and volitional imports may also be combined; however, informational and
volitional imports do not occur together.77
The part of the utterance that is referential carries the communicative import; the
rest of the communication has some other value. Additionally, speakers always indicate
how certain or uncertain the information is – they indicate whether they are speaking
with personal knowledge and how reliable their sources are.78 The speaker communicates
information with a commitment to the truth, as he knows it, not the objective truth of the
utterance itself.79 The communicative act, therefore, contains the speaker’s perspective.80
Callow notes the difference between the core material and the support material is
that the
core material is presented directly to the hearer with some purpose –

informingly, expressively, or involving the intentions and will. The
message core implies some kind of commitment on the part of the speaker
(belief, genuineness, desire) and puts a corresponding responsibility on the
hearer (acceptance, solidarity, compliance). Message support, on the other
hand, puts no responsibility on the hearer. It makes no demands of him. It
simply assists him to understand and receive the message of the core.81
The purpose for the support material is to increase comprehension. Similarly, foreground
is a way of preparing the hearer for the core of the message. It is a way of providing

79 Concerning the Bible, the doctrines of Inspiration, Infallibility, Special Revelation, etc. provide for a
reliable and trustworthy record of truth.
80 Kathleen Callow, Man 103ff.
23
“location” for the message.82 Related concepts may be discussed in this part of the
material to lead up to the main point(s).
Thus, the speaker is operating on multiple levels at the same time. At one level
the main message is being sent. This happens by use of concepts and their related words
(purposive or schema relations). At the same time the speaker must relate this to the real
world (referential relations) and tie in supporting material (presentation relations).83 The
speaker is, therefore, communicating purposely, directing the message towards its
recipients, and relating it to the real world in a coherent way, all at the same time. Each
new proposition has to be related to the preceding material (though not necessarily to the
preceding proposition) in a way that the hearer can readily process it.84
Therefore, to understand a text it is imperative to understand the whole text,
including how each section relates to the others. This is the concern of discourse analysis,
and to a lesser extent syntax.
Syntax
Syntax in a broad sense “refers to all the interrelationships within the sentences as
a means of determining the meaning of the unit as a whole.”85 At its core syntax is
structural. It deals with how the text is structurally put together and how the components
are related to each other.
As the reader of a text […] one must decide how the author intended the
information contained in the sentence to be related to its context. Was the
author making a new point, or was he continuing with the previous one? If
he was making a new point, was he developing it in some way from the

83 Purpose relations establish schematic elements, referential relations link content at all levels in a way
that makes sense, presentational relations establish supporting elements with a particular audience in view
(Kathleen Callow, Man 161).
85 Osborne 93.
24
previous one and, if so, how? Alternatively, did he view the two sentences
as basically independent of each other? If, in contrast he was continuing
with the previous point, how did he intend the new sentence to be related
to what he had already presented?86
Silva notes the detailed treatment of syntax issues in discourse analysis studies and its
importance to the exegetical process. In commenting on Elinor Rogers’s discourse
analysis of Galatians he states,
This kind of reflection on paragraph boundaries, semantic prominence and

related issues shows up only sporadically and even haphazardly in
standard exegetical treatments, yet its value should be evident to anyone
who wishes to grasp the precise flow of Paul’s argument. […] [H]er
outline should be evaluated just as any other outline should. The
advantage, however, is that she provides a detailed rationale that must be
taken seriously.87
Silva notes, “discourse analysis holds promise for exegesis, and biblical interpreters
cannot afford to ignore advances in this field.”88 Corley adds, “This procedure […]
proves to be a rich source of exegetical understanding of the text.”89 Thus it is imperative
that biblical exegetes reevaluate the role discourse analysis should play in their
hermeneutical method.
Summary
Communication is quite complex. The interpretation of the New Testament is
exasperated by the gap between the original written text and the interpreter of the twenty-
first century. In part the purpose of discourse analysis is to narrow that gap. Chapters
86 Stephen H. Levinsohn, “Some Constraints on Discourse Development in the Pastoral Epistles,”

Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T.
Reed, JSNTS 170 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1999) 316.
87 Comments on Elinor MacDonald Rogers, A Semantic Structure Analysis of Galatians, ed. John Callow
(Dallas: SIL, 1989), as quoted in Moises Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test
Case (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 89.
88 Silva, Explorations 86.
89 Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics 127.
25
three and four, propose and focus on discourse analysis as an integrated component of
traditional hermeneutics.
CHAPTER 3
INTERPRETING LANGUAGE:
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS A HERMENEUTICAL METHOD
The goal of biblical exegesis is primarily to determine the meaning of the text.
This focus, in part, is on syntax. It is only logical that if the syntax of the sentence is
important, then the syntax of the paragraph is important also. If the syntax of the
paragraph is important, then the syntax of the entire text or discourse is also. This is the
domain of discourse analysis.
Discourse Analysis Defined Diachronically
“The term discourse analysis at its broadest level refers to the study and
interpretation of both the spoken and written communication of humans. It is analysis that
takes seriously the role of the speaker, the text,90 and the listener in the communicative
event.”91 The term discourse refers to any coherent text.92 “To make distinctions between
types of discourses, the term discourse can be modified by such adjectives as
‘conversational,’ ‘expository,’ ‘historical,’ ‘poetic,’ ‘narrative,’ etc. The written (or
otherwise recorded) version of a discourse is called the ‘text’.”93 Brown and Yule explain,
We shall consider words, phrases and sentences which appear in the

textual record of a discourse to be evidence of an attempt by a producer
90 A text is “the verbal record of a communicative event.” Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse
Analysis (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP, 1983) 6.
91 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the NT” 248. Emphasis in original.
92 “The term ‘discourse’ is used generally for any coherent sequence of strings, any coherent stretch of
language. […] A conversation is discourse but so is a novel or a poem or a dissertation. At the level of
discourse we are past the discussion of sentences to a consideration of the fact that language is used
primarily in coherent, structured sequences, not in unrelated phrases. […] To put it at the most elementary
level, discourse has a beginning, a middle and an end, and the beginning could not be confused with the
end: the parts could not randomly be interchanged and still leave recognizable discourse. Discourse, in fact
is characterized by coherence, a coherence of supra-sentenial structure and coherence of topic. That is to
say there is a relationship between the sentences which constitute any discourse, a relationship which
involves both grammatical structure and meaning (Cotterell and Turner 230-31).
93 MacDonald 155.
26
27
(speaker/writer) to communicate his message to a recipient

(hearer/reader). We shall be particularly interested in discussing how a
recipient might come to comprehend the producer’s intended message on a
particular occasion, and how the requirements of the particular
recipient(s), in definable circumstances, influence the organization of the
producer’s discourse. This is clearly an approach which takes the
communicative function of language as its primary area of investigation
and consequently seeks to describe linguistic form, not as a static object,
but as a dynamic means of expressing intended meaning.94
“It is a singularly unique feature of human language that we can combine long stretches
of symbols to communicate meaning.”95
According to Prince, “the term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by Zellig S.
Harris in his 1952 papers with that title.”96 He meant “the breaking up of a discourse into
its fundamental elements or component parts, by standard distributional methods.” Harris
thought the method was premature and it was mostly postponed until the development of
a theory of syntax that could incorporate the transformational nature of language. Noam
Chomsky was mainly responsible for the development and publicizing of
transformational grammar principles.97 Van Dijk locates the origins of modern discourse
analysis in the middle 1960s,98 although he also notes the discipline is old and new,
traceable to the study of language, public speech, and literature more than 2,000 years
94 Brown and Yule 24. Prince notes, “While it may be the case that all languages trigger the same set of
inferences, particular form-inference correlations vary from language to language. Furthermore, even a
brief crosslinguistic view suggests strongly that the inferences are not due to any ‘iconicity’ of the forms in
question but manifest the sort of arbitrariness found in other linguistic levels. […] [F]orm-inference
correlations are far more subtle and complex than one might think but […] at the same time they are
amenable to generalization and prediction” (Prince 170).
95 Jeffery T. Reed, “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Towards a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing
New Testament Discourse,” Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, ed.
Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, JSNTS 170, (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1999) 45.
96 Ellen F. Prince, “Discourse Analysis: A Part of the Study of Linguistic Competence,” Linguistic
Theory: Extensions and Implications, Vol. 2 of Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, ed. Frederick J.
Newmeyer (New York: Cambridge UP, 1988) 164.
97 Prince 165.
98 Teun A. van Dijk, Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross Discipline, Disciplines of
Discourse, Vol. 1 of Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (New York: Academic P, 1985)
2.
28
ago. He further notes the close relationship, at least in antiquity, that discourse analysis
shares with rhetorical analysis.99 He dates the emergence as a new discipline to the early
1970s, with “the publication of the first monographs and collections wholly and
explicitly dealing with systematic discourse analysis as an independent orientation of
research within and across several disciplines.”100 Though the emergence may have been
during the 1970s, de Beaugrande lists eleven different issues pursued, using the related
discipline of text linguistics101 prior to this time.102
99 van Dijk, Introduction: Discourse 1.

100 van Dijk, Introduction: Discourse 4.
101 Text linguistics was originally a distinct discipline, though related to discourse analysis. The two
disciplines developed separately, “in different scientific contexts, each with its own peculiar pressures and
results,” in an attempt to expand and extend the conventional linguistics of the sentence and later merged.
Robert de Beaugrande, “Text Linguistics in Discourse Studies,” Disciplines of Discourse, Vol. 1 of
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (New York: Academic P, 1985) 41.
102 The eleven issues are: (1) classification of language elements; (2) grammatical relationships that can
extend beyond sentence boundaries, as in complex syntactic units, tense, ellipsis, and proforms or other
substitutions among different expressions for the same thing; (3) recurrent language units, either inside a
text or in an exchange of texts; (4) utterances as speech events, with regard to speech rhythm and
intonation, or emphasis and emotion; (5) the constitution of meaning in context; (6) the informativity of
discourse; (7) communicative settings and situation, including special types such as bargaining, myths,
novels, anecdotes, satire, or news reports on the radio and in newspapers; (8) memory and aphasia; (9)
language history; (10) information-theoretical semiotics; and (11) computer analysis of discourse; including
automatic abstracting (de Beaugrande 44-45).
29
Discourse Analysis Defined Synchronically
Discourse types fall under para-linguistic features (see above). Discourse analysis
is not a recipe for ensuring a final reading of a passage without any subjective notions;
rather, it is a method of charting the reading process. It is a linguistic procedure in the
widest sense of the term. It is only for the analysis of discourse. The point is to be able to
justify one’s reading, not simply understand what is read. Discourse analysis also
provides some parameters for safeguarding against going beyond the text. In the end,
discourse analysis is not an analysis of the author’s intent, but rather an analysis of the
text itself, thereby at most limiting the author’s intent, not forming it.103 Concerning text-
based cues, specifically in narratives, Christopher notes,
A narrative contains text-based cues that guide the reader throughout the
narrative by identifying the boundaries of the reader’s journey, pointing
the reader to salient land marks, guiding the reader through the twists and
turns along the journey, and ensuring the reader of a safe arrival at the
appointed destination. Text-based cues are the cartographer’s key that
close the distance between the narrative and reader.104
Black further indicates that determining meaning is inherent in the process of
discourse analysis. “Discourse analysis is a method of determining the way in which
words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and whole composition are joined to
achieve an author’s purpose.”105 Chief among the concerns of discourse analysis is to
show the internal coherence or unity of a particular text. It is an analysis of how verses fit
into the structural unity of the entire text.106 This type of study focuses more (at least to
103 Louw, “Reading” 18-19.

104 Gregory T. Christopher, Linguistics and Literary Theory: Redefining the Disciplinary Boundaries,
diss., U. of Texas at Arlington, 2000, (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 2000) 70. 9995834.
105 David Alan Black, “Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar,” Linguistics and
New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman,
1992) 91.
106 David Alan Black, Introduction, Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse
Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 12.
30
begin with) on analyzing the big picture, that is, the larger unit (the text as a whole) called
the macro structure,107 in contrast to the smaller units (words) known as the
microstructure.108 While all grammatical problems are not resolved by discourse analysis,
it provides a framework in which these issues can be decided further. Discourse analysis
can be used to make explicit the internal workings of a text.109
A discourse reading […] is a more controlled reading in terms of the text

itself. It pays close attention to the structure of the discourse and to various
discourse markers that can be used as indicators to at least give account of
why a passage is read in a particular way. Therefore, though it is not a
final reading or the only reading, it is a reading that justifies itself from the
text by highlighting the crucial indicators. Such a reading requires that the
discourse structure be mapped to show the links and dependencies of the
segments of information, or communication for that matter.110
Examples of how discourse analysis has furthered the understanding of the
Scriptures are seen in the articles in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation.111 The
articles for example answer accusations that Markan grammar is inferior, and
assumptions about John and his use of the Greek language. The usage of certain words
now have linguistic explanations instead of viewing the writers of God’s revelation as
problematic. While this understanding is not necessary to believe in the inspiration of
holy writ, it does help explain the usage of peculiarities in texts and, therefore, helps to
determine meaning. Hence, while discourse analysis is a macro-level analysis to begin
107 The macro structure of a text is a summary or abstract which gives the central thrust of the whole
work (text). It serves as a control on the content of the text. Therefore, the text becomes selective according
to its central thrust. This macrostructure then controls what is developed in detail and what is passed over. It
can also control the presentation of the text. Robert E. Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on
the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on
Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 280-81.
108 Black, “Discourse Analysis” 92.
109 Black, “Discourse Analysis” 97.
110 Johannes P. Louw, “A Discourse Reading of Ephesians 1.3-14.” Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament: Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170 (Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic P, 1999) 311.
111 David Alan Black, ed., Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis,
Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
31
with, it also deals with micro-level issues such as the use of specific words. In fact the
analysis of these micro-level issues works to build the understanding of the macro-level
thesis. Therefore, the relationship between macro- and micro-level issues is one of give-
and-take, not one of mutual exclusion.112
Joel Green sees discourse analysis as an interdisciplinary crossroads at which
literary, sociological, and linguistic dynamics converge and, thus, is an example of one
who is attempting to integrate the overlaps between literary and linguistic
methodologies.113
The Place of Discourse Analysis in Linguistics
Discourse analysis is a sub-discipline of linguistics. Its past and present use as a
method of analyzing language demonstrates its relationship to linguistics. The type of
questions it asks demonstrates its relationship to syntax. Thus, discourse analysis is
properly placed in the domain of linguistics.
Whereas the study of Discourse comprehends all phases of traditional

linguistic investigation, it impinges most concertedly, I believe, on the
kinds of questions which have been raised in the past in the field of syntax.
The issue now to be decided is that of the relationship of discourse
analysis, or textlinguistics (as it is known in Europe), to other areas of
general linguistics as previously known. At the very least it must be
acknowledged that discourse study is making itself indispensable by
raising new questions, producing new tools for analysis, and yielding new
insights into the nature of language and the meaning of texts. Whether one
decides to preserve the older limitations of syntax to the sentence and
112 See Kathleen Callow, “Patterns of Thematic Development in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13,” Linguistics and
New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman,
1992) 194; See also Grant R. Osborne.
113 See George H. Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay: Reflections on the Use of Linguistics and Literary Analysis
in Biblical Studies,” Linguistics and the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, JSNTS
168 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1999) 29-30. MacDonald notes, “The approaches to discourse
are so many because the object of analysis – human discourse – is so complex. Speaking draws upon all the
senses and mental capacities of the participants and must be versatile enough to operate efficiently in many
different social contexts. Consequently, analysts who limit themselves to only one kind of discourse
analysis have little hope of understanding the workings of even the simplest of human communication”
(MacDonald 161).
32
regard discourses as a separate branch of linguistic investigation, or to

integrate the two, the necessity for students of syntax to draw upon the
store of new insights emerging from discourse analysis is clear. I believe
that integration will eventually appear as the only viable alternative.
Discourse investigation is already beginning to directly inform every
phase of linguistic analysis, and especially syntax.114
Parunak has noted the differences in various discourse analysis methodologies and
concluded:
Thus, in principle, they ought to be complementary to one another, and an

analyst who understands the relations among them ought to be able to gain
a fuller understanding of a text than one who follows only a single
methodology, just as a mechanic who understand the fuel, electrical, and
air subsystems of an internal combustion engine is in better position to
understand the entire engine than someone who is only an electrician.
Unfortunately, published studies of structure in texts tend to follow one or
another system almost exclusively.115
Discourse analysis is part of the larger discipline of linguistics, which studies
language, of which itself is a part of the larger discipline of semiotics, which studies
signs. Therefore, discourse analysis is a practical methodology of studying language to
determine the structure and meaning in a text based on the theory that language uses
signs to trigger concepts to mean something. The various methodologies, frameworks,
and agendas within the discipline should all be appreciated for what they can contribute
to the analysis of texts.116 The question that arises is: What place does discourse analysis
have in the framework of hermeneutics?
114 Walter R. Bodine, “How Linguists Study Syntax,” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R.
Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 92-93.
115 H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Dimensions of Discourse Structure: A Multidimensional Analysis of the
Components and Transitions of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians,” Linguistics and New Testament
Interpreation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman) 207.
116 See the various approaches to Philippians within the Discourse Analysis perspective in Discourse
Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (Sheffield, Eng.:
Sheffield Academic P, 1995). Note especially Stanley E. Porter, “Introductory Survey,” Discourse Analysis
and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1995) 14-35; Stanley E. Porter, “Response to Several Attempts,” Discourse Analysis and
Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1995) 107-17.
33
The Place of Discourse Analysis in Hermeneutics
James Barr criticized non-linguistic views of theology and biblical language as
early as 1961 in Semantics of Biblical Language. Advances in the field since his
publication offer much more insight today than they did in 1961. Black suggests the
integration of linguistics and New Testament studies is such an advancement. He writes:
To the extent that both traditional and linguistic grammars are descriptive
disciplines, there is no reason why each could not profit from the
experience of the other. Adherence to the linguistic point of view entails a
preference for a more revealing and exact description, and eventually
explanation, of linguistic facts, but it need not entail a rejection of
traditional values and emphases. Since it is a descriptive discipline,
linguistics does not, because it cannot not, prove or undermine any
theological or philosophical position […]. The most recent developments
in biblical linguistics have, in fact, returned to the traditional goals of
exegesis, but with the rigor of the scientific methods developed by
linguists over a period of years.117
In stark contrast Robert Thomas offers a pointed response to those who desire to
integrate linguistics. His view is that biblical linguistics is part of
an effort to integrate secular disciplines such as philosophy and modern

linguistic theory with the Bible. In this and all similar integrative
undertakings, the uniqueness of the Bible is inevitably the loser. What
philosophic and linguistic theory have to offer inescapably waters down
the contribution the Bible makes to human understanding. After all,
secular disciplines with antisupernaturalistic persuasions are bound to
have some negative effect on a Christian undertaking with its
supernaturalistic understanding (cf. Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20).118
Thomas limits the benefits of linguistics so severely he barely recognizes any at all.
Modern linguistics has usefulness in analyzing an unwritten language, in

devising an alphabet for that language, and in teaching the users of that
language to read and write literature composed in their language. It also
has positive features in relation to Hermeneutics when it coincides with
principles of traditional grammatical-historical principles. But in an
overall appraisal of the value of the field, it stands opposed to the

118 Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002)
49.
34
traditional method in so many crucial areas that it cannot do other than

detract from interpretive analyses of the meaning of the Biblical text.119
Furthermore, Thomas’s appraisal of the system of discourse analysis over-generalizes the
situation and underestimates the role of man and language in the process of God’s
revelation, thereby robbing the interpreter of great advances made in understanding
language. Language is a universal system designed by God to communicate. It is also the
same system He used to communicate to man – in the language of man. Thus, an
understanding of a particular language in a particular time will enable an understanding
of a text written in the same context. Contrarily, Thomas states,
The system’s use of the interpreters preunderstanding as the starting point

in exegesis forces the interpretive procedure into a subjective mold that
inevitably steers conclusions away from an objective understanding of the
authors’ meaning. Based upon this beginning, other fallacious principles
developed, principles such as underestimating the divine role in
inspiration, mishandling lexical and grammatical issues, mixing
application into interpretation, assuming imprecision in the text,
demeaning the importance of details, assuming stylistic guidelines, and
muddying the difference between literal and figurative language. All of
these distinguished modern linguistic Hermeneutics as a system from
traditional grammatical-historical Hermeneutics. The system therefore
hinders accurate interpretation of the Biblical text.120
Christopher notes, that

At the heart of Thomas’s evaluation is his failure to distinguish between
two fundamental philosophical issues. He confounds preunderstanding, a
Heideggarian concept, with discourse analysis. Thomas seems to suggest
the one necessarily follows from the other. Longacre, Christopher, and
others demonstrate such a conclusion is unfounded. The objective of
discourse analysis is to determine the meaning laying in the text itself, the
same object which Thomas shares.121
119 Thomas, Evangelical 233.

121 Gregory T. Christopher, Personal interview, 6 May 2005.
35
At this point it will be beneficial to review hermeneutics in order to assess the
issues involved in these contrasting viewpoints, as this is a crucial issue to the integration
of the two disciplines, and thus to the argument of this thesis.
The Hermeneutical Endeavor
Christopher states,
The central issue is whether one can interpret a text and confidently
conclude that a given interpretation is correct. This ongoing debate has
raised several questions. For example, where is the locus of meaning, in
texts or in the hermeneutic conversation that occurs between reader and
text? What is the philosophical basis upon which to ground one's
hermeneutic? Can meaning exist apart from one's involvement in the
epistemological process of investigation, or does one's involvement
predetermine meaning? Specifically, to what extent is the interpreter part
of the hermeneutical process? Can one step outside of the process as an
objective observer? Are there valid interpretive methods to control the
reader, or should one turn elsewhere to develop a more viable (or maybe
more realistic) hermeneutic?122
A traditional definition of hermeneutics is “the science and art of biblical
interpretation.”123 Generally speaking, hermeneutics is the system of rules or principles by
which one exegetes texts. It is the philosophy or set of rules that governs interpretation.
Exegesis is the implementation of these rules applied to a particular text. The
interpretation is the resultant meaning of the text and the application is what is done with
the interpretation in the readers’/interpreters’ life context. Johnson includes in his
discussion of meaning the following components: “a notion of reference in history, use of
language in its context, acts performed by an author expressing a sentence, and the
122 Christopher, Linguistics and Literary Theory 1.

123 Science refers to the rules of interpretation and art to the flexibility of the communication process. See
Henry A.Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1991) 16; A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963) 3; Bernard
Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1970) 1.
36
conventional use of language and literature.”124 This process is not as linear as it is
spiral.125 Each stage of the process adds to, and enhances, previous and future stages of
the process simultaneously. Attempts to totally separate them are unrealistic. As an
understanding of the culture increases, the meaning of the words takes on a new or more
specific meaning. These meanings elucidate the meanings of the related words in context
(co-text), which in turn re-emphasize (or add) to the understanding of the cultural
situation. The process continues like this as long as one studies a text, with continuous
refinements on the understanding/meaning. Thus “one needs to interpret the whole in
terms of its parts and the parts in terms of the whole in order to reach a full understanding
of a text.”126 “The construction of literary meaning is absolutely central to
hermeneutics.”127
Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics
Johnson notes five basic premises of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic that
he connects to the Reformation. They are: (1) Literal, which affirms that the meanings to
be interpreted are textually based. (2) Grammatical, which affirms that these textually
based meanings are expressed within the limits of common language usage. (3)
Historical, which affirms that these textually based meanings refer, depending on their
textual usage, to either historical or heavenly realities, to either natural or spiritual
subjects. (4) Literary, which affirms that these textually based meanings are in part
determined within the context of the composition as a whole. The textual composition
incorporates such literary characteristics as coherent unity and prominence, as well as
124 Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 79.
125 Cf. Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral.
126 Daniel Patte, Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 10.
127 W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1991) xvi.
37
traditional literary genre. (5) Theological, which affirms that the textually based
meanings are ultimately expressed by God through human agency.128
Context Defined. There is no more important concept to the understanding of any text
than that of context. Context, however, is almost tantamount to a black hole, not in that
one does not know where one is going (necessarily), but in that it is never ending.
Traditional grammatical-historical interpretation would rightly investigate the issues
related to who, what, where, why, how. Additionally, they would delve into grammatical
and syntactical issues. This can be seen in almost any commentary one picks up. The
proficiency and technicality may vary but the issues are there.
Context Broadened as Knowledge Increases. As one begins to delve into certain topics,
however, additional issues often surface. These new issues then become part of the
context of the text. A chain begins to grow. As one begins to study the language of the
New Testament, issues concerning Aramaic origins of the Gospels surface; they in turn
bring up the issue of what languages Jesus and the Apostles knew, what languages they
taught in, and the climate in Palestine and around. Reflections on these issues may lead to
cultural investigations into the roles of education, philosophy, rhetoric, etc. Thus, what
began as a simple exploration in a grammatical or syntactical concept may lead where
one had no intention of going.129
Context Includes Discourse Analysis. Discourse analysis investigates the linguistic
relationships within a discourse. The context of a discourse includes the synchronic and
diachronic linguistic data embedded within the discourse. This necessitates the inclusion
of discourse analysis in the ever-widening concept of context.
128 Johnson 21-22.

129 See Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay” 33-35 for a personal example of this.
38
While Thomas’s concerns for agreement in terms, presuppositional implications
and the like merit attention, his near total disregard for the discipline based on
presuppositional differences is akin to throwing out the proverbial baby with the
bathwater. He states that the Christian
has an anointing that frees him from misinterpretations that cause some
professing Christians to wander from the truth (1 John 2:20). What else
can this be but a release form bias and an opportunity to enter the realm of
objectivity in handling Scripture? Christian interpreters have access to
what may be called divinely enabled objectivity.130
Whatever may be meant by “misinterpretations that cause some professing Christians to
wander from the truth” it surely does not include differing interpretations131 over texts of
Scripture, as that has been an issue as long as Christianity has existed. The very methods
he uses, grammatical-historical interpretation, are also used by other disciplines in the
secular field. In his desire to establish the need for, and possibility of, returning to an
objective grammatical-historical hermeneutic, Thomas appears to repeatedly dismiss
elements of linguistic understanding (and other fields) that have arisen since the
publication of earlier texts on hermeneutics. Additionally, some of the very methods used
in a grammatical-historical hermeneutic are linguistic in nature. For example, the
realization that a word’s meaning is tied to the context (or co-text) of the surrounding
words is an understanding going back at least as far as Saussure, as Chandler notes.132 In
the sentence “The man cried.” the relationship between man and cried is specifically
chosen because the “boy” is not meant. Neither is “the man ‘died’” meant. Word choices
130 Thomas, Evangelical 52-53.

131 “One should not confuse evidence of plurality with evidence for pluralism. Plurality describes the
complexity of the interpretive situation; pluralism prescribes a certain attitude towards it. Pluralism is an
ideology that sees mutually inconsistent interpretations as a good thing.” (Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning
418).
132 It could additionally be argued that even Milton Terry in the 1800s (see next section) used these
principles based on his text. The terminology is simply different. See Chandler.
39
are invariably linked to meaning and Thomas recognizes this, as is evidenced by his own
exegetical works.133
The biblical exegete must be willing to utilize and learn from various disciplines
as they shed light on the texts of Scripture. Certainly, much discernment is needed, but in
the area of linguistics the importance of this point is crucial. The biblical text was written
in a language in a particular context in a specific time in history. Thomas, being a
grammatical-historical interpreter would readily study all of these areas in determining
the meaning of a text. Linguistics by its very nature includes the aforementioned
categories (plus more) because they all comprise the context in which a text is created.
Thomas would readily admit that Paul’s usage of ko,smoj (kosmos “world”), or any
other word, may not mean the same thing as his usage in a twenty-first century setting,
nearly 2,000 years removed form Paul’s context. That being the case, an understanding of
what is occurring in a communication setting should do nothing but enhance one’s
understanding of any text, and how much more important when the text is the inspired
Word of God.
An understanding of how mankind thinks, talks, and writes is an important aspect
of the hermeneutical process. Context is a never-ending field of inquiry and unless it is
grasped, the “interpretation is doomed from the start.”134 This is not to say there is no
hope, it is simply to say the work is never finished. How else can a person’s lifetime of
work culminating in the publication of a book on a single subject be explained? The work
is subsequently replaced or updated in later years because of further refinements and
even re-evaluations of the same data, leading to new conclusions. This does not
133 Note his works on 1 John or his two-volume commentary on Revelation (see Works Cited).
134 Osborne 19.
40
presuppose knowing truth, it simply accepts that (in the majority of cases) one will not
know all the truth on any one issue, and may even find out one was wrong on parts of
it.135 This understanding elevates Osborne’s statement that “[a]nalysis is part of and yet
presupposes the total hermeneutical package. One does not perform these steps one at a
time upon a passage. Rather, there is a constant spiraling action as one aspect (such as
grammar or backgrounds) informs another aspect (such as semantics) and then itself is
transformed by the result.”136
Milton Terry makes several remarks in his Biblical Hermeneutics in fact that
support the argument of this thesis. A few are appropriate here in light of Thomas’s
statements. Concerning the methodology of interpretation Terry advocates
[…] the Grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully

commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars. Its
fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the
precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. It applies to the
sacred137 books the same principles, the same grammatical procedures and
exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to other books. The
grammatico-historico exegete […] will master the language of the writer,
the particular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of
expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote,
the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he
had in view. He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be
knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his
readers.138
135 A caveat must be offered here. This is not to say certain truths such as the orthodox essentials of
Christianity cannot be known as Truth (Capital “T” denoting absolutes). Rather it is only because God
Himself has revealed these Truths that they can be known as Truth. The transcendence of purely human
methodologies allows that just as one day Christians will transcend the earthly by the heavenly, God’s
Truths are knowable. He has transcended the barriers by His revelation. Language, the medium used to
communicate (including God’s Truths), must be understood or miscommunication or misunderstanding will
occur.
136 Osborne 65.
137 “The Bible may be a sacred text, but the languages in which it is written are not sacred” (Faber 191).
138 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics. A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New
Testaments, Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, eds. George R. Crooks and John F. Hurst (New
York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883) 173.
41
Terry elaborates his position by appealing to not only the common history of
interpretation, but more specifically to the very nature of man and language. He points
out that the principles in question (grammatical-historical interpretation) are not
inventions or products of man’s effort and learned skill, but rather are actually “coeval
with our nature.”139 He further states in regard to language,
Ever since man was created and endowed with the powers of speech, and
made a communicative, social being, he has had occasion to practice upon
the principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the first
moment that one human being addressed another by the use of language
down to the present hour, the essential laws of interpretation became, and
have continued to be, a practical matter. The person addressed has always
been an interpreter in every instance where he has heard and understood
what was addressed to him […]. All the human race, therefore, are, and
ever have been, interpreters. It is a law of their rational, intelligent,
communicative nature. Just as truly as one human being was formed so as
to address another in language, just so truly that other was formed to
interpret and understand what is said.140
Quoting from M. Stuart writing in 1832, Terry notes,
Has any part of our race, in full possession of the human faculties, ever
failed to understand what others said to them, and to understand it truly?
or to make themselves understood by others, when they have in their
communications kept within the circle of their own knowledge? Surely
none. Interpretation, then, in its basis or fundamental principles, is a native
art, if I may so speak. It is coeval with the power of uttering words. It is,
of course, a universal art; it is common to all nations, barbarous as well as
civilized. One cannot commit a more palpable error in relation to this
subject than to suppose that the art of interpretation is … in itself wholly
dependent on acquired skill for the discovery and development of its
principles. Acquired skill has indeed helped to an orderly exhibition and
arrangement of its principles; but this is all. The materials were all in
existence before skill attempted to develop them.141
On language Terry notes the benefit of the historical study of words (diachronic) and also
of their current usage (synchronic).142 Regarding the latter he writes,
139 Milton Terry 174.

140 Milton Terry 174. Emphasis in original.
42
Some words have a variety of significations, and hence, whatever their

primitive meaning, we are obliged to gather from the context, and from
familiarity with the usage of the language, the particular sense which they
bear in a given passage of Scripture. Many a word in common use has lost
its original meaning.143
The context and connection of thought are also to be studied in order to

apprehend the general subject, scope, and purpose of the writer. But
especially is it necessary to ascertain the correct grammatical construction
of sentences. Subject and predicate and subordinate clauses must be
closely analyzed, and the whole document, book, or epistle, should be
viewed, as far as possible, from the author’s historical standpoint.144
Terry notes that this phrase, grammatical-historical, is thought to have originated with
Karl A. G. Keil in the late 1700s.145 Terry defines the phrase: “The grammatico-historical
sense of a writer is such an interpretation of his language as is required by the laws of
grammar and the facts of history.”146 He further notes that this is essentially the same as
the literal (plain sense) meaning of the text. However, in English usage the word
grammatical is applied to the arrangement and construction of words and sentences, and
historical sense refers to “that meaning of an author’s words which is required by
historical considerations.” Terry then quotes from Davidson (Sacred Hermeneutics 225-
226), further arguing that the language used by the writers of Scripture was the common
language of their time, conforming to “the laws or principles of universal grammar which
form the basis of every language.”147
Terry states that the biblical scholar “must, by repeated grammatical praxis, make
himself familiar with the peculiarities of the New Testament dialect.”148 He further
demonstrates this with examples from the use or non-use of the article. Terry would

145 Milton Terry 203 n1.
43
surely agree with modern linguists who advocate that meaning is found in texts. He
would also agree with their methodologies that attempt to determine the meaning of a
text, in as much as they follow the sound principles of language. Terry used the known
principles from his time, as did the writers of Scripture (as he indicates). He would not
chastise modern practitioners for using their current understanding of language that has
progressed in certain areas beyond what Terry knew in the 1800s.
In regards to the use of tense in Greek he remarks that “the interchange of tenses
does not regularly occur and when it does it does so for either rhetorical reasons or due to
the inaccuracy peculiar to the language the people.”149
Terry encourages the use of linguistics in hermeneutics150 and specifically alludes
to features of discourse analysis in his appeal to first determining the scope of the text.
He writes, “the meaning of particular parts of a book may be fully apprehended only
when we have mastered the general purpose and design of the whole. The plan of the
book, moreover, is most intimately related to its scope.”151 These are the very ideas
advanced by proponents of Discourse Analysis. This is the macro- (scope) and micro-
structure.
Terry’s comment is helpful: “A writer who has a well-defined plan in his mind
will be likely to keep to that plan, and make all his narratives and particular arguments
bear upon the main subject.”152 “Having ascertained the general scope and plan of a book

150 He states, “But modern philological research has contributed greatly to our knowledge of the changes,
growth, and classification of the languages of men” (Milton Terry 72).
151 Milton Terry 210. The overall structure must first be determined by the detection of grammatical
clues. Subsequently, paragraphs and sentences may be dissected and the relationship to the whole analyzed.
44
of Scripture, we are more fully prepared to trace the context and bearings of its particular
parts.”153
[The] connexion of thought in any given passage may depend on a variety

of considerations. It may be a historical connexion, in that facts or events
recorded are connected in a chronological sequence. It may be a historico-
dogmatic, in that a doctrinal discourse is connected with some historic fact
or circumstance. It may be a logical connexion, in that the thoughts or
arguments are presented in logical order; or it may be psychological,
because dependent on some associate of ideas. The latter often occasions a
sudden breaking off form a line of thought, and may serve to explain some
of the parenthetical passages and instances of anacoluthon so frequent in
the writings of Paul.154
Regarding this disparity in views concerning the usefulness of linguistic methodologies,
Silva states, “The danger is that, troubled by what appear to be extreme formulations, we
may close our eyes to the invaluable contributions made by this movement. Such an
overreaction would be particularly unfortunate in view of the character of Scripture as a
book that speaks to all generations.”155
Silva also notes that “meaning is inextricably tied to language, and so it is only a
mild exaggeration to say that the whole contemporary debate about interpretation is a
discussion about language”156 At the heart of Thomas’s critique is the idea of pre-
understanding and center of authority.
Center of Authority
The following chart illustrates where Porter places the center of authority for various
disciplines related to hermeneutics.157

154 Milton Terry 140. Emphasis in original.
155 Silva, “Contemporary.”
156 Silva, “Contemporary.”
157 Stanley E. Porter, “Literary Approaches to the New Testament,” Approaches to New Testament Study,
eds. Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs, JSNTS120 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995) 77-128.
The last row, Grammatical Historical has been added for comparison purposes.
45
Discipline Center of Authority

Historical Criticism Reconstructed historical context out of
which the text emerged, with the text
serving as a window to the past
Social-Scientific Criticism Social structures that are reflected in or
produced the text
Feminist Criticism Complex of issues surrounding women
writing, reading and being interpreted in a
male-dominated culture
Liberation Hermeneutics The issue of the oppressed and their
access to the avenues of power
Rhetorical Criticism Means by which an audience is persuaded
Canonical Criticism The canonical shape of the text, either in
its development or final form
Linguistics The set of syntagmatic, semantic, and
pragmatic features that render a text into
a cohesive discourse
Literary Criticism The text as text
Reader-Oriented Criticism The role of the reader in responding to the
text or even playing a role in creating its
meaning
Grammatical-historical Authorial Intent
Fig. 1. Center of Authority in Various Hermeneutical Systems
What appears clear is that all centers of authority are areas that should be part of a
balanced hermeneutic. While oftentimes the disciplines may go too far in their positions,
the desire to further a particular aspect of the hermeneutic endeavor is laudable. All
underlying philosophical presuppositions do not need to be adhered to in order to benefit
from many of their discoveries, as will be shown in subsequent sections of this thesis.
What is additionally clear is that appeal to authorial intent in the area of Biblical
Hermeneutics, though laudable, is, strictly speaking, impossible because the human
authors of the biblical texts are all dead. Decker defines authorial intents as follows:
Authorial intent is the hermeneutical principle that validates the meaning

of a text on the basis of determining what an author affirms in his written
statements as understood in their cultural and literary contexts. It asserts
46
that a text cannot mean what its author did not understand and that
meaning is in no way conditioned by the reader of that text. The
alternative is to “banish the author” which is to “redefine
communication.”158
The problem with such a definition is not theological so much as practical. How
is one to go about verifying the author’s intent? Concerning the text being conditioned by
the reader and “redefining communication,” the previous section of this thesis on how
communication works should be sufficient to explain how there is a part the reader does
play in the text, even in the creation of the text, as the author has him in mind.
While unity of the Bible and progressive revelation are admitted to, there is no
ability to receive verbal answers concerning interpretive decisions regarding these texts.
Christopher notes that though authorial intent cannot be appealed to, one’s interpretations
can be validated due to cues in the text itself. He states, “readers rely not only on their
world knowledge to interpret narrative texts, but that there are also text-based cues
present in the text itself that are not simply the product of the reader’s interpretation.”159
These are text-based cues that the author left as signposts in the writing of the text. The
signposts are part of how language works; therefore, even without the author present,
they can guide and direct to the meaning of the text.160 It would seem that this is as close
to validating authorial intent as one may get. All that is left of the author’s intent are the
textual cues. These are what must be validated or invalidated.
Validation, or probability, of meaning, is then based upon the invalidation of
competing interpretations. Johnson lists three steps in this process: (1) All incompatible
158 Rodney J. Decker, “Respecting the Text,” ShopTalk Empire State Fellowship of Regular Baptist
Churches, First Baptist Church, Schenevus, NY (6 November 2003) 5. Bible Baptist Seminary, 13 May
2005 <http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/documents/RespectTect.pdf>.
159 Christopher, Linguistics v.
160 Christopher, Linguistics 67-70.
47
interpretations of the literature are examined for viability. (2) The interpretations that are
found to be viable are tested for probability. (3) The weight of the evidence for viable
interpretations determines the level of certainty.161 Depending on the weight of the
evidence one may have practical certainty, moral certainty, or doctrinal certainty. That is,
in the consistency of the thought of the message of Scripture, in the consistency of
historical interpretation, and the consistent repetition of the concept in Scripture.162
Objectivity and Pre-understanding
Thomas states, “Before the hermeneutical revolution that began during the 1970s
and 1980s, objectivity was the highest priority. Beginning study of a text with a
conscious preunderstanding of what it would yield was unthought of […] among
evangelicals”163
Thomas admits to “incompleteness of [the] exegetical task” and welcomes
innovative approaches. He admits that human knowledge is not absolute but grows “in its
precision of understanding that knowledge. At no stage of that growth, however, is
human knowledge uncertain or tentative. It is complete to the degree that it has
progressed up to a given point, but it can become more and more definite.”164 Refinement
is permissible, but revision is not. Thomas argues that refinement implies
incompleteness, whereas revision assumes error.
It is thus apparent that while some of Thomas’s concerns may be valid, many of
his conclusions are not only faulty but display a lack of understanding of the
161 Johnson 290-306.

162 Johnson 284-88.
48
communication process, the role linguistics has traditionally played in the grammatical
hermeneutical process (though not by that name), and a carte blanche appeal to the Holy
Spirit for an objectivity that does not really exist.
Thomas states, “Neutral objectivity originates with the Creator of all things and
is available through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.”165 “The fact that God has given a
special revelation carries with it His purpose to transmit truths through that revelation,
not so people can question their ability to receive truth but so they may know His will
and ways with certainty.”166
Thus, in Thomas’s concern for objectivity he strains to argue that refinement of
truth is permissible, but revision is not. While this is not fleshed out with any specific
examples, it would seem that to change one’s understanding of God’s election from an
Arminian to a Calvinistic view would certainly be a revision according to his definitions,
and not a refinement – after all there would be a crucial change at the heart of one’s
theology which would in turn affect multiple other interpretations and theologies of
Scripture. With this being the case many exegetes have revised their theology and do not
fit into Thomas’s system. This seems unjustified.
As for the “scarcity of those willing to pay the price of diligent exegetical
study”167 (which would help bring about a return to objectivity), it would appear that this
is no more than what is currently said concerning discourse analysis. Many remark that
the investment in the process is hardly worth the limited insights garnered.168

168 See for example, Moises Silva, “Discourse Analysis and Philippians,” Discourse Analysis and Other
Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P,
1995) 102-106.
49
The issue here is still exegesis, not eisegesis as Thomas would have one believe.
To make a distinction between presuppositions and pre-understanding; presuppositions
would be those theological assumptions that are brought to the process. Examples include
the belief in God, the Bible as the revealed revelation of God. Pre-understandings would
be related but different in that they would be negotiables. For instance when, approaching
the text of 1 John, the understanding of a Johannine community would be a pre-
understanding that will affect one’s interpretation. This pre-understanding, however, can
be altered or held in check if one so desires. The presuppositions, as defined here, are
non-negotiables; they remain constant. The pre-understandings are just that,
understandings the interpreter has at the moment he comes to the text. They can be
suppressed, imposed upon the text, refined or revised (to use Thomas’s terminology).
Terry similarly states, “There are cases where it is well to assume a hypothesis, and use it
is as a means of investigation; but in all such cases the hypothesis is only assumed
tentatively, not affirmed automatically.”169
The attempt to place meaning at the center of attention in linguistics have

enriched the discipline with fresh insights from sociology, psychology,
and philosophy. In these disciplines, methods and vocabularies have been
developed to help us understand the social, cultural, and mental context
that form the matrix of meaning for language. It is not uncommon
anymore to find articles in even the well-established linguistic periodicals
on the relation of syntactic form to conversational etiquette,
presupposition, intentions, cognitive processes, world views, and even
personal values.170
The success of discourse analysis, as Reed notes, is dependent upon an acceptance
and willingness to interact with different disciplines in order to understand language.171
“Discourse analysis […] may provide the type of comprehensive methodological

170 MacDonald 153.
171 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the NT” 247.
50
framework necessary for modern linguistics to become a usable hermeneutic for ‘non-
linguistic’ New Testament scholars.”172
Therefore, contrary to Thomas’s assertion, not only are some biblical scholars
beginning to understand the significance of discourse analysis for biblical interpretation,
aspects of the larger discipline, linguistics, have in limited ways, been employed for
hundreds of years as Terry indicates. Thus, Thomas’s assertions are misplaced. Terry,
whom Thomas uses to support his position, in context, supports the type of analysis that
discourse analysis proposes. It is important, therefore, to understand the components of
discourse analysis.
Components of Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a broad field with numerous approaches. This section will
highlight some of the more important features that are often included in a discussion of
discourse analysis. Not all discourse analysis includes all these features. Some include
others not mentioned. However, the ones presented here are significant for understanding
the contribution discourse analysis makes to hermeneutics.
Determining Genre
172 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the NT” 247. Note also Porter’s bemoaning of the lack of integration
of discourse analysis and linguistic studies with traditional hermeneutical practice in Stanley E. Porter, “An
Introduction to Other Topics, ” Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics, ed., Stanley E. Porter and D. A.
Carson (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1993) 84-89.
51
In choosing to speak or write in a particular genre the speaker/author chooses to
support or reject certain standard formulas. If they are supported, the author must then
choose both between an obligatory or optional formula and between a canonical or
modified one.173 Reed lists eight questions that enter into this particular decision-making
process.174
1. What elements must occur

(obligatory)?
2. What elements may occur
(optional)?
3. Where must they occur?
4. Where may they occur?
5. How often must they occur?
6. How often may they occur?
7. What function must they have?
8. What function may they have?
Determining Text-type
MacDonald notes that “In addition to having specific functions for linguistic
devices, each discourse type (narrating, describing, teasing, dreaming, etc.) has a set of
characteristic strategies that may be used to accomplish its global speech act.”175 This is
the realm of macro-structure.
Tuggy defines six primary semantic genres. He notes the difference between
semantic genres and grammatical genres. The latter are similar to the traditional
understanding of genre. The former, however, concern how authorial intent and
sequentiality interact on a cognititive level. “Grammatical genre are characterized by
certain surface forms which are language specific and very frequently reflect the author’s
173 Reed. “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism,” Linguistics and the New Testament, ed. Stanley
E. Porter and D. A. Carson, JSNTS 168 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1999) 41.
174 Reed. “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism” 41.
175 MacDonald 164. He additionally cites van Dijk who found that the following macrostructures are
unwittingly used to disguise ethnically prejudiced speech: generalization, correction, denial, (apparent)
concessions, contrast, mitigation, displacement, avoidance, and indirectness (MacDonald 164 n30).
52
intent and sequentiality.”176 Thus, there can be a discrepancy between the semantic and
grammatical genre in a text. “For instance, the Gospels are primarily narrative surface
genre but have an underlying hortatory intent by showing the addressee how he should or
should not react to the message.”177 Figure three depicts Tuggy’s comparison of the six
primary semantic genres.
-sequentiality +sequentiality
To Affect Behavior Hortatory Procedural
1 John 2:15-17 Luke 19:30-31
To Affect Ideas Expository Narrative
1 John 1:5 Mark 1:21-28
To Affect Emotions Emotional Descriptive
John 12:27-28a 1 John 1:1-3
Fig. 2. Primary Semantic Genres178
Tuggy explains,
The three intents have an ascending impact on the addressed form

affecting the emotions to affecting the ideas and actions. The addressee is
constantly anticipating the greater impact intended by the communicator.
(For example: When my father used to say, “How would you like to feed
the dog?” I knew well the answer should not be, “No, not just now.” His
intent was a mitigated command, “Please, feed the dog.” The grammatical
request for information affecting ideas was intended and understood as
affecting actions.)
Because of the mismatching between the semantics and the grammar, and
because of the principle of ascending addressee impact, the communicator
has various rhetorical devices for achieving his intention on the addressee.
He can use this mismatching as a communicative strategy.179
Thus, following figure two; a hortatory text intends “to affect the behavior of the
addressee without focusing on temporal sequence,” a procedural text intends “to affect
176 John C. Tuggy, “Semantic Paragraph Patterns: A Fundamental Communication Concept and
Interpretive Tool,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, ed. David
Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 49. Emphasis added.
177 Tuggy 49.
178 Tuggy 49. Emphasis added.
179 Tuggy 49-50.
53
the behavior of the addressee focusing on temporal or spatial sequence,” and expository
texts intend “to affect the ideas of the addressee without focusing on temporal sequence.”
Similarly, narrative texts intend “to affect the ideas while focusing on temporal
sequence;” emotional texts intend “to affect the emotions of the addressee without
focusing on spatial sequence;” and descriptive texts intend “to affect the emotions of the
addressee focusing on spatial sequence.”180 Understanding text-types helps one to
understand, the intent of the author and what he is trying to accomplish in the text. As this
is understood the relationship between the different units of the text becomes clearer.
Determining Paragraph (Unit) Boundaries
Unit boundaries are important because they define the parameters of particular
topics and thought flow. Multiple units are linked together to form one cohesive discourse
– the text. Several different features mark unit boundaries.
Organic Ties. Organic ties are primarily conjunctions – particles that mark transitions.
They are often signaled by prepositions, grammatical structure, and conventionalized
lexical items.181 “Particles, connective, and fixed phrases occurring at or near the
beginning of sentences may signal the start of a new unit. Additionally, authorial
signposts, structural patterns, and boundary phenomenon may indicate new units.”182
“The surest guide to unit boundaries is always referential and purposive cohesion within
the proposed units, and contrast with adjacent units”183
180 Tuggy 50-51.

181 Reed, “Cohesiveness” 32-33.
182 Kathleen Callow, Man 214. Callow suggests color coding all related concepts (not just words),
including pronouns, articles, etc. “A clustering of coloured markings frequently occurs at the end of a
configuration, when the writer is bringing his thoughts to a conclusion” (Man 212). “Segments not marked
for any of the main conceptual areas is non thematic material such as illustrative, comments, asides, etc. It
should not be thought that there is any great differences between narrative and expository texts as far as
analytical technique are concerned” (Man 212).
54
Organic ties make up the logical system of language and consist of two functional
systems. Reed labels these (1) interdependency or taxis, and (2) expansion or projection
(limited to the clause and paragraph level). Interdependency is subdivided into hypotaxis
and parataxis. Hypotaxis is a modifying relationship in which one element is dependent
upon another and the order of the elements varies. There is a primary and a secondary
clause. In parataxis the relationship between the elements is of equal status. They can
stand independently of each other. Parataxis is dependent on the order of the elements,
the primary clause preceding the secondary clause.184
In this category, the relationship between the clauses is one of dependency. Either
a dependent element modifies an independent element or, if the clauses are equal in
status, the primary clause occurs first.
The second category deals with one clause expanding the other. “In Projection,
the secondary clause is ‘projected’ through the primary clause by means of (1) a
locution185 or (2) an idea.”186 In the case of Expansion, the secondary clause ‘expands’ the
primary clause in one of three ways: (1) elaboration,187 (2) extension,188 or (3)
enhancement.”189 For further distinctions of expanding, extending, and enhancing textual
relations see Appendix C.
184 Reed, “Cohesiveness” 33.

185 Locution occurs with verbs of saying or hearing (direct or indirect discourse). In Greek the secondary
clause is usually expressed with the infinitive or finite verb forms with particles such as o[ti, eiv, or w`j.
See Reed, “Cohesiveness” 33.
186 Idea covers a broad range of projections in which the clause has shifted down into the slot of
complement; in this way the idea is a way of “completing” the process of the primary clause. These are
commonly expressed with infinitives or o[ti hoti construction in the secondary clause. See Reed,
“Cohesiveness” 33.
187 The secondary clause (or phrase) expands upon the primary by “elaborating” on it (or some portion of
it), that is, restating, specifying, commentating or exemplifying. See Reed, “Cohesiveness” 34.
188 The secondary clause “expands” the primary clause by moving beyond it, namely by adding to it,
giving an exception or offering an alternative. See Reed, “Cohesiveness” 34.
189 The secondary clause “expands” the primary clause by qualifying it with a circumstantial feature of
time, place, cause or condition. See Reed, “Cohesiveness” 34.
55
Besides creating links in the discourse, organic ties also set boundaries. They help
determine how far ahead of the current text the particular discourse (or section) extends.
Componential Ties. Whereas organic ties are concerned with the relationship of clauses
and paragraphs to each other, componential ties are concerned with the relationship of
individual linguistic components (words and phrases). Following Halliday, Reed notes
three types of componential ties: (1) co-reference,190 (2) co-classification191 and (3) co-
extension.192
When a reader cannot locate the referent of a particular participant in a text,
interpretation quickly breaks down. In narrative texts, Christopher notes that when the
text-based cues are not recognized, participants are incorrectly associated with non-
corresponding action.193 Since meaning lies in the text, “readers of diverse backgrounds
can arrive at the correct interpretation.”194 This is possible because “The author never
abandons the reader to independently transverse unknown territory.”195 Concerning
narratives Christopher remarks, “not all interpretations are valid, because the narrative
190 Co-classification are componential ties between linguistic items of the same identity. This may be
located in the context of the situation and culture (Exophoric) or in within the language of the discourse
itself. In the latter case it may refer to elements in the preceding (Anaphoric) or following (Cataphoric)
discourse. See Reed, “Cohesiveness” 36-37. Additionally the notion of deixis – the ability of language
users to employ linguistic forms to “point to” or “indicate” elements of the co-text or context of situation, is
relevant here. Person Deixis refers to the encoding of various participants (animate or inanimate) of a
context of situation into a discourse. Temporal Deixis is a way in which elements of a discourse may be tied
to a context of a situation. It indicates location in time. Place Deixis concerns the spatial locations of
person/objects relative to other persons/objects (Reed. “Cohesiveness” 38-40). See also Reed, “Modern
Linguistics and the NT” 236-38); Cotterell and Turner 236-40.
191 Denotation – refers to cohesive ties between linguistic items of the same class or genus. This may be
noted by substitution or ellipsis (Reed, “Cohesiveness” 40-41).
192 Sense – refers to cohesive ties between linguistic items of the same semantic field, but not necessarily
of the same class. These ties are primarily lexical – using words with similar senses to talk about similar
things in similar ways. These may be of two types: Instantial Lexical Relationships which arise from the
particular demands of the text in question or General Lexical Relationship that originate from the language
system itself. Generally co-extensions take five forms: Reiteration (same lexical item), Synonymy (similar
meaning), Antonymy (opposite meaning), Hyponymy (one lexical item included in the domain of the
other), Metonymy (one lexical item is part of the other; part of the whole) (Reed, “Cohesiveness” 41-43).
193 Christopher, Linguistics 3.
195 Chrisopher, Linguistics 47.
56
presents a limited field of possible interpretations. As such the narrative controls and
constrains the reader’s response.”196 “A change in social context involves changes in the
relations between speakers and hearers, which in turn causes changes in the selection and
function of the linguistic forms.”197

197 MacDonald 157.
57
Cohesion. Reed notes, “‘cohesiveness’ has been a central concern of linguistics ever
since modern linguists turned their concerted attention to the study of complete discourse
rather than isolated sentences.” The issue of cohesion asks the following questions:
“How is it that speakers go about forming texts into a complete unit? How do they
combine unrelated words and sentences into a meaningful whole? Why are some texts
considered more coherent than others?198
Reed notes, however, that there has been surprisingly little discussion of such
issues in terms of linguistic models in the New Testament literature.199 Additionally, it
should be noted that in general texts are cohesive in some form. A totally incohesive text
is an extreme exception in human communication.200 “What all types of cohesion have in
common is that every instance presumes some other element in the text for its
interpretation; and hence, a tie is set up between it and what it presumes.”201
Halliday notes that cohesion may be achieved in multiple ways:
In reference, what is presumed is some semantic representation: of a

participant, for example, […] but also of a semantic construct of any
extent. In substitution and ellipsis, on the other hand, what is presumed is a
lexicogrammatical representation, some piece of wording that has to be
retrieved, […]; this is a different kind of textual retrieval and rarely
extends beyond one clause complex. Conjunction refers to the
nonstructural representation of logical-semantic relations that may also be
expressed structurally; […]. Lexical cohesion is created by the repetition
of a lexical item […]; the use of synonym […]; the use of a high frequency
collocate […]; or the use of a hyponym or superordinate – an item within
the same lexical202 set but differing in generality […].203
Reed, “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism” 37.

198 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism”37.
199 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism”38.
200 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism” 61.
201 M. A. K. Halliday, “Dimensions of Discourse Analysis: Grammar,”Dimensions of Discourse, Vol. 2 of
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. Teun A. van Dijk, (New York: Academic P, 1985) 50.
202 The same semantic domain.
203 Halliday 50-51.
58
Though cohesion is an essential property of texts, it is the way the cohesive resources are
deployed that distinguishes one text from another.204
Discourse analysts attempt “to identify how a given language is used to create
cohesive communication.”205 At the base level, cohesiveness refers to the means by which
an immediate linguistic context meaningfully relates to a preceding context and/or a
context of situation (i.e. meaningful relationship between text, co-text and context).206
The manner in which the relationships are tied together is primarily semantic (meaning
based) not syntactic.207
204 Halliday 54.

205 Reed, “Cohesiveness of Discourse” 28. Emphasis in original.
206 Reed, Cohesiveness of Discourse” 29.
207 Reed, “Cohesiveness of Discourse” 33.
59
Prominence. Prominence is the part of a text that is being emphasized. This may be
accomplished in a number of ways. Often times what appears to be grammatically
important may actually be subordinate to what is semantically being highlighted (made
prominent).
Callow lists three types and possible functions related to these types. Lexical
prominence may be denoted by specificity, emotive elements or inherent forcefulness.
Rhetorical prominence may be denoted by figures of speech, patterned argument, and
sandwich structures. Departures from the norm include such elements as exploits,
surprise, syntax (word order, truncated constructions, verb usage), and lexical word
combinations. Visual prominence would be such aspects as underlining, italics, etc.208
Callow points out that noting prominence in texts is not enough, it must be stated
why it is there: its function. Is it to highlight the topic? Induce surprise? Arouse emotion?
Induce some other reaction? Callow also ranks these types by relevance of prominence as
follows (1) Deviation from norms (2) Rhetorical (3) Lexical.209
Reed states that
the first factor to consider when analysing prominence is what type (or
genre) of discourse is under study. […] What is true of prominence in
narrative may not be true of prominence in non-narrative. […] Another
factor to consider […] is the domain or extent to which a linguistic
element has prominence in the discourse.” […] The final factor for
identifying background, theme and focus is knowing how the linguistic
code of a given discourse is used to produce prominence.210

209 These corresponds roughly with Reed’s three categories; phonetic, syntactic, and semantic in Jeffrey
T. Reed, “Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis,” Discourse Analysis
and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, JSNTS 113 (Sheffield, Eng.:
Sheffield Academic P, 1995) 82-83.
210 Jeffery T. Reed, “Identifying Theme” 80-82. Emphasis in original.
60
What was thematic in the previous paragraph may only be background material in the
next. This “domain” may involve the phrase, clause, paragraph, or entire discourse. “Thus
it is possible to speak of the background of phrases, clauses, paragraphs and discourses,
and the focus of phrases, clauses, paragraphs and discourses.”211 He additionally notes
that some features of Koine Greek are particular to one level of discourse and not to
others. Background elements, however, have no limit as to their domain as they coincide
with theme, which has no limits.212
Focal prominence is typically relegated to the clause and occasionally to the
paragraph. The domain for focal prominence is normally less than that of theme. That
which has more domain would naturally be more thematic. Generally, the larger the
domain, the more important (and the more likely it is to be thematic) it is.213
Concerning the linguistic code, the issue is the signaling devices or textual
(lexical) cues found in the text. Usually it is a multitude of signals that indicate
prominence, not just one. Semantic fields, verbal aspect, voice, mood, word order, and
formal features of genre all play a role in determining prominence.214
211 Reed, “Identifying Theme” 81. Emphasis in original.

212 Reed, “Identifying Theme” 81.
213 Reed, “Identifying Theme” 81-82.
214 See Reed, “Identifying Theme” 83-90; Ralph Bruce Terry, An Analysis of Certain Features of
Discourse in the New Testament Book of 1 Corinthians, diss. U of Texas at Arlington, 1993 (Dallas: SIL
and U of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics 120) 1993, 7ff. 1 June 2005
<http://web.ovc.edu/terry/dissertation/index.htm>.
61
Semantic Chains. The basis for the chain is that similar kinds of things are said about
similar kinds of phenomena. Reed notes, “A chain is formed by a set of discourse
lexemes each of which is related to the others by the semantic relation of co-reference,215
co-classification,216 and/or co-extension.”217 Chains may be of two types: identity or
similarity. Co-referential ties express Identity Chains and co-classificational and co-
extensional ties express Similarity Chains.218
In attempting to determine the importance of semantic chains, Reed notes that
there must be a differentiation between peripheral, relevant, and central tokens.
Peripheral tokens include those linguistic items that do not take part in a chain. This
happens when a topic is brought up and then subsequently dropped. Relevant tokens
include all linguistic items in the text that are part of one or more chains.219 Central tokens
refer to linguistic items in chains that interact with linguistic items in other chains. These
are the tokens that primarily are associated with textual cohesiveness. These mainly
involve chain interactions. Lexical items (two or more) from one chain are used in
conjunction with lexical items (two or more) of another chain. Typically, chain interaction
involves a chain of participants and one of events; however, this is not required.
215 Co-reference (reference) ties are those cohesive ties between linguistic items of the same identity.
Examples are pronouns and demonstratives, See Reed, “Cohesiveness” 41, 43.
216 Co-classification (denotation) ties are those cohesive ties between linguistic items of the same class or
genus. Examples are substitution and ellipsis (Reed, “Cohesiveness” 41, 43).
217 Co-extension ties (sense) are those ties between linguistic items of the same semantic field, but not
necessarily of the same class. For example, instantial co-extension ties are those tied to the situational
context. Examples of general co-extension ties are repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and
meronymy (Reed, “Cohesiveness” 41- 43).
218 Reed, “Cohesiveness” 43.
219 Reed states, “It should not be concluded. however, that a high proportion of relevant tokens to
peripheral tokens necessitates greater textual cohesiveness (although it may play some role).” Reed,
“Cohesiveness” 44.
62
Determining Topic
“Any communicative unit is about something.”220 Topic is the prominent
conceptual material in a message.221 It refers to conceptual material that is of central
importance throughout a unit. It is always referential, important, and extensive.222 Topic
functions two-dimensionally. It conveys and assimilates new information to the reader,
and structurally it marks major prominence bearing elements in its interrelated patterns. If
the message sender perceives that the recipient already has the appropriate material
foregrounded and does not need any of the signals reactivated, the topic may not be
overtly introduced.223 Where the exact topic is not repeated it is assumed until a new topic
is introduced.224 A topic is not static; as a concept moves through the message and is
related to other concepts, it develops. 225
The topic of a sentence is what that sentence is about. It usually denotes
something already stated in the discourse; that is, “old” information, or something that is
assumed to be part of the knowledge base of the hearer, or “given” information. A topic is
usually the first major constituent; the subject and topic are usually the same. The topic of
a sentence is what the speaker perceives that sentence to be about, and must be that
starting point for all sentenial interpretation.226
The comment of the sentence, in contrast, is what is said about the topic.
Whatever is not part of the topic is usually comment material. The new information
(comment) is to be added the pool of information related to that topic within that
220 Kathleen Callow, “Patterns” 195.

226 MacDonald 168.
63
discourse. The topic limits the semantic interpretation of the rest of the sentence.
Everything else must be interpreted in such a way as to relate to the topic. When
successive sentences have the same topic continuity is built. Often (depending on the
language), syntax may mark this occurrence. 227 Beekman and Callow state, “The basic
criterion is that a section, or a paragraph, deals with one theme [topic]. If the theme
changes, then a new unit has started.”228 In other words each section should have one
subject as its focus. “[T]he paragraph is the smallest propositional configuration whose
information can be classed in terms of the various discourse genres.” It functions within
“a higher-level unit, typically the section” and its communication role could be “Grounds,
Equivalent, Specific, Introduction, etc., in nonnarrative material; Setting, Occasion,
Problem, etc., in narrative.”229
Concerning topic in the Greek language Beekman et al. state,
Since the natural topic and topics marked by the use of the passive are in
the nominative case in Greek, forefronted topics are generally in the
accusative, genitive, or dative case (though a topic in the genitive case
seems rather less likely). […] The function of the passive construction is
to topicalize concepts functioning in the roles of Affectant, Beneficiary, or
Instrument. In units where a concept is the Affectant of a command Event,
a device used in Greek to topicalize it is the third person imperative form
(which allows the retention of the imperative mood) with a forefronted
subject that represents the Affectant concept.230 […] When a Topic
Orienter (one of the orientation roles) is used to identify and announce the
topic, that topic is considered marked. Examples of this are found in 1 Cor
12:1 and 16:1, where the forefronted peri de… ‘now concerning…’ phrase
introduces the topics of spiritual gifts and the collection for the saints,
respectively.231
227 MacDonald 168-9.

228 John Beekman and John Callow, Translating the Word of God: With Scripture and Topical Indexes
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) 279.
229 John Beekman, John Callow, and Michael Kopesec, The Semantic Structure of Written
Communication, 5th ed. (Dallas: SIL, 1981) 118.
230 Beekman, Callow, and Kopesec 121.
231 Beekman, Callow, and Kopesec 121-2.
64
Determining Theme
Theme is a universal phenomenon in all languages. The prominent core of the
developing message is its theme. A message without development has topic but no
theme.232 There must be some progression of the message for theme to be present.
Thematic prominence is signaled grammatically and lexically.
The goal is to determine which factors in meaning structures define the theme(s)
of the text. These factors are independent of the particular language used to express them.
Theme, therefore, is not simply the most prominent or important material. It is prominent
material that moves the message forward towards the communicators’ goal. It is the
framework of the message development.233 It is the planned line of development of the
message to be sent. The theme relates closely to purposive or schema relations. Different
parts of the theme stand in schematic relationship to each other, with relationships such
as directive-motivation, thesis-evidence, and purpose-fulfillment.
Theme is more than just these sets of relationships – it also has content. The
theme of a configuration consists of that prominent referential material234 in the unit that
carries its purposive thrust.235 Overlapping themes share the same referential material but
may terminate separately. Multiple themes may be interwoven together, all with their
own sub-schemas.236
232 Kathleen Callow, Man 230-31. See also Reed, “Identifying Theme” 80-82.
233 Kathleen Callow, Man 230-31. See also Reed, “Identifying Theme” 80-82.
234 Callow lists several types of relations. Referential relations are determined by the referential world of
the message. They organize one’s mental content to correspond to the relationship found in the objective
world, especially those of time and causality. Reporting relations make clear who said what. Temporal,
causal, and reporting relations are all either claimed to be true of the world of the message, or are envisaged
as consistent with that world. Schema relations are determined by the author’s purpose. The author’s
faculties of comparison and association determine presentation relations. See also Kathleen Callow, Man
250ff.
235 See Kathleen Callow, Man 231ff and Reed, “Identifying Theme” 80-82.
236 See also Kathleen Callow, Man 246ff.
65
Figure three depicts several features Reed lists that help to determine the thematic
elements of a text, over and against the background elements.
More Salient (Thematic) Less Salient (Background)

human nonhuman
animate inanimate
concrete abstract
thing-like, solid, discrete unformed, diffuse, shapeless, unbroken
well-defined, tightly organized less definite, unstructured, loosely organized
countoured, surrounded, bounded, boundless
enclosed
localized unlocalized
with distinguishing parts without distinguishable parts
near far
above, in front below, behind
greater contrast lesser contrast
stable unstable
symmetric irregular
Fig. 3. Thematic Elements in New Testament Discourse237
Determining Surface Structure
Texts have both a surface structure and a deep structure.
By the term “surface structure” is meant not only the grammatical

structure, but also the lexical items used and their collocations. It also
refers to the particular grammatical form used in the text – the use of a
finite verb, rather than a participle; the use of an abstract noun to represent
an Event; the arrangement of the material so that some information is in
focus, other information is not; the use of syntactic shifts to indicate
emphasis, etc. These and other grammatical and lexical features are
embraced by the expression “surface structure,” and an analysis of the
semantic structure is an attempt to bring out the significance of all of the
information carried by the surface structure.238
Beekman, Callow, and Kopesec list eleven surface structure features that are beneficial in
determining paragraph boundaries in Koine Greek.239
237 Adapted from Reed, “Identifying Theme” 84.

238 Beekman and Callow 270.
239 Beekman, Callow, and Kopesec 116.
66
1. Generic previews (1 Cor. 7:1).

2. Rhetorical questions (Rom. 6:1, 15).
3. Forefronted topics (1 Cor. 2:6; 1 Tim. 5:3; 6:1) or
participants (Col. 1:21; 2:13).
4. Sandwich Structures (Col. 1:3, 8; 1:3, 12; 1:3-5; and 2:5).
5. Parallelism (Col. 2:20 and 3:1).
6. Vocatives (Jude 3,17).
7. Orienters – speech (1 Cor. 1:4, 10) and nonspeech (1 Thess.
5:13).
8. Conjunctions which can occur paragraph initial, such as
oun ‘therefore’, de ‘but, and’, kai ‘and’, gar ‘for’, and dio
‘therefore’.
9. Tail-head transitions, i.e. information at the end of one
paragraph repeated near the beginning of the next paragraph (1
Cor. 2:5, 6 (sophia ‘wisdom’); Col. 1:5-6 (euaggelion ‘gospel’)).240
10. Genitive absolutes (1 Thess. 3:6)
11. Topic-announcing devices – peri de … ‘now concerning
…’ (1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 1 Thess. 4:9; 5:1).
Callow states, “anything unanticipated always carries with it a degree of prominence
[…].”241
Determining Deep Structure
Whereas the surface structure of a text is visible, the deep structure is not.
Chomsky taught that beneath the surface structure of any statement lay a deeper structure
that conveyed the meaning behind the statement.242 The surface structure (signs) points to
the real meaning. This is not to say that the surface structure is to be ignored. To do so
would be tantamount to ignoring the package the present came in. The package generally
provides clues as to the nature of the present. So too, the surface structure provides
textual clues to the meaning intended. Osborne notes that a by-product of this type of
240 See also George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text Linguistic Analysis (Grand
Rapids: Baker) 1994; George H. Guthrie, “Cohesion Shifts and Stitches in Philippians,” Discourse Analysis
and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, JSNTS 113 (Sheffield, Eng.:
Sheffield Academic P, 1995) 36-59.

242 Osborne 80.
67
analysis is the elimination of ambiguities.243 At the same time Osborne cautions, “it is
possible to go to extremes and virtually replace the surface structure (the text) with the
deep structure (ideas underlying the text).”244
The distinction between surface structure and meaning involves several

points of difference. First, the surface structure of a language is specific to
it; it is, in fact, unique. No two languages have identical surface structures
[…]. Surface structure is what may be termed “multifunctional.” That is to
say, a given grammatical construction may signal different meanings
depending on the context; a lexical item may also have a number of
senses. Further, and more significant, a given word or expression may be
fulfilling several functions simultaneously. For example, when the apostle
John addresses his readers as “beloved,” he is using the vocative
construction to call the attention of the readers to what is following, quite
possibly a change of topic, or a new aspect of a topic. He is also giving
expression to the relationship existing between himself and them, one of
love. More than one semantic function is thus carried by a single
grammatical construction or a lexical item in its grammatical form.245
Determining the deep structure is what lies behind Louw’s work on the kernel sentence.
Isolating the kernel helps him to determine the proposition being put forth. This is seen in
his Semantics of New Testament Greek. He states, “the author himself did not begin with
the surface structure. The surface structure is rather the result of a process. The
restructuring of the narrative is only one small part of the process since layers of deep
structures exist. In this connection it is also helpful to bear in mind the actual process of
communication.”246
Louw then proceeds to elaborate upon the use of the colon in breaking down discourses
into manageable units to decipher. His argument is thus based upon the idea that what is
243 Osborne 80. This is contrary to Thomas’s assertions in Evangelical Hermeneutics that these
methodologies and others like them support ambiguity. While certain authors may propose ambiguity, such
ambiguity is not necessarily mandated. See Osborne pp. 23, 24, 56-57, 63ff., 201, etc. Some of these are in
regard to ambiguity in definitions, others relate indirectly or directly to the hermeneutical endeavor itself.
244 Osborne 94.
245 Beekman and Callow 270-71.
246 Louw, Semantics 94.
68
written (surface structure) is what is extant of what was in the author’s mind. The written
text is the expression of the author’s theme he wished to communicate.247 Various theories
of communication attempt to more accurately determine the deep structure of a text.
Communication Theory. Porter writes, “Communication theory may not appear at first
glance to fall under the rubric of linguists, but the fact that one of the earliest and most
important communication models was developed by the polymath – and linguist – Roman
Jakobson and has been discussed in terms of rhetorical theory leads me to include it
[…].”248
Reed states,
The concept of speech acts, originating in the works of the philosophers

Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, H. P. Grice, and John Searle, and the
closely related concepts of presupposition and implicature have already
resulted in more methodologically precise discussions of New Testament
texts and their situation contexts.
Austin, for example highlighted the ways in which speakers do something

through performative utterances (e.g. ‘I hereby declare you husband and
wife’), or direct speech acts. In indirect speech acts, the illocution force of
the utterance (e.g. yes-no question in ‘Can you help me out here?’) distorts
its intended function (e.g. request). Pragmatics is concerned with the
principles used by listeners to draw inferences from utterances and their
contexts in order to interpret them.249
Saddock explains,
the philosopher John Austin (1962) distinguished among three types of
acts that are ordinarily performed by someone who produces an utterance:
locutionary, perlocutionary, and illocutionary acts. Locutionary acts are,
according to Austin, those acts that form the substance of speech – they
are acts of making use of the grammar of the language, its phonology,
syntax, and semantics. Perlocutionary acts are the by-products (hence
per-) of speaking certain words in a particular context. Typically, the
affected party is the person spoken to, who may be embarrassed, confused,
or convinced by what has been said. Though it is usual to treat the
247 See Louw, Semantics 91-158.

248 Porter, “Linguistics and Rhetorical Criticism,” Linguistics and the New Testament, ed. Stanley E.
Porter and D. A. Carson, JSNTS 168 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1999) 77.
249 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the NT” 239. Emphasis in original.
69
aforementioned effects as exhausting the range of perlocution (as in Davis

1976), for completeness we must also include among perlocutions those
by-products effects of speech that are not visited upon the addressee, e.g.
embarrassing oneself, or divulging a secret to an eavesdropper.
“Typical illocutionary acts include asserting, demanding, inquiring, dubbing, defining,
sentencing a defendant in court of law, and pronouncing a couple husband and wife.”250
Saddock compares the importance of the illocutionary act in speech to the death of
someone in an assassination. “Performing a locutionary act is more like pulling the
trigger, while performing a perlocutionary act is like causing the government to fall.”251
“Illocutionary acts share some affinities to locutionary acts and some affinities to
perlocutionary acts and can be confused with either, particularly the latter.”252
Illocutionary acts are “what one does in saying something.” The perlocutionary act is the
effect of the speech act – the result or by-product of the act.253 Sadock notes,
These distinctions between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts suggest

two quite distinct methods of pinning down illocution, both of which
Austin and his linguistic and philosophical followers have employed. The
first is to seek within the grammar of the language the conventions that
determine the force of an utterance, and the second is to investigate the
conditions that determine the success of an illocutionary act, i.e. its felicity
conditions.254
Neufeld255 notes four ways in which the illocutionary force of a speech act may be
evident: expressive, commissive, representative, and directive. Expressives most clearly
reveal attitudes. Most prominent is the attitude of belief. It is a representation of the way
Sadock 183. Emphasis in original.

250 Sadock 183-84.
251 Sadock 184.
252 Sadock 183.
253 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics, (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2002) 172-73.
254 Sadock 184.
255 Dietmar Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John, ed. R. Alan Culpepper
and Rolf Rendtorff, Biblical Interpretation Series 7 (New York: E. J. Brill, 1994) 54-56.
70
things are perceived, and thought to be an accurate reflection of such things. Expressives
also relate the speaker to another person in the context of human behavior and social
relations. Commissives involve commitments that are not merely “verbal;” they make
future commitments that are non-verbal, e.g., a commitment to “how” it has been stated
in written discourse and its implications, especially in certain clearly circumscribed
speech. The point of the representative is to commit the speaker to something being the
case (assumed true for instance). It is used when expounding views, arguing, or
clarifying. The representative also implies the author’s desire to engage the reader in a
consideration of how he has written it and its implications for ethical behavior. Directives
imply the author’s desire for something to be so, whether a certain course of action or the
consequences of certain ideas. The point of the directive consists in the attempt by the
author to get the readers to do something in accordance with his desire. Hence, “speech
act theory underscores that the propositional content and meaning of each of the passages
may also be determined on the basis of their illocutionary force. […] Speech acts with the
illocutionary force of a commissive, an expressive, a representative, and a directive and
their implicature play a primary role in making explicit intention and attitude.”256
Concerning the illocutionary act approach to texts, Osborne notes that the concern is with
the determination of the actual conditions that communicate meaning.257 He further states,
“These conditions must be culture-specific; they must be aligned with the way the
individual culture communicates. This means that at every stage of biblical study the
speech patterns of the ancient culture (biblical Hebrew or Greek) must determine the
semantic principles.”258 Thus, the linguistic context of the culture in which the text
256 Neufeld 56. Emphasis in original.

257 Osborne 65.
258 Osborne 65.
71
originated in must be analyzed in order to more fully comprehend the text itself. As
Sadock notes, “What might be treated grammatically in a parallel fashion with other
speech act distinctions in one language may be treated differently in another.”259 The goal
in analyzing the communicative act is to determine the intent, not simply the actual
statement, of the communicative act. This is a pragmatic concern.
Pragmatics. “The pragmatic approach to discourse is taken by linguists under the
influence of the work done by philosophers on speech act theory, in which discourse is
considered a form of action that is motivated by the speaker’s intentions or beliefs about
the situation.”260
“Pragmatics,” […] is the study of the information transmitted by the

utterance that goes beyond the information that is carried by the
grammatical lexical patterns. It concerns such information as the speaker’s
beliefs, knowledge, commitments, social status, purpose for speaking, etc.
These factors are part of the psychosocial context of the discourse and
give the utterance meanings that are not always clear in the semantics of
the forms themselves.261
To summarize, “pragmatics is the study of the variation of meanings of an utterance that
are caused by shifts in the conditions of its utterance.”262 Ferrara takes “pragmatics to
refer to the systematic study of the relations between the linguistic properties of
utterances and their properties as social action.”263 Though similar to speech act theory,
and rooted in it, it is not exactly synonymous. “In contrast to classical speech act theory,
it studies speech acts as part of the sequential environment to which they are tied, and it
259 Sadock 185.

260 MacDonald 158.
261 MacDonald 162.
262 MacDonald 162. Emphasis in original.
263 Alessandro Ferrara, “Pragmatics,” Dimensions of Discourse, Vol. 2 of Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (New York: Academic P, 1985) 138.
72
pays attention to their contribution to the local and global coherence of a text.” It also
includes the element of perlocutionary intent, unlike classical speech act theory.264
Citing R. M. Harnish, Reed states a principle that follows: “Make the strongest
relevant claim justifiable by your evidence.”265 As a point of explanation he notes the
implication (B) made from the assertion (A) in 1 Cor. 4:18 (RSV).
A: ‘Some are arrogant (as though I were not coming to you.)’

B: ‘Some are not arrogant.’266
Reed further comments that B is derived pragmatically, not logically, from A, as A could
be true even when B is false. “Accordingly, Paul’s choice of the weaker statement
(evfusiw,qhsa,n tinej) implicates that he was not in a position to assert a stronger
one (evfusiw,qhsa,n pa,ntej). In other words he makes the strongest relevant claim
justifiable by his evidence”267
“On a speech act view, there is a built-in safeguard against reducing meaning to
propositional information. As we have seen, speech acts have matter and energy,
propositions and illocutionary force, not to mention aims and objectives.”268
Determining Schema
Schema refers to the knowledge that is part of the shared pool of knowledge
between the sender and receiver in a communicative act. It is specifically that material
that combines to carry the message forward and form cohesive patterning.
MacDonald states,
264 Ferrara 139-140.

265 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament” 239 n42.
266 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament” 239 n42.
267 Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament” 239-40.

268 Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning 415
73
Cognitive linguists attempt to model the mental processes involved in the

production and reception of discourse. The essential cognitive context for
communication is a mental representation of information known variously
as “scripts,” “schemata,” or “frames.” These represent the knowledge of
everyday events that both the speaker and hearer have acquired through
experience. During the production and reception of discourse, certain
knowledge is activated by the social circumstances and the content of the
discourse. These scripts allow the hearer to make sense of discourse even
when the discourse itself is […] elliptical, imprecise, [or] loaded with
presuppositions.269
Callow notes that the schema consists of the “prominent elements of a particular
kind; elements that carry the purposive flow of the message and combine to form the
significant patterning of the message.” The three main types are (1) Purposive (2)
Referential and (3) Non schematic. Since there are unlimited types of messages there are
literally unlimited schemas. To determine the patterns one must look to the source; that
is, the (1) message senders’ purpose (2) addressees anticipated attitude and (3)
importance of message content.270
Callow further notes that the most prominent part of the unit, conveying the
central information, evaluation, directive, etc. is called the “head” unit. There may be
more than one head in a message. Within a particular schema,271 all the other elements
support the head. A directive for instance is supported with motivation, information with
belief, volition with action, experience with attitudes.272 The supporting structures attempt
to gain the co-operation of the addressee.273
From the point of view of the message schema, the most important kind of
referential material is that which creates or resolves some kind of tension. This tension
269 MacDonald 160.

271 For distinctions concerning the various types of schemas see Kathleen Callow, Man 188ff.
273 Cf. this aspect to rhetorical proposals in discourse analysis. See especially works by Duane F. Watson
in Appendix A.
74
will involve something that is undesirable, unexplainable, or difficult to attain. The
expectation is that the tension will be resolved later in the message.274 Hence, problems
are resolved with resolution, purpose with fulfillment, and puzzles/mysteries with
explanations.275
Schematic elements in a text also contribute to marking boundaries. Callow
states, “Both change of import and change of schematic function determine boundaries.
Hence if a text displays different imports as it develops, it should be colour-marked for
import. If it is homogenous as to import, it should be colour-marked for schematic
function.”276 In texts of one import throughout, unit boundaries are often marked by
change in schematic function.277
274 Cf. to plot analysis in narrative texts. Callow further notes that Volitional configurations often end in
evaluative or informational patterns. However, in Volitional Schema Patterns the only essential element is
the proposed action. This on its own provides no purposive development; hence, there is no schema.
Supporting elements, however, are frequently found (Man 190, 212).
CHAPTER 4
A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS HERMENEUTIC APPLIED TO 1 JOHN
Thus far, this thesis has sought to demonstrate the need to integrate an
understanding of how language works and means into the hermeneutical process. There
are potential benefits of discourse analysis. The question arises, Does discourse analysis
provide the biblical scholar with any additional insights into the text that would make the
endeavor worthwhile?278 In other words, is the additional work worth the effort? This
section of the thesis will demonstrate that discourse analysis poses questions that
traditional hermeneutical methods (specifically, traditional grammatical-historical
hermeneutics) do not. These additional questions provoke analysis that provides insights
previously unknown.
Anderson’s summary of interpretations of the first word of the text of 1 John
illustrates the need for additional methods to be brought to the hermeneutical table. He
states,
Most commentators think that instead of o] ‘what’ referring to any

specific noun, it has a more complex reference. It does not refer to Jesus
directly, but to that which the writer declares about Jesus [Brd]. It refers to
the person, words, and acts of Jesus [AB, Brd, ICC], to both the gospel
message and the person of Jesus [Herm, NIC, NTC], to the gospel
message about Jesus [Ws, WBC], to the content of h` avggeli, ‘the
message’ (1:5) which is identical with the person of Jesus [Herm], to Jesus
and all that he is and does for us [Ln], to Jesus as the Word and the life he
manifested [EGS], the content of the Christian doctrine [HNTC]. Another
thinks that it refers specifically to the Word, but the neuter form suggest
that the Word cannot be adequately described in human language [TH].279
The rest of the first clause (}O h=n avpV avrch/j “That which was from the
beginning”) fares no better than the first word as a perusal of commentaries or
278 Cf. Moises Silva, “Discourse Analysis and Philippians” 102ff.

279 John L. Anderson, An Exegetical Summary of 1, 2, and 3 John, (Dallas: SIL Int., 1992) 10.
75
76
Anderson’s summary suggests.280 His review of the potential discourse units indicates the
need for additional methodologies to be integrated into the hermeneutical endeavor to
arrive at a more cohesive and defensible structure of the text. Concerning the relationship
between a cohesive structure of a text (macrostructure) and individual units or even
clauses (microstructure), Smilie notes “that a problem in interpreting ‘sin unto death’ [1
John 5:16-17] is the propensity to structure the letter partitively rather than
holistically.”281
Discourse analysis is primarily concerned with macrostructure, that is, with the
overall picture (big picture, big idea) of the text. This would be a holistic approach. Given
this focus, it asks questions such as, Where are the unit boundaries? Traditional
approaches work mainly with the sentence or clause. In its attempt to be able to relate
each section and subsection to the goal of the overall text, discourse analysis requires a
concerted effort to explain the use of lower level features such as those found at the
sentence or clausal level. Questions such as “Why genitives or aorists are used?” are
more of a discourse issue than merely syntactical. Given that multiple options were
available to the author, why did he choose this particular option? In 1 John the use of
relative clauses in the prologue is not only a specific use of grammar by the author, it is
very unusual as the commentators will note. Discourse analysis asks, Why does the
author use these relative clauses? and What purpose do they have in the discourse as a
whole? Traditional approaches are generally content to discuss their purpose in the clause
and maybe the paragraph, but stop there.
280 Anderson 10-11.

281 Bruce D. Smilie, “Sin unto Death”: A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 John 5:16-17, diss.,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 2001) v. 9925109.
77
Determining the purpose of the relative clauses in 1 John 1:1-4 demands that first
the interpreter establish the unit boundaries of the text. While there is general agreement
that 1:5 begins a new unit, (see Appendices D – F) there is much disagreement on the
remaining units in the text. Some proposals suggest that 1 John consists of up to twenty-
three units. The following suggest some ways in which discourse analysis can shed light
on the interpretive issues of 1 John. Lexical coherence, conjunction usage, vocative
usage, and semantic coherence, help determine boundaries in 1 John 1:1-2:11.
Lexical Coherence in 1:1-4
The coherence of the unit 1:1-4 is demonstrated in the repetition of key lexical terms
avkhko,amen, e`wra,kamen, avpagge,llome, evfanerw,qh (we have heard,
we have seen, we proclaim, was manifested), topic (}O “that which”), prominence
(largely due to unique syntactical arrangement), person/number (mainly what “we” have
experienced). This is most easily seen in Figure 4.

78
1:1 }O h=n avpV avrch/j(

o] avkhko,amen(
o] e`wra,kamen toi/j ovfqalmoi/j h`mw/n(
o] evqeasa,meqa kai. ai` cei/rej h`mw/n
evyhla,fhsan
peri. tou/ lo,gou th/j zwh/j&
1:2 kai. h` zwh. evfanerw,qh(
kai. e`wra,kamen
kai. marturou/men
kai. avpagge,llomen u`mi/n th.n
zwh.n th.n aivw,nion h[tij h=n pro.j
to.n pate,ra kai. evfanerw,qh
h`mi/n&
1:3 o] e`wra,kamen
kai. avkhko,amen(
avpagge,llomen kai. u`mi/n(
i[na kai. u`mei/j koinwni,an e;chte
meqV h`mw/nÅ
kai. h` koinwni,a de. h` h`mete,ra
meta. tou/ patro.j
kai. meta. tou/ uiòu/ auvtou/
VIhsou/ Cristou/Å
1:4 kai. tau/ta gra,fomen h`mei/j(
i[na h` cara. h`mw/n h=| peplhrwme,nhÅ
Fig. 4. Structural Outline of 1 John 1:1-4
Not only are there semantic links evident in this section, there are potential chiastic
parallelisms as well. The repetitive and varied use of words maintains a tightly knit
cohesive unit.
The parenthetical verse two is concerned with expounding on the topic of “life”
(th/j zwh/j) mentioned at the end of verse one. This is a tail-head linkage.282 The
parenthetical clause also reiterates the idea of the author e`wra,kamen (“seeing”) this
life. Verse one and three are also chiastically structured in that avkhko,amen (“we
282 This occurs when a concept at the close of one unit or clause begins the next unit or clause.
79
have heard”) and e`wra,kamen (“we have seen”) are repeated in inverse order. This
maintains coherence of thought and tells the reader the same topic is still being discussed.
The main verb avpagge,llomen (“we proclaim”) is relegated to verse three to
emphasize the object of scrutiny, the life. While stylistically this may be awkward and
cumbersome, syntactically local prominence is achieved by changing the normal
syntactical structure. This effectively communicates that the subject of the message is the
focus of discussion. Additionally, marturou/men (“witnessing/testifying”) is linked
with avpagge,llome (“proclamation”) of the message by its appositional position in
the clause, denoted by kai. (“and”).283 The clause initial kai. (“and”) in 1:4 is more
accurately considered to be functioning adverbally, emphasizing the pronoun that
follows.284
Since 1:1-4 is not generally disputed as composing a unit in the discourse of 1
John, this analysis may be seen as superfluous. However, the analysis of this unit, an
agreed upon section of discourse, illustrates the additional interpretive issues that
discourse analysis bring to the discussion. These items provide a more solid defense of
why 1:1-4 is a unit and what the author is doing in that unit.
The next section, beginning with 1:5 is linked to 1:1-4 by lexical overlap as well.
Sherman and Tuggy note the tail-head construction whereby tau/ta gra,fomen (“these
things we write”) in 1:4 corresponds to e;stin au[th h` avggeli,a (“this is (indeed)
the message”) in 1:5.285 Additionally, they note a change in topic focus (author’s authority
to content and implication of the message), verb usage (aorist/perfect to present tense),
283 See Kermit Titrud, “The Overlooked Kai,” NOT 5.1 (1991): 24-25 for various interpretive options on
the function of kai.. See also Appendices D and E.
284 Titrud, “Overlooked” 4-5.
285 Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy, A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles
(Dallas: SIL, 1994) 17.
80
and genre (proclamation to exhortation). Applying these same principles to additional
units will help reduce the number of conflicting analyses of the overall structure of the
text.
Conjunctions as Boundary Markers: kai. (“and”) in 1:5-2:3
Traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutical methods do not generally
analyze conjunctions on a discourse level. Discourse analysis, however, reveals that
conjunctions are not only functioning at the clause level, they are also functioning at the
discourse level. One way in which they function at a discourse level is to mark
boundaries.
Boundary markers help to narrow the focus. Conjunctions are often used to
introduce a new paragraph or section of discourse.286 The primary conjunction in the New
Testament is kai. (“and”). This corresponds roughly to the w> (waw consecutive) in
Hebrew.287 Kermit Titrud notes that kai. (“and”) is often abused or overlooked, and “was
not just written arbitrarily.”288 When kai. (“and”) is used, it implies that what follows is
closely related to what precedes; this is not so when other particles such as de,. avlla,.
and to,te are used.289 This is the case whether kai is used as an inter-clausal or intra-
clausal conjunction. It always denotes a close relationship with the related clause. The
related items, whether words or complete clauses, are of equal rank when kai. is used
286 Iver Larsen, “Boundary Features” NOT 5.1 (1991): 48-54.

287 See Iver Larsen, “Notes on the Function of ga.r, ou=n, me.n, de., kai., and te,” NOT 5.1 (1991):
43.
288 Titrud, “Overlooked” 3.
289 Titrud, “Overlooked” 317-18; Kermit Titrud, “The Function of Kai in the Greek New Testament and
an Application to 2 Peter,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis,
ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 250-52.
81
conjunctively.290 Titrud notes that kai. can also be used adverbally, as an appositive,291
and to conjoin words, phrases, and clauses.292 Additionally, Titrud maintains
that the conjunctive kai. is always a paratactic (coordinating) signal in the

discourse structure of Koine Greek, even though there may be cases where
logically one proposition is subordinate to the other. When this skewing
between discourse and logical construction occurs, it is it the result of the
author’s strategy – it is deliberate and significant […]. By syntactically
elevating what is logically subordinate, the author is placing more
prominence (emphasis) on the clause than it would have had if introduced
by a subordinating conjunction.293
Titrud’s position is contrary to BAGD’s as he further notes.
Thus I disagree with BAGD’s statement that kai. is commonly uses as a

connective “where more discriminating usage would call for other
particles […]. Rather, this use of kai. is the more discriminating usage
since the author’s intention was to elevate what is logically a subordinate
clause, making it more prominent than it would have been if introduced by
“other particles.” […] The conjunctive kai., therefore, is basically a
coordinating conjoiner rather than a subordinating one […]. It encodes
many more types of semantic relationships between propositions than the
more specific coordinating conjunctions h', avlla., dio., ou=n.294
The importance of this understanding of kai. in discourse analysis has direct
implications for 1 John. In 1:5 and 2:3 kai. is in a clause initial position. Following
Titrud, since there is no textual variant, there must be a reason for the kai.. Since this
clause initial position is abnormal and since the use of conjunctions are not without
cause, or arbitrary, there is a pragmatic reason for its use in these two instances.295 Titrud
notes that where “a personal, relative, or demonstrative pronoun immediately follows

291 Titrud defines appositive “as that which reiterates, amplifies, specifies, or summarizes the preceding.”
In 1 John he notes appositional use of kai. on the interclausal level at 2a, 2, 6; 2:4, 18; 3:1, 4, 9, 12, 23, 27,
28; 4:3, 7, 21. “[O]f the 56 instances where kai. conjoins clauses, an appositive is being introduced in 15 –
over 25% of them” (“Overlooked” 11).
292 Titrud, “Overlooked” 8–20.
295 Titrud, “Overlooked” 4-5.
82
kai. (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:1; 3:1; Eph. 2:1; Col. 1:21; Heb. 11:32; 1 Pet. 3:13; 1 John 1:5) […]
the kai. more than likely is adverbial, emphasizing the pronoun.”296 Classifying these
two instances of kai. as adverbial in 1 John 1:5 and 2:3 to emphasize what follows is a
possible solution. Titrud concludes that these instances of a “paragraph-initial kai.
followed by a pronoun or a post-positive particle” should be classified as adverbs.297
Hoopert additionally suggests “that kai. plus a personal pronoun may be a means for
introducing an exemplification or application following the presentation of a doctrine or
principle […].”298 Thus in both 1:5 and 2:3 the introductory conjunction kai. followed by
a pronoun is a prominence marker, functioning adverbally, denoting emphasis
(specifically the pronoun and its referent) that would not normally have been obvious.299
Vocatives: Emphasis or Boundary Markers?
Vocatives are given little consideration in most Greek Grammars.300 Mounce notes
it is the “case of direct address.”301 Young states, “the only syntactical function of the
296 Titrud, “Overlooked” 18. Titrud further notes that according to Nestle-Aland, 26th edition kai. only
introduces a paragraph only in 1 Cor. 2:1; 3:1; 12:31; 2 Cor. 1:15; 7:5; Eph. 2:1; 6:4; Col. 1:21; 1 Thess.
2:13; Heb. 7:20; 9:15; 10:11; 11:32; 1 Pet. 3:13; 1 John 1:5; 2:3; 3:13, 19; 3:23. He further notes textual
variants in 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 3:13, 19. In 2 Cor. 7:5 the postposition particle ga.r is the conjunction
with kai. functioning adverbally. Elsewhere (e.g. 1 Cor. 2:1; 3:1; Eph. 2:1; Col. 1:21; Heb. 11:32; 1 Pet.
3:13; 1 John 1:5), a personal, relative, or demonstrative pronoun immediately follows kai. placing the
emphasis on the pronoun - the kai. functioning adverbally. He concludes that “in translating the Epistles, a
new paragraph should not be made where a conjunctive kai. begins a sentence in the Greek text. A
paragraph-initial kai. followed by a pronoun or a post-positive particle (e.g. ga.r) should be classified as
an adverb.” See Titrud, “Overlooked” 17-18. See also Larsen, “Notes on the Function of”; Ralph Bruce
Terry 65ff.
298 Daniel A. Hoopert, “The Greek Conjunction KAI used with a Personal Pronoun,” OPTAT 3.2 (1989):
83.
299 This may be applied to 1:4 as well, denoting emphasis on tau/ta (‘these things’), highlighting the
importance of the author’s writing, namely, the message being proclaimed.
300 Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics devotes 6.5 pages of 725 (0.89%); William D.
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) devotes one half page of
326 (0.15%); David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students devotes 1 paragraph of 191 pages (0.13%);
Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville:
Broadman, 1994) devotes one of 280 pages (0.36%). Terry Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New
Look at 1 John, JSNTS 233 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 2002) devotes seven of 212 pages
(3.3%) to the subject.
301 Mounce 105.
83
vocative is direct address.” Semantically, however, it can show the speakers attitude
(respect, strong displeasure, affection, gentleness). It can also highlight certain qualities
of the person or group being addressed which are transformed from the deep structure
clause into the vocative form.302
Contrary to the little emphasis traditional exegetes place on the vocative,
Longacre bases a significant part of his structural analysis on their usage. Longacre notes
that the vocative combined with other prominent features marks boundaries.303 However,
by itself the vocative does not necessarily denote a unit boundary.304 Longacre’s elevation
of the vocative leads him to posit a break at 1 John 2:1 rather than 2:3. A survey of
commentators reveals that 66% (23/35) of traditional commentators,305 64% (7/11) of
linguistic commentators,306 and 50% (3/6) of Rhetorical/Literary commentaries307 start a
new section (either minor or major) at 2:3. However, of the linguistic commentators, 75%
(3/4) of those who do not posit a break at 2:3 do so at 2:1 and are affiliated with Longacre
and the SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) school (Longacre, Miehle, Hansford).308
302 Young 15.

303 Longacre, “Towards” 272-76.
304 Larsen, “Boundary” 50; Helen Louise Miehle, Theme in Greek Hortatory Discourse: van Dijk and
Beekman-Callow Approaches Applied to 1 John, diss., U of Texas at Arlington, 1981 (Ann Arbor, MI:
UMI, 1987) 98. See also Porter, “Linguistics and Rhetorical Criticism,” 78; Reed, “Modern Linguistics and
Historical Criticism” 55; Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the NT” 258; Reed, “Identifying Theme in the
NT” 87; Griffith, Keep Yourself from Idols 61-68; A. Plummer, The Epistles of St. John, ed. H. D. M.
Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary 22 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson: n.d.) 21.
305 This statistic is potentially higher than it should be as newer commentaries, especially those who
interact with discourse studies tend to make a break at 2:3 rather than 2:1 (For example: Daniel L. Akin, 1,
2, 3 John. NAC 38 (Nashville: Broadman, 2001); Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, PNTC (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). See Appendix H.
306 This statistic includes John Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?” Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P,
1999) 392-406. He is not included in Appendix I because he does not deal with the entire epistle. Including
Willis Ott (“Marking the Sections in 1 John.” NOT 4.4 (1990): 44-50) the number raises the percentage to
67% (8/12). However, since he simply follows Sherman and Tuggy he was not included. See further
Appendix I.
307 See Appendix J.
308 Though Hansford is associated with SIL where Longacre works, his analysis is poetic/chiastic in
nature, contrary to Longacre’s. See Keir L. Hansford, “The Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 John,” JOTT
84
One of the rhetorical commentators (York) bases his structural analysis in part on
Longacre’s work as well. Therefore, apart from Longacre’s influence the statistics for
linguistic commentators would be unanimous except for Smilie. The rhetorical
commentators would still have 33% (2/6) that did not break at 2:3. Neither of them
(Luter, Vouga), however, posit a break at 2:1 either.309 There are, therefore, apart from
traditional approaches, four main options: Longacre’s school, the linguistic alternative
(Callow, Sherman, etc.), a chiastic/poetic structure (Luter, Vouga, Hansford) or a
rhetorical model. By determining which of the main linguistic models best fits the test,
the options can be reduced to either (a) the most comprehensive linguistic model, or (b) a
chiastic/poetic model or a rhetorical model.310 By following this route it will be
demonstrated that the traditional commentators miss the mark by not including discourse
analysis in their hermeneutic. This will also demonstrate that continuing study in
discourse analysis has refined previous insights.
The issue, therefore, concerns the criteria for determining a section break. The key
issue Callow notes, is “how to evaluate the data – which are the same for everyone – in
arriving at an analysis.”311 Longacre uses four text-based cues to determine discourse
units: (1) distribution of vocatives, (2) distribution of the verb gra,fw (“to write”), (3)
5.2 (1992): 126-74.

309 See Appendix J.
310 Though beyond the scope of this study, consistent with this thesis, the method advocated would be a
linguistic model that integrates other aspects of study such as rhetoric and an evaluation of the
chiastic/poetic models. Preliminary research indicates that there should be an integration of rhetorical
analysis – not the methodology that imposes Aristotelian categories on the text, nor the type that simply
focuses on style, but rather a method that realizes the aspects of persuasion, yet is compatible with elements
of discourse analysis and epistolary theory. In other words an eclectic blend (The “New Rhetoric” and
Social Rhetorical Criticism are the closest to this proposal). For a list of related works see Appendix A as
well as Hershael Wallace York, An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical Methods of Rhetorical
Criticism and Discourse Analysis as Applied to the Structure of First John, diss., Mid-America Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1993 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1999). 9323658.
311 John Callow, “Where” 395.
85
counting and weighing the kinds of verbs, (4) peaks of the book, and (5) macrostructure
as a control on the content.312
Longacre states, “we can posit a string of natural paragraphs. Most are marked
with a vocative, either in the initial sentence or in a sentence or two into the body of the
paragraph.”313 Hansford also bases his break at 2:1 on the use of the vocative.314 It is
questionable, however, whether a vocative within the paragraph unit can be used to
delineate the paragraph boundary. Longacre’s analysis indicates there is no vocative to
indicate the beginning of his units at 1:5 and 5:1. Additionally, the vocatives in units 3:1-
6; 3:19-24 and 4:1-6 have a vocative in the middle of the unit.315 This mitigates requiring
new units by the use of a vocative. He indicates that 3:19-24 is the thesis of the entire text
and is followed by the doctrinal peak in 4:1-6. Both of these have vocatives in the middle
of their units.
Concerning the vocative Plummer indicates “Addresses of this kind commonly
introduce a fresh division of the subject, main or subordinate.316 […] Sometimes,
312 Robert E. Longacre, “Towards” 271-86. Due to the scope of the thesis and the fact that a complete
analysis is required of 1 John in order to interact with the issues involved, the issues of peaks will not be
discussed. The counting and weighing of verbs, though statistically computed (see Appendix K) have not
been fully analyzed. The use of gra,fw (“to write’) and the macrostructure as a control on the content will
only be alluded to (See Appendix L) on statistical mapping of gra,fw. For an analysis of these features in
the book of Colossians see Gregory T. Christopher, “A Discourse Analysis of Colossians 2:16-3:17,” GTJ
11 (1990): 206-21.
313 Longacre, “Towards” 276. Emphasis in original. Longacre’s analysis is based on a revision and
application of his work in narrative texts. His approach is in large part based on determining peaks in the
discourse. He states, “ While a discourse has cohesion/coherence and prominence, it just as necessarily
involves progress i.e., a well-formed discourse is going somewhere. The progress of a discourse typically
issues in some sort of climatic development (or developments) which I have been accustomed to term
peak(s).” Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Plenium P, 1996) 33.
Concerning hortatory discourses, of which Longacre classifies 1 John, he states “the struggle is to convince
the hearers of the soundness of the advice and to launch them on the course of conduct which is being
proscribed. It would seem therefore that an artful expository or hortatory discourse will have a meaningful
cumulative thrust. This should correlate in at least some discourses with a marked surface structure peak”
(Longacre, Grammar 48).
314Hansford 141.
315 See Appendix G.
316 Plummer 21. He cites 2:1, 18; 3:13; 4:1, 7 as examples.
86
however, they introduce an earnest conclusion.”317 He notes that in 4:11 the vocative
serves to “introduce a conclusion which serves as a fresh starting point.”318 Thus,
vocatives may introduce summary statements or conclusions. Griffith notes, “this
particularly Jewish filial authority device seems to have been eschewed in many Christian
circles.”319 He further notes the use of vocatives to emphasize both equality and
authority.320 Apart from the “maverick examples”321 in 2:12-14322
[t]he vocative plural is found 20 times in 1 John, distributed among six

nouns, and this frequency helps to generate a sense of urgent pastoral
concern. agapetoi (‘beloved’: 2.7; 3.2, 21; 4.1, 7, 11) always occurs at the
head of a sentence and in contexts where love (whether for one another, or
of God’s love for us, or both) is stressed. paidia (‘children’: 2.14,18) can
convey affection, and occurs in parallel to teknia (2.12), but its association
with slavery and service may account for John’s preference for teknia.
However, it is perhaps significant that paidia is the preferred vocative
when the serious topics of the antichrist and the schism are introduced
(2.18). adelphoi (‘brothers’: 3.13) is used once in the context of a
reference to Cain’s murder of his brother (3.12).323
Callow notes “[T]he use of the vocative tekni,a mou, and the performative
gra,fw u`mi/n, focuses attention on the purpose statement, and so serves to give added
prominence.”324 This analysis is based on the overriding structural feature of the text.325
Sherman and Tuggy likewise indicate the vocative “serves to introduce a reassurance
after a strong denunciation (1:10) rather than to indicate a boundary. Such use of
vocatives to introduce encouragement is a characteristic feature of the letter (e.g., 2:12-
317 Plummer 21. Here he cites 2:28; 3:21; 5:21.

318 Plummer 21.
319 Griffith 54.
320 Griffith 64-5.
321 Griffith 66.
322 See Appendix L.
323 Griffith 65. Emphasis in original.
324 John Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?” 401 n22.
325 See Appendices F and M.
87
13; 4:4).”326 Thus, vocatives are routinely used for emphasis and may coincide with other
boundary markers to delineate units of discourse. They do not, however, appear to be
primarily boundary markers for discourse units.327
Semantic Coherence in 1:5-2:11
In support of the interpretation that the vocative at 2:1 does not introduce a new
unit, but rather begins the concluding exhortation that belongs to the unit beginning at
1:5, is the semantic and syntactic cohesion of the text. “The occurrence of kai. eva,n
(‘and if’) (2:1b) introduces the last of a series of six conditional clauses.”328 Callow
further demonstrates a threefold pattern in 1:5-2:2 whereby three subunits are delineated.
Each of the three units (1:6-7, 8-9, 10-2:2) consists of two protasis plus apodosis
constructions, each protasis (six total) being introduced by eva.n. Each apodosis is also
326 Sherman and Tuggy 29. For further possibilities on the role of 2:12-14 in the text see Duane F.
Watson, “Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetorical Style and Invention,” JSNT 51
(1993): 99-123; Duane F. Watson, “1 John 2:12-14 As Distrubitio, Conduplicatio, and Expolitio: A
Rhetorical Understanding,” JSNT 35 (1989): 97-110.
327 A cursory look at the vocatives in the Epistle seems to show that most of them fall rather easily into
the category of either being used for Emphasis/Therefore (Summary) clauses or possible Tail-Head
constructions where a word (or sometimes a theme) from the tail of one clause is used in the first part of the
following clause. The vocatives at 3:18, 21; 4:4; 5:1 all seem to be Emphasis/Therefore (Summary) type
constructions. Chapter two, verses one and seven (2:1, 7) also seem to be of this type. Those at 2:18, 28;
3:2 appear to be closer to Tail-Head constructions while those at 4:1, 11 could possibly be either and need
further study. This analysis accounts for all the vocatives excluding the six in 2:12-14. This seems to
indicate the high probability that vocatives are not necessarily unit markers and are many times used for
prominence. Additionally, the lacking of any vocatives in the units beginning with 1:1 and 5:1 (Longacre)
needs further study. Another question would be why there seems to be three consecutive vocative
Emphasis/Therefore (Summary) units (3:18, 21; 4:4). See also Ralph Bruce Terry 73.
328 Sherman and Tuggy, 29. Titrud notes this is a contrastive use of kai. and as such should be translated
“but” rather than “and” (Titrud, “Overlooked” 24). Larsen concurs (Larsen, “Notes on the Function of ”
43.) However, Akin notes “John never uses kai. to connect opposing thought in 1 John. He uses either de.
or avlla.. See de. as ‘but’ in 2:2, 7, 16, 19 (twice), 21, 27; 3:18; 4:1, 10, 18; 5:6, 18. Cf. the literal
translation of the NASB on these verses. (The NASB does inexplicably translate kai. in 2:20 as ‘but’; it
also translates eiv mh., ‘except,’ as ‘but’ in 2:22 and 5:5)” (Akin 77 n142.). Semantically, there is contrast
made by the author in 2:1b (as well as in 2:20). The choice to use kai. rather than another conjunction such
as de. or avlla. is to be attributed to the close relationship with the preceding clause. This is not so when
other conjunctions are used (Titrud, “Overlooked” 17). Akin notes this, and thus prefers to translate “and”
rather than “but” (Akin 77). This is an example of syntax and semantics both being used for different
though complementary purposes. To ignore the semantic aspect is to miss part of the author’s thought
process. Therefore, to translate kai. as “but” is not only acceptable but gives the reader the better sense of
the passage. See also Larsen, “Notes on the Function of” 43.
88
double in form, in each case the second half being introduced by kai.. Brown notes, “The
author has matched every conditional sentence of disapproval with a conditional sentence
of approval.”329 Verse 1:5 serves as the orienter and setting for all three (see Appendix
F).330 An additional orienter in 2:1 interrupts the pattern but does not completely break
it.331 The third set clearly belongs to the previous two. Each unit is linked to the previous
unit forming a cohesive “recognizable unit of thought.”332 This structure puts emphasis on
the apodosis more than the protasis, since the protasis is subordinate to the apodosis.
Based on the coherence in this unit,
the only concept that meets the […] criteria for a topic is the concept ‘sin’,
formally introduced in 7d with the noun a`marti,a (in the phrase avpo.
pa,shj a`marti,aj). This noun is repeated in 8b, 9a, 9c and 2a; the
corresponding verb is used in 10b, 1b and 1c; and the synonym avdiki,a
is used in 9d. And although in 2.2 the noun is used only once, the peri.
phrases that are used in 2b and 2c clearly presuppose the a`martiw/n of
2a.333
Sherman & Tuggy note, “The general statement in 2:2 of God’s provision for dealing
with sin functions to close off this discussion of sin.”334 The light/darkness (fw/j/skoti,a)
motif of 1:5 continues in 1:6, carrying the concept of sin throughout the unit through 2:2.
329 Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30, (New York: Doubleday, 1982) 237. See further
230-42 concerning his similar analysis, though his clause analysis is slightly different than that presented
by Callow.
330 John Callow, “Where” 396-97.
331 Additionally, both of these verses (1:5; 2:1) contain a clause initial kai. followed by a pronoun
indicating emphasis or prominence of place to the pronoun and its referent. Brown states, “The initial kai
(‘and’) here is not a simple connective, as THLJ [C. Haas, M. De Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel, A
Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John. New York: UBS, 1972.] rightly observes. A similar initial
kai, plus a somewhat different form of the demonstrative ‘this,’ was also found in 1:5 where the author
stated. ‘Now this is the gospel […] God is light.’ After three pairs of conditional sentence, he is going on
‘now’ to tell the readers how we know the God who is light” (Brown 248). On the use of kai. with
pronouns see the works by Titrud, Larsen, and Hoopert.
334 Sherman and Tuggy, 29. John Callow concurs (“Where” 401).
89
Verses 2:3-11 form the second unit of the larger unit 1:5-2:11, as noted by the
reappearance of the light/darkness (fw/j/skoti,a) motif in 2:8-11.335 This forms an
inclusio, cohering the entire unit.336 Callow states,
the contrasting concepts of tw/| fw/j and skotiva are reintroduced in

2.8-11, occurring at least once in each of theses four verses; and that
neither tw/| fw/j nor skotiva is used again in the Epistle. This inclusio
(1:5-7 and 2:8-11) must not be separated, therefore the break cannot be
following 1:10. Additionally Callow notes that beginning in 2:12 there is a
six times repeated gra,fw / e;graya u`mi/n plus vocative plus o[ti.
Thus there is a clear boundary between 2.11 and 2.12, and it is only in the
span of 1.5-2.11 that tw/| fw/j and skotiva are used. The implication of
this data is that the ‘scope of significance’ of the light/darkness contrast is
1.6-2.11.337
There are additional structural and lexical parallels between 1:6-2:2 and 2:3-2:11 as well.
Corresponding to the triple use of eva.n ei;pwmen, there are three uses
of o` le,gwn in 2.4, 6 and 9. There are very similar statements, such as
yeu,sthj evsti,n (2.4) and yeudo,meqa (1.6d); kai. evn tou,tw|
h` avlh,qeia ouvk e;stin (2.4) and kai. h` avlh,qeia ouvk e;stin
evn h`mi/n (1.8d). Note also the use of peripatw/mew in both units
(it is not used again in the epistle); of a vocative medially within the units
as in 1.6-2.2; of o` lo,goj (2.5, 7; cf. 1.10). These correspondences,
together with the inclusio mentioned above, provide strong discourse
evidence that 1.6-2.11 is a larger semantic unit, consisting of two smaller
units, 1.6-2.2 and 2.3-2.11, and with 1.5 providing the theological
background for what is said.338
335 Kenneth Grayston treats 1:5-2:11 as one unit. Schnackenburg and Malatesta treat the passage as two
units; 1:6-2:2 and 2:3-11. This is basically the same as Callow’s as he breaks the unit 1:5-2:11 into the same
two subunits. See also Appendices H – J and F. See Kenneth Grayston, The Johannine Epistles, NCBC
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); Edward Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant (Rome: BIP, 1978); Edward
Malatesta, The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text and English Translation Schematically Arranged (Rome:
Pontifical Gregorian U, 1973); Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, trans. Reginald and Ilse
Fuller (New York: Crossroad, 1992).
336 Within this latter unit (2:3-11) a vocative occurs at 2:7 again. As expected Longacre posits a break.
John Callow states, “The occurrence of the vocative in 2:7, plus the reference to a new commandment and
the use of gra,fw u`mi/n is undoubtedly why eight of the translations have a break after v. 6, and two
have a new heading. A major division between vv. 6 and 7 was also favoured [sic] by older commentators,
such as Brooke (Johannine Epistles, p. xxxiv). My proposed analysis would be that, as in 2:1, the vocative
indicates important (prominent) material to follow. At this point the author switches from generic
statements about all commandments, ‘being in’, and ‘walking’, to the specific commandment to love on
another” (John Callow, “Where” 403 n31).
338 John Callow, “Where” 103-4.
90
Larsen notes, “For nonnarrative material, an introduction states or alludes to the
theme which is going to be developed. This, then, is a clear signal to the beginning of a
section. […] In nonnarrative texts, a conclusion often repeats in some way what was
stated in the introduction.”339 Wu notes thirteen inclusios, forming the basis for his
twenty-three units in 1 John.340
Summary
Helen Miehle’s discourse analysis integrated communication theory as well as
traditional linguistics to conclude that “1 John is shown to be a hortatory (not simply
expository) text with perlocutionary function of persuasion.”341 First John was written to
persuade more than inform according to this understanding. Part of the methodology for
accomplishing this is the frequent use of mitigated commands. This semantic feature is
often overlooked when focus is strictly on syntactic features. Appendix K provides
statistical mapping of this aspect. Longacre, also utilizes this in his analysis. He notes,
An expository discourse should highlight the most static clauses of the

language as its main line, while a hortatory discourse should highlight
command forms. Static clauses are relational rather than active. In 1 John
there are eighty-three instances of main clauses which have the verb “be,”
“have,” null in place of “be,” or the verb “remain/stay.” These main
clauses are clearly static and relational. Twenty-four clauses of
acquaintance or awareness (“know,” etc.) occur in main clauses and are
also static. Thirteen perfect verbs occur in main clauses and are also static.
[…] The hortatory forms, although only 9% of the book, are basic to the
thinking of the entire book and, in fact, dominate the portions of text in
339 Larsen, “Boundary” 51.

340 Daniel Tao-Chung Wu, “An Analysis of the Structure of 1 John Using Discourse Analysis,” diss.,
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998, 114-129.
341 Miehle ix. Miehle further states “the only purely morpho-syntactic evidence that we have for 1 John
being a hortatory discourse is the 7 occurrences of the imperative mood, the few occurrences of entolē, and
the three occurrences of the verb opheilō (2:6, 3:16, 4:1). These are the only overt commands in the entire
book. The covert commands, on the other hand, encoded in surface structure by hina clauses, and generic
and participial phrases, would fall in the category of semantic evidence for the perlocutionary function of
persuasion” (Miehle 173. Emphasis in original).
91
which they occur. […] By count, expository-type verbs predominate, but

as to weight, hortatory-type verbs predominate.342
Thus, John uses lower level, or mitigated forms to command his reader to not only
believe right, but specifically to live right, as a result of their being made righteous in
Christ.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Discourse analysis focuses primarily on the text in its current form. If used apart
from other disciplines, there is a potential for being ahistorical or even anti-historical.
Miehle’s treatment of the text, as well as Longacre’s later treatment343 is more balanced
than that of Dietmar Neufeld344 who, according to Olsson, loses “sight of the historical
context.”345
342 Longacre, “Towards” 278-79. Longacre further notes, “Looking again at 1:5-10, we find
conditional sentences which could be summarized as ‘If we do x, that is not good. If we do y, that is good.’
X and y can be considered to stand for antonyms, opposite courses of activity. This is a mitigated way of
giving exhortation to the effect that we should do what is good. It conceives of the universe as polarized
into good and evil: if we line up on one side we line up with good; otherwise we line up with evil. The
covert thrust is, ‘Line up with the good, not with the evil’ […] In 3:7-12 another type of mitigated
exhortation refers to the third person. [I]n 3:16b we find the verb ovfei,lomen, ‘we ought to.’ Here the
verb ‘ought’ is strongly hortatory and is used rather than the imperative, but perhaps it is as strong or
stronger than any imperative form” (278-9).
343 Robert E. Longacre, “Towards” 271-86. Also Longacre, “Exhortation and Mitigation in First John.”
START 9 (1984): 3-44.
344 Dietmar Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John, ed. R. Alan Culpepper
and Rolf Rendtorff, Biblical Interpretation 7, (New York: E. J. Brill, 1994).
345 Birger Olsson, “First John: Discourse Analyses and Interpretations,” Discourse Analysis and
the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1999) 389. Olsson has also produced an analysis on the Gospel of John: Birger Olsson, Structure and
Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1-11 and 4:1-42, trans. Jean Gray,
ConBNT 6. (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1974).
92
Biblical studies methods that separate the historical context would be disastrous.
Christianity is an historical faith, rooted in historic facts (e.g. the real incarnate Jesus
Christ). On the other hand, utilizing discourse analysis as one specific part of an overall
goal of understanding a text allows for other methodologies to buttress the contributions
it makes.
Similarly, traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutics offers a great starting
point for biblical hermeneutics. However, it misses some vital information in how
language works and how texts are structured. Previous approaches have not rectified this
deficiency. Integrating discourse analysis into a biblical hermeneutic moves toward a
more comprehensive hermeneutic that provides holistic answers to the varied questions
texts pose on their readers.
Though one often speaks with little thought of what one is actually doing,
analyzing the text and speech of those who lived 2,000 to 6,000 plus years ago poses
significant problems, not the least of which is historical context. The change in language
in that time period, combined with what was assumed (pool of knowledge) by those
speaking or writing, results in a text that could be construed as entirely new if not careful.
This new text could then provide new meanings for man today. This is perilously close to
some erring modern hermeneutical methods and is not at all advocated. On the contrary,
this demonstrates why it is imperative that the reader/interpreter of the text be familiar
with not only all the relevant historical data but also the ever-growing body of linguistic
data as well. Only then will proper understanding truly begin to occur.
This thesis suggests there is significance in understanding how language functions
and means. Traditional grammatical hermeneutics is insufficient to holistically analyze a

93
text because it does not ask enough questions of the text. Discourse analysis asks
additional questions, mostly related to the macrostructure of the text, to determine how
the text functions as well as why. The analysis of 1 John 1:1 - 2:11 points to these
concerns.
Contrary to most analyses of 1 John a more eclectic hermeneutic that integrates
discourse analysis will help narrow the focus, eliminate options, and provide the
reader/interpreter with a better understanding of what John intended. A proper analysis,
structurally and semantically, is possible. Contrary to almost all non-linguistic analyses,
Wendland notes,
The discourse of 1 John as a whole is carefully crafted so that all of its

parts with respect to both form and content will promote this unmistakable
purpose, namely, knowing the truth about the principles and practice of
God-pleasing religion (e.g., 1:6, 8; 2:8, 20, 21; 3:19; 4:6; 5:6, 20). By this
means the author reassures his fellow believers (but only them) that they
are definitely on course, having nothing to fear in their relationship to the
Father with regard to both present and future (e.g., 3:1-2; 4:17-18; 5:13-
14).346
346 Ernst R. Wendland, “Dear Children Versus The Antichrist,” JOTT 11 (1998): 68.
Though this thesis has limited its scope to 1 John 1:1 - 2:11 the evidence
suggests that discourse analysis should be integrated into all areas of biblical studies
and should be integrated into a biblical hermeneutic. APPENDIX A
Sources for the Study of Rhetorical and Epistolary Criticism
Anderson, R. Dean. “The Use and Abuse of Lausberg in Biblical Studies.” Rhetorical
Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Emory
Studies in Early Christianity. Ed. Anders Eriksson, Thomas Olbright, and Walter
Übelacker. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity P Int, 2002. 66-76.
Aune, David E., ed. Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms
and Genres. Atlanta: Scholars P, 1988.
Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1987.
Doty, W. G. “The Classification of Epistolary Literature.” CBQ 31 (1969):183-99.
Elliott, John H. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Epp, Eldon Jay. “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-
Roman Times.” The Future of Early Christianity. Ed. Birger A. Pearson.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. 35-56.
Eriksson, Anders, Thomas H. Olbright, and Walter Übelacker, eds. Rhetorical
Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Emory
Studies in Early Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity P Int., 2002.
Loveday, Alexander. “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians.” JSNT
37 (1989): 87-101.
94
95
Mack, Barton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
1990.
Morrison, Michael. “Rhetorical Criticism: History, Purpose, and Method.” Angelfire. 13
May 2005 <http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorrison/nt/rhetorical.htm>.
Nida, Eugene A. “Rhetoric and the Translator: With Special Reference to 1 John.” Bible
Translator 33 (1982): 324-28.
Nida, E. A., J. P. Louw, A. H. Snyman, and J. v. W. Cronje. Style and Discourse: With
Special Reference to the Text of the Greek New Testament. Goodwood, Cape,
South Africa: Bible Society of South Africa (BSSA), 1983.
Pearson, Birger A., ed. The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut
Koester. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Porter, Stanley E. “Linguistics and Rhetorical Criticism.” Linguistics and the New
Testament. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTS 168. Sheffield, Eng.:
Sheffield Academic P, 1999. 63-92.
Porter, Stanley E, and Thomas H. Olbright, eds. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays
form the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. JSNTS 90. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1993.
Porter, Stanley E., and Thomas H. Olbright, eds. The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture:
Essays from the 1995 London Conference. JSNTS 146. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1997.
Porter, Stanley E., and Dennis L. Stamps, eds. Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible. JSNTS
195. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 2002.

96
Poster, Carol. “The Economy of Letter Writing in Graeco-Roman Antiquity.” Rhetorical
Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Ed.
Anders Eriksson, Thomas Olbright, and Walter Übelacker. Emory Studies in
Early Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity P Int., 2002. 112-126.
Reed, Jeffrey T. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate
over Literary Integrity. JSNTS 136. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1997.
Robbins, Vernon K. Beginnings and Developments in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation,
Atlanta: Emory U, 2004. 13 May 2005
<http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/SRIBegDevRRA.pdf>.
___. “The Dialectial Nature of Early Christian Discourse.” Scriptura 59 (2001): 353-62.
Emory U. 13 May 2005
<http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/dialect/dialect353.html>.
___. “The Present and Future of Rhetorical Analysis.” The Rhetorical Analysis of
Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and
Thomas H. Olbright. JSNTS 146. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1997.
24-52.
___. Where is Wuellner’s Anti-Hermeneutical Hermeneutic Taking Us? From
Scheirmacher to Thistleton and Beyond. Emory U. 13 May 2005
<http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/WuellClarPrePub.pdf>.
Rotzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. 4th ed. Louisville:
Westminster, 1998.
Watson, Duane F. “1 John 2:12-14 As Distrubitio, Conduplicatio, and Expolitio: A
Rhetorical Understanding.” JSNT 35 (1989): 97-110.

97
Watson, Duane F. “Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetoical
Style and Invention.” JSNT 51 (1993): 99-123.
___. “The Integration of Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians.” The
Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbright. JSNTS 146. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1997. 398-426.
___. “A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman Convention.” New
Testament Studies 35 (1989): 104-30.
Wendland, Ernst R. “Dear Children Versus The Antichrist.” JOTT 11 (1998): 40-84.
White, John L. “The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrospect.” Semeia 20 (1981): 1-
14.
___. “Ancient Greek Letters.” Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected
Forms and Genres. Ed. David E. Aune. SBL Sources for Biblical Study 21.
Atlanta: Scholars P, 1988. 85-106.

York, Hershael Wallace. An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical Methods of
Rhetorical Criticism and Discourse Analysis as Applied to the Structure of First
John. Diss. Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI,
1999. 9323658.APPENDIX B
Sources for the Study of Johannine Authorship and Gnosticism
Armstrong, Arthur Hilary. “Gnosis and Greek Philosophy.” Gnosticism in the Early
Church. Vol. 5 of Studies in Early Christianity. Ed. David M. Scholer. New York:
Garland Pub., 1993. 33-70.
Barnett, Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament
Times. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 1999.
Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of
John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity P Int., 1995.
Collmer, Robert G. “Limitations of Mysticism.” BSac 116 (1959): 128-36.
Combs, William W. “Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and New Testament Interpretation.”
GTJ 8 (1987): 196-213.
Culpepper, R. Alan. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Columbia, SC: U of
South Carolina P, 1994.
Drane, J. W. “Gnosticism.” New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1996. The Essential IVP Reference Collection. CD-ROM. Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Groothuis, Douglas. “The Gnostic Gospels: Are They Authentic? Part II.” Statement
DG040-2. CRI, n. d. 20 May 2005 <http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm>.
98
99
___. “The Gnosticism and the Gnostic Jews.” CRI, 1994.
20 May 2005 <http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/show_essay.php?
essay_id=79>.
Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Trinity P.
Int., 1989.
Hill, Charles E. “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the
Canon.” WTJ 57.2 (1995): 437-52.
___. “The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of Polycarp.” Journal of
Early Christian Studies 7 (1999): 1-53.
___. “What Papias said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” Journal of
Theological Studies 49 (1998): 582-629.
Hultgren, Arland J., and Steven A. Haggmark, eds. The Earliest Christian Heretics:
Readings from their Opponents. Minneapolis: Fortress P, 1996
Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon P, 1958.
Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2 of Introduction to
the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress P, 1982.
Layton, Bentley. “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism.” Doctrinal Diversity.
Vol. 4 of Recent Studies in Early Christianity. Ed. Everett Ferguson. New York:
Garland Pub., 1999. 106-23.
MacRae, George W. “Why the Church Rejected Gnosticism.” Gnosticism in the Early
Church. Vol. 5 of Studies in Early Christianity. Ed. David M. Scholer. New York:
Garland Pub., 1993. 380-87.
99
100
Pagels, Elaine H. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary
on John. New York: Abingdon, 1973.
Painter, John. “The Johannine Literature.” Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament.
Ed. Stanley E. Porter. NewYork: Brill, 1997. 555-91.
Pearson, Birger A., ed. The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut
Koester. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Poythress, Vern. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of
Conjunctions” WTJ 46 (1984): 350-69.
Robinson, J. A. T. The Priority of John. Ed. J. F. Coakley. Oak Park, IL: Meyer-Stone
Books, 1987.
Rutherford, John. “Gnosticism.” ISBE. CD-ROM. Quick Verse Deluxe Ver. 7.0. Omaha:
Parsons Church Group, 1999.
Scholer, David M. “Gnosticism.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its
Development. Ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1997.
Vallee, Gerard. “Theological and Non-Theological Motives in Irenaeus’s Refutation
of the Gnostics.” Gnosticism in the Early Church. Vol. 5 of Studies in Early
Christianity. Ed. David M. Scholer. New York: Garland Pub., 1993. 388-99.
100
Yamauchi, Edwin. “Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag
Hammadi in Recent Debate.” Gnosticism in the Early Church. Vol. 5 of Studies in
Early Christianity. Ed. David M. Scholer. New York: Garland Pub., 1993. 26-
31.APPENDIX C
Textual Relations in the New Testament347
ELABORATION (+)
Appostition (restate or re-present; epexegetical)
expository o[ti, i[na, tou/to evstin (in other words, that
is, I mean, to put it another way)
exemplifying ou-toj, ou[tw, ge,graptai, r`htw/j (for
example, for instance, thus, to illustrate)
Clarification (summarize or make precise)
corrective ma/llon, menou/n, menou/nge, avlla,
ouvk, o[ti (or rather, at least, to be more precise,
on the contrary, however)
particularizin ma,lista (in particular, more especially)
g
summative loipo.n, ou=n (in short, to sum up, in
conclusion, briefly)
verifactive o[lwj, o;ntwj (actually, as a matter of fact, in
fact)
EXTENSION (=)
Addition
positive kai., de., te, pa,lin, ei=ta, kai. … kai., te …
kai., te … te, me.n … de. (and, also,
moreover, in addition)
negative ouvde., mhde. (nor)
Adversative avlla., de., menou/n, menou/nge,
me,ntoi, plh.n, para. (but, yet, on the other
hand, however)
Variation
replacive avnti., touvnanti,on, me.n … de. (on the
contrary, instead)
subtractive evkto.j, ei= … mh. (apart from that, except for
that)
alternative h', h' … h', h;toi… h' (alternatively, or)
ENHANCEMENT (X)
Spatio-Temporal
347 Adapted from Reed, “Cohesiveness of Discourse” 34-35.
101
102
following kai., de., kata. (then, next, afterwards)

simultaneous w`j, o[te, o[tan, po,te, kaqw.j, a[ma,
evfa,pax (just then, at the same time)
preceding pro., pri.n, prw/ton, h;dh, pa,lai (before that,
hitherto, previously)
conclusive loipo.n (in the end, finally)
immediate euvqu.j, euvqe,wj (at once, immediately,
straightaway)
interrupted tacu., tace,wj, au;rion, me,llw (soon, after a
while)
repetitive a;nwqen, pa,lin, eivj to. pa,lin (next time,
on another occasion)
specific metaxu., sh,meron, au;rion (next day, an
hour later, that morning)
durative evn tw/| metaxu. (meanwhile, all the time)
terminal e[wj, a;cri, me,cri (until then, up to that point)
punctiliar nu/n, deu/ro (at this moment)
Comparative
positive o[moio,j, o`moi,wj, toiou/toj o[mwj, w`j,
w`sei., w[sper, kaqw.j, kaqa., kaqo.,
w`sau,twj (likewise, similarly)
negative h', h;per, negated ‘positive forms’ (in a different
way)
Causal-Conditional
(1) causal
result dio., pro.j, eivj, i[na, ou=n, toi,nun,
toigarou/n, w`j, w[ste (in consequence, as a
result)
purpose i[na, o[pwj, w[ste, mh,pote, mh, pwj (for
that purpose, with this in view)
reason o[ti, ga.r, dia, dio,ti, ca,rin, e[neke, evpei.
(on account of this, for that reason)
basis evpi., nh. (on the basis of, in view of)
(2) conditional
positive eiv, ei;per, eva.n, eva,nper, ei;te … ei;te,
a'n, po,teron (then, in that case, if, under the
circumstances)
negative eiv mh., eva.n mh. (otherwise, if not)
concessive kai,per, kai,toi, kai,toige, ka'n [kai. +
eva.n], (yet, still, though, despite this, however,
even so, nevertheless)
Respective
positive w-de evnqa,de, (here, there, as to that, in that
respect)
negative avllacou (in other respect, elsewhere)
102
103
103
APPENDIX D
The Conjoining Particles and their Functions348
Conjoining Particles
+ CC + CS or CH (e.g. o[ti, i[na, w`j,

w[ste, o[te)
Coordinating conjunction
Subordinating conjunction
Superordinating conjunction
+Unio + Change/Thematic Shift

n
+/- Distinct, degree of union + Distinct, + Generic (de.) + Specific

variable (kai.) degree of (avlla,, h',
union close ou=n, to,te,
(te,) etc.)
348 Adapted from Titrud, “Overlooked” 24.
104
APPENDIX E
Semantic Relationships Indicated by kai,349
RELATION OTHER ENGLISH EXAMPLE

CONJUNCTIONS GLOSS
COORDINATION
Sequential to,te, de. ‘and’ (then) Acts 5:20
(also intraclausal; e.g.,
2 Pet. 2:12)
Simultaneous Ø ‘and’, Ø Mark 1:35-37
Conjoining de., te, ‘and’, Ø 1 Thess. 2:15b, c, d
(also intraclausal; e.g.,
Mark 3:18)
Contrast avlla,, de. ‘but’, ‘however’ Mark 12:12; 1 John 2:1;
Rom. 1:13 (parenthetical)
Contrastive Assertion ‘(and) yet’ Matt. 6:26; 11:19; John
1:10; 5:44; 1 Cor. 5:2;
1 Pet. 2:16
Result w[ste ‘thus’, ‘(and) so’ 1 John 2:20b; Matt. 8:15;
1 Pet. 5:4350
Apposition351
Equivalent (also Ø Matt. 7:2; 8:17
intraclausal)
Amplification/ ‘and’, ‘that is’ Matt. 5:42; 12:32
Expliative/ ’in other words’ 1 Pet. 2:25;
Exegetical Col. 1:17a352
Specific (also ‘namely’, ‘(and) Matt. 5:44; 11:12354
intraclasual, e.g. specifically’, ‘including’ 1 John 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:10;
Mark 16:7; Acts Rev. 14:10b
22:25353)
Summary ‘In summary’, Ø Matt. 10:36; Acts 6:7;
1 John 3:23
SUBORDINATION
Temporal o[te ‘when’ Mark 15:25; Luke 19:43;
Heb. 8:8
Grounds ga,r ‘for’ 1 Pet. 4:18355
Reason (causal) o[ti ‘because’ Mark 8:3; Rev. 12:11
Purpose i[na ‘so that’ Matt. 8:8; 26:25; Luke 7:7
(Orienter) - Content o[ti, Ø ‘that’, Ø Mark 10:26; Rev. 6:12
APPENDIX F
349 Adapted fromTitrud, “Overlooked” 24-25.

350 The kai, here conncets the reward in 5:4b with 5:3b. If you do 5:3b, then you will be rewarded.
351 There is a great deal of overlapping between the subcategories a, b, anc c.
352 Verse 17 is reiterating and expounding on verses 15 and 16.
353 A Roman citizen, and uncondemned at that. (Emphasis in original)
354 Most commentaries see biastai. as referring to violent men and hence understand bia,zetai as passive.
355 “kai, here introduces a quote as a grounds for the preceding material. The implied link that it makes between the
preceding material and the quote is something like ‘you know I speak truthfully because it is written in God’s Word’.”
105
Structural Outline of 1 John 1:5-2:2356
Ref. Greek Text Structure

1.5a Kai. e;stin au[th h` avggeli,a Orienter
1.5b h]n avkhko,amen avpV auvtou/
1.5c kai. avnagge,llomen u`mi/n(
1.5d o[ti o` qeo.j fw/j evstin SETTING
1.5e kai. skoti,a evn auvtw/| ouvk e;stin ouvdemi,aÅ
1.6a VEa.n ei;pwmen o[ti Protasis A1

1.6b koinwni,an e;comen metV auvtou/
1.6c kai. evn tw/| sko,tei peripatw/men(
1.6d yeudo,meqa Apodasis (x)
1.6e kai. ouv poiou/men th.n avlh,qeian\ Apodasis (y)
1.7a eva.n de. evn tw/| fwti. peripatw/men Protasis B1
1.7b w`j auvto,j evstin evn tw/| fwti,(
1.7c koinwni,an e;comen metV avllh,lwn Apodasis (x)
1.7d kai. to. ai-ma VIhsou/ tou/ uiòu/ auvtou/ Apodasis (y)
kaqari,zei h`ma/j avpo. pa,shj a`marti,ajÅ
1.8a eva.n ei;pwmen o[ti Protasis A2

1.8b a`marti,an ouvk e;comen(
1.8c eàutou.j planw/men Apodasis (x)
1.8d kai. h` avlh,qeia ouvk e;stin evn h`mi/nÅ Apodasis (y)
1.9a eva.n o`mologw/men ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n( Protasis B2
1.9b pisto,j evstin kai. di,kaioj( Apodasis (x)
1.9c i[na avfh/| h`mi/n ta.j a`marti,aj
1.9d kai. kaqari,sh| h`ma/j avpo. pa,shj avdiki,ajÅ Apodasis (y)
1.10a eva.n ei;pwmen o[ti Protasis A3

1.10b ouvc h`marth,kamen(
1.10c yeu,sthn poiou/men auvto.n Apodasis (x)
1.10d kai. o` lo,goj auvtou/ ouvk e;stin evn h`mi/nÅ Apodasis (y)
2.1a Tekni,a mou( tau/ta gra,fw u`mi/n Orienter
2.1b i[na mh. a`ma,rthteÅ
2.1c kai. eva,n tij a`ma,rth|( Protasis B3
2.1d para,klhton e;comen pro.j to.n pate,ra Apodasis (x)
VIhsou/n Cristo.n di,kaion\
2.2a kai. auvto.j i`lasmo,j evstin peri. tw/n a`martiw/n Apodasis (y)
2.2b h`mw/n(
2.2c ouv peri. tw/n h`mete,rwn de. mo,non
avlla. kai. peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smouÅ
356 Adapted from John Callow, “Where” 396-97.
106
APPENDIX G
Longacre’s Structural Outline of 1 John
Introduction
)G 1:1-4
1:5-10
GV 2:1-6
G(G)VI 2:7-11
G(Gx5)V(Vx5)I 2:12-17 Ethical Peak
(Gx2)VII 2:18-27 Doctrinal Peak
VI 2:28-29
Body
(V) 3:1-6
VI 3:7-12
)VI 3:13-18
(V) 3:19-24 Thesis
V(V)II 4:1-6 Doctrinal Peak
V 4:7-10 Ethical Peak
V 4:11-21 Ethical Peak
5:1-12
Conclusion
G)V)I 5:13-21
Key: G = write/wrote gravfw/e[graya
V = vocative
I = imperative
() indicates within the unit
) indicates at the end of unit - tail end.
x? = number of times used within unit, if greater than one
107
Works Cited
Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. Ed. E. Ray Clendenen. NAC 38. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 2001.
Alexander, W. The First Epistle General of John. Ed. F. C. Cook. The Bible Commentary
10. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Rpt. of The Holy Bible … with an Explanatory
and Critical Commentary …. 1871-1881.
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 4. Rev. Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody P,
1968.
Anderson, John L. An Exegetical Summary of 1, 2, and 3 John. Dallas: SIL Int., 1992.
Barclay, William. The Letters of John and Jude. Rev. ed. DSBS. Philadelphia:
Westminster P, 1976.
Barker, Glenn W. 1, 2, 3 John. EBC. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford UP, 1961.
Beekman, John, and John Callow. Translating the Word of God: With Scripture and
Topical Indexes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974
Beekman, John, John Callow, and Michael Kopesec. The Semantic Structure of Written
Communication. 5th ed. Dallas: SIL, 1981..
Bensberger, David. The Epistles of John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox P, 2001.
Black, David Alan. “Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar.”
Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Ed.
David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. 90-100.
1
2
___. Introduction. Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse
Analysis. Ed. David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. 10-13.
___, ed. Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis.
Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
___. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and
Applications. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
___. “The Study of New Testament Greek in the Light of Ancient and Modern
Linguistics.” New Testament Criticism and Interpretation. Eds. David Alan Black
and David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. 379-408.
Bodine, Walter R. “How Linguists Study Syntax.” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Ed.
Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. 89-108.
Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Johannine Epistles. ICC.
Eds. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs. Edinburgh, England: T&T
Clark, 1912.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP,
1983.
Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. AB 30. New York: Doubleday, 1982.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles.
Trans. R. Philip O’Hara, Lane C. McGaughy and Robert W. Funk. Ed. Robert W.
Funk. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress P, 1973.
Burdick, Donald W. The Letters of John The Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary.
Chicago: Moody, 1985.
2
3
Burge, Gary M. Letters of John. Ed. Terry Muck. The NIV Application Commentary 43.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Callow, John. “Where Does 1 John 1 End?” Discourse Analysis and the New Testament..
Ed. Stanley E. Porter & Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1999. 392-406.
Callow, Kathleen. Man and Message. Lanham, MD: University P, 1998.
___. “Patterns of Thematic Development in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.” Linguistics and New
Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Ed. David Alan Black.
Nashville: Broadman, 1992. 194-206.
Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics for Beginners. Routledge, 2001. 13 May 2005
<http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html> .
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Christopher, Gregory T. “A Discourse Analysis of Colossians 2:16-3:17.” GTJ 11 (1990):
206-221.
___. Linguistics and Literary Theory: Redefining the Disciplinary Boundaries. Diss. U of
Texas at Arlington. 2000. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2000. 9995834.
___. Personal interview. 6 May 2005.
Corley, Bruce, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy. Biblical Hermeneutics: A
Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 1996.
Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1989.
3
4
Crisp, Simon. “Discourse Analysis and the Study of Biblical Greek.” Part 1. TIC Talk 37
(1997). 1 June 2005 <http://www.ubs-translations.org/tictalk/tt37.html>
___. “Discourse Analysis and the Study of Biblical Greek.” Part 2. TIC Talk 38 (1997). 1
June 2005 <http://www.ubs-translations.org/tictalk/tt38.html>
de Beaugrande, Robert. “Text Linguistics in Discourse Studies.” Disciplines of
Discourse. Vol. 1 of Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Teun A. Van Dijk. New
York: Academic P, 1985. 41-70.
Decker, Rodney J. Realistic or Historical Narrative? The Question of Historicity in the
Context of Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Baptist Bible Seminary.
13 May 2005. <http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/documents/Lit_Interp.pdf >
___. “Respecting the Text.” ShopTalk. Empire State Fellowship of Regular Baptist
Churches. First Baptist Church, Schenevus, New York. November 6, 2003, 5.
Baptist Bible Seminary. 13 May 2005.
<http://faculty.bbc.edu.rdecker/documents/RespectText.pdf >
Deissmann, G. Adolph. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1988.
___. “Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible.” The Language of
the New Testament: Classic Essays. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. JSNTS 60. Sheffield,
Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1991. 39-59.
___. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered
Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan. 1927. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
4
5
___. New Testament in Light of Modern Research. 1929. CD-ROM. Vers. 5.0. Ages
Digital Library. 1997.
Dodd, C. H. The Johannine Epistles. NY: Harper & Brothers, 1946.
Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on
Genesis - Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
du Rand, J. A. “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John.” NeoT 13 (1979): 1-42.
___. “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John.” Analysis of the Johannine Letters. Addendum to
NeoT 13 (1981): 1-16.
Edmondson, Jerold A., and Donald A. Burquest A Survey of Linguistic Theories. 3rd ed.
Dallas: SIL, 1998.
Edwards, Ruth B. The Johannine Epistles. New Testament Guides. Sheffield, Eng.:
Sheffield Academic P, 1996.
Faber, Alice. “Innovation, Retention, and Language Comparison: An Introduction to
Historical/Comparative Linguistics.” Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Ed. Walter
R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. 191-208.
Ferrara, Alessandro. “Pragmatics.” Dimensions of Discourse. Vol. 2 of Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. Ed. Teun A. Van Dijk. New York: Academic P, 1985. 137-57.
Fillimore, Charles J. “Linguistics as a Tool for Discourse Analysis.” Disciplines of
Gooding, A. M. S. 1 John. Ed. T. Wilson and K. Stapley. What the Bible Teaches: Ritchie
New Testament Commentaries 5. Kilmarnock, Scotland: John Ritchie Ltd., 1987.
Grayston, Kenneth. The Johannine Epistles. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
5
6
Griffith, Terry. Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John. JSNTS 233.
Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 2002.
Guthrie, George H. “Boats in the Bay: Reflections on the Use of Linguistics and Literary
Analysis in Biblical Studies.” Linguistics and the New Testament. Ed. Stanley E.
Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTS 168. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P,
1999. 23-35.
___. “Cohesions Shifts and Stitches in Philippians.” Discourse Analysis and Other Topics
in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTS 113. Sheffield,
___. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text Linguistic Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Haas, C., M. De Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel. A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters
of John. New York: UBS, 1972.
Halliday, M. A. K. “Dimensions of Discourse Analysis: Grammar.” Dimensions of
Hansford , Keir L. “The Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 John.” JOTT 5.2 (1992): 126-
74.
Haupt, Erich. The First Epistle of St. John: A Contribution to Biblical Theology. Trans.
W. B. Pope. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville, SC:
Bob Jones UP, 1991.
Hills, Julian V. “A Genre for 1 John.” The Future of Early Christianity. Ed. Birger A.
Pearson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. 367-80.
6
7
Hodges, Zane C. The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love. Irving, TX:
Grace Evangelical Soc. 1999.
Hoopert, Daniel A. “The Greek Conjunction Kai used with a Personal Pronoun.” OPTAT
3.2 (1989): 83-9.
Houlden, J. L. 1 John: A Commentary on The Johannine Epistles. Ed. Henry Chadwick.
Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1973.
Huther, Joh., ed. “1 John.” Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of
James, Peter, John and Jude. Trans. Paton J. Gloag, D. B. Croom, and Clarke H.
Irwin. 6th ed. (German). Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1983.
Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990.
Kistemaker, Simon J. James and 1-3 John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1986.
Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Kysar, Robert. I, II, II John. ACNT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986.
Lange, John Peter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures James - Jude. Trans., ed., rev.,
Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.
Larsen, Iver. “Boundary Features.” NOT 5.1 (1991): 48-54.
___. “Notes on the Function of ga.r, ou=n, me.n, de., kai., and te,.” NOT 5.1
(1991): 35-45.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of The Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude.
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966.
7
8
Levinshohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on
the Information Structure of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL Int.,
2000.
___. “A Discourse Study of Constituent Order and the Article in Philippians.” Discourse
Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A.
Carson. JSNTS 113. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995. 60-74.
___. “Some Constraints on Discourse Development in the Pastoral Epistles.” Discourse
Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed. Stanley E. Porter
and Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1999.
316-333.
Lias, J. J. The First Epistle of St. John. London: James Nisbert & Co., 1887.
Longacre, Robert E. An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Ghent, Belg.: Peter De Ridder P,
1976.
___. “Exhortation and Mitigation in First John.” START 9 (1984): 3-44.
___. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum P, 1996.
___. “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek
Text.” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse
Louw, Johannes P., “A Discourse Reading of Ephesians 1.3-14.” Discourse Analysis and
the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T.
Reed. JSNTS 170. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1999. 308-315.
8
9
___. “Reading a Text As Discourse.” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation:
Essays on Discourse Analysis. Ed. David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
17-30.
___. Semantics of New Testament Greek. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: UBS, 1989.
Luter, A. Boyd. “John’s Epistles and Revelation as Inspired Preaching.” Inspired
Preaching. Ed. C. Richard Wells and A. Boyd Luter. Nashville: Broadman, 2002.
Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge UP,
1981.
___. Natural Language and Universal Grammar: Essays in Linguistic Theory 1. New
York: Cambridge UP, 1991.
MacDonald, Peter J. “Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation.” Linguistics and
Biblical Hebrew. Ed. Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
153-176.
Malatesta, Edward. The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text and English Translation
Schematically Arranged. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian U, 1973.
___. Interiority and Covenant. Rome: BIP, 1978.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Miehle, Helen Louise. Theme in Greek Hortatory Discourse: Van Dijk and Beekman-
Callow Approaches Applied to 1 John. Diss. Universtiy of Texas at Arlington,
1981. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1987. 8202065.
9
10
Moulton, James Hope. “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery.” The
Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. JSNTS
60. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1991: 60-97.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Neufeld, Dietmar. Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John. Ed. R.
Alan Culpepper and Rolf Rendtorff. Biblical Interpretation Series 7. New York: E.
J. Brill, 1994.
Nida, Eugene A. “Rhetoric and the Translator: With Special Reference to 1 John.” Bible
Translator 22.2 (1982): 324-8.
___. “The Role of Context in the Understanding of Discourse.” Discourse Analysis and
the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T.
O’Connor, M. “Writing Systems and Native-Speaker Analyses.” Linguistics and Biblical
Hebrew. Ed. Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. 231-254.
O’Day, Gail R. “Johannine Literature.” The New Testament Today. Ed. Mark Alan
Powell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Olsson, Birger. “First John: Discourse Analyses And Interpretations.” Discourse Analysis
and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and
Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P. 1999. 369-
391.
___. Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1-
11 and 4:1-42. Trans. Jean Gray. ConBNT 6. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1974.
10
11
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991.
Ott, Willis. “Marking the Sections in 1 John.” NOT 4.4 (1990): 44-50.
Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Dimensions of Discourse Structure: A Multidimensional
Analysis of the Components and Transitions of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.”
Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Ed.
David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. 207-39.
Patte, Daniel. Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1990.
Plummer, A. The Epistles of St. John. The Pulpit Commentary 22. Ed. H. D. M. Spence
and Joseph S. Exell. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.
Porter, Stanley E. “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory
Survey.” Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley E.
Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1995. 14-35.
___. “How Can Biblical Discourse Be Analyzed? A Response to Several Attempts.”
Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and
D. A. Carson. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995. 107-117.
___. “An Introduction to Other Topics.” Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1993.
84-89.
___. “Introductory Survey.” Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995.
14-35.
11
12
___. “Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical? An Evaluation Using Philemon as a Test
Case.” Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed. JSNTS 170. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1999. 47-70.
___. “Linguistics and Rhetorical Criticism.” Linguistics and the New Testament. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTS 168. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1999. 63-92.
___. “Literary Approaches to the New Testament.” Approaches to New Testament Study.
Ed. Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs. JSNTS 120. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1995. 77-128.
___. “Response to Several Attempts.” Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical
Greek. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1995. 107-17.
Porter, Stanley E., and D. A. Carson, eds. Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in
Biblical Greek. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995.
Prince, Ellen F. “Discourse Analysis: A Part of the Study of Linguistic Competence.”
Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Vol. 2 of Linguistics: The
Cambridge Survey. Ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer. New York: Cambridge UP, 1988.
164-182.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. 3rd rev.
ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970.
Reed, Jeffrey T. “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Towards a Model of Linguistic
Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse.” Discourse Analysis and the
12
13
New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T.
___. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over
Literary Integrity. JSNTS 136. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1997.
___. “Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis.”
Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and
D. A. Carson. JSNTS 113. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic P, 1995. 75-101.
___. “Modern Linguistics and Historical Criticism.” Linguistics and the New Testament.
Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTS 168. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1999. 37-62.
___. “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament.” Approaches to New Testament Study.
Ed. Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs. JSNTS 120. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield
Academic P, 1995. 221-265.
Rensberger, David. The Epistles of John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Sadock, Jerrold M. “Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar.” Linguistic Theory: Extensions
and Implications. Vol. 2 of Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Ed. Frederick J.
Newmeyer. New York: Cambridge UP, 1988. 183-197.
Scanlin, Harold P. “The Study of Semantics in General Linguistics.” Linguistics and
Biblical Hebrew. Ed. Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
125-136.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles. Trans. Reginald Fuller and Ilse Fuller.
New York: Crossroad, 1992.
13
14
Sherman, Grace E., and John C. Tuggy. A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the
Johannine Epistles. Dallas: SIL, 1994.
Silva, Moises. Biblical Words and Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical
Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
___. “Contemporary Theories of Biblical Interpretation.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 1.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. 107-124. 13 May 2005
<http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/silva.htm>.
___. “Discourse Analysis and Philippians.” Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in
Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTS 113. Sheffield,
___. Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996.
___. God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Sinclair, W. M. “The Epistles of St. John.” Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible Ed.
Charles John Ellicott. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.
Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. WBC 51.
Waco, TX: Word, 1984.
Smilie, Bruce Durelle. “Sin unto Death”: A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 John
5:16-17. Diss. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999. Ann Arbor:
UMI, 2001. 9925109.
Smith, David. The Epistles of John. Ed. W. Robertson Nicoll. The Expositors Greek
Testament 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.
14
15
Smith, D. Moody. First, Second, and Third John. Ed. James Luther Mays. Interpretation.
Louisville: John Knox, 1991.
Stancil, Bill. “Structuralism.” New Testament Criticism and Interpretation. Ed. David
Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1991. 319-48.
Stott, John R. W. The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary. Ed. R. V. G.
Tasker. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Strecker, Georg. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. Ed. Harold
Attridge. Trans. Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1991.
Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and
New Testaments. Ed. George R. Crooks and John F. Hurst. Library of Biblical and
Theological Literature. New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883.
Terry, Ralph Bruce. An Analysis of Certain Features of Discourse in the New Testament
Book of 1 Corinthians. Diss. U of Texas at Arlington, 1993. SIL and U of Texas at
Arlington Publication in Linguistics 120. SIL and U of Texas at Arlington. 1 June
2005 <http://web.ovc.edu/terry/dissertation/index.htm >.
Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 2002.
___. Exegetical Digest of 1 John. n.p.: n.p., 1984.
___. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992.
___. Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1995.
15
16
Thompson, John Christopher. “The Literary Structure of 1 John.” NovT 40.4 (Oct. 1998):
369-381.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Function of Kai in the Greek New Testament and an Application to
2 Peter.” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse
___. “The Overlooked Kai.” NOT 5.1 (1991): 1-28.
Tollefson, Kenneth D. “Certainty within the Fellowship”: Dialectical Discourse in 1
John.” BTB 29.2 (1999): 79-89.
Tuggy, John C. “Semantic Paragraph Patterns: A Fundamental Communication Concept
and Interpretive Tool.” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on
Discourse Analysis. Ed. David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. 45-67.
Turner, Nigel. “The Language of Jesus and His Disciples.” The Language of the New
Testament: Classic Essays. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. JSNTS 60. Sheffield, Eng.:
Sheffield Academic P, 1991. 174-190.
van Dijk, Teun A. Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross-Discipline.
Disciplines of Discourse. Vol. 1 of Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Teun A.
van Dijk. New York: Academic P, 1985. 1-10.
___. Introduction: Levels and Dimensions of Discourse Analysis. Dimensions of
Discourse. Vol. 2 of Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. New
___. “Semantic Discourse Analysis.” Dimensions of Discourse. Vol. 2 of Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. New York: Academic P, 1985. 103-
136.
16
17
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scritpure and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2002.
___. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of
Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Virkler, Henry A. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wannamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990.
Watson, Duane F. “1 John 2:12-14 As Distrubitio, Conduplicatio, and Expolitio: A
Rhetorical Understanding. JSNT 35 (1989): 97-110.
___. “Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetorical Style and
Invention.” JSNT 51 (1993): 99-123.
Wendland, Ernst R. “Dear Children Versus The Antichrist.” JOTT 11 (1998): 40-84.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes. 1883. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Willsey, Jack K. Current Trends in Biblical Hermeneutics. 2000 NARBC Preaching
Seminar. 20 May 2005
<http://www.nbs.edu/pages/willsey/current_trends_in_biblical_hermeneutics.pdf>.
Wu, Daniel Tao-Chung. “An Analysis of the Structure of 1 John Using Discourse
Analysis.” Diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998.
York, Hershael Wallace. An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical Methods of
Rhetorical Criticism and Discourse Analysis as Applied to the Structure of First
17
18
John. Diss. Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993. Ann Arbor: UMI,
1995. 9323658.
Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical
Approach. Nashville: Broadman, 1994.
18

A Discourse Analysis of 1 John 1 1-2-11

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Discourse Analysis of 1 John 1 1-2-11

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF 1 JOHN 1:1-2:11:

A PROPOSAL TO INTEGRATE LINGUISTICS AND TRADITIONAL

The Administration and Faculty of the

Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology

Of the Requirements for the Degree