discourse analysis and the enigma of 1 john a research paper presented to · 2013. 3. 1. ·...

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND THE ENIGMA OF 1 JOHN

A Research Paper

Presented to

Dr. David Alan Black

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

GRK 7610 Advanced Greek Grammar

Matthew D. Mitchell

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

March 19, 2013

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND THE ENIGMA OF 1 JOHN

The topic of discourse analysis can be an overwhelming one for the newcomer to

research. The same is true of the topic of the structure of 1 John. Nevertheless, this paper will

attempt to bring these two topics together. Following a brief overview of discourse analysis, I

will attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of this discipline for biblical studies by examining the

work of three scholars who have produced a discourse analysis of 1 John and evaluating their

methods and findings.

What Is Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysis (DA) can be defined as “a process of investigation by which one

examines the form and function of all the parts and levels of a written discourse, with the aim of

better understanding both the parts and the whole of that discourse.”1 Special attention should be

given to the italicized portion of this definition, since DA “is based on the understanding that an

author’s words and sentences are most accurately interpreted when considered in their context.”2

The context in which the author’s words and sentences are analyzed is called the “text,” or

“discourse.” David Black explains that “the term ‘discourse’ implies a series of utterances that

function interactively to achieve the overall message of the text. In short, then, both ‘discourse’

and ‘text’ may be said to refer to a sequential collection of sentences or utterances that relate in a

hierarchy of dominances to form a unity by reason of their ‘interwovenness.’”3 This definition

1

1 George H. Guthrie, “Discourse Analysis,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001), 255 (my emphasis).

2 Matthew McDill, “Methods in New Testament Discourse Analysis,” http://matthewmcdill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/METHODS-IN-NEW-TESTAMENT-DISCOURSE-ANALYSI1.pdf (accessed February 13, 2013), 4.

3 David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 171.

of discourse raises several questions. First, if a discourse is a “series of utterances,” how can I

know where one utterance ends and another begins? In what ways might those utterances be

interacting with one another? How will I know which utterances are more dominant than others,

and how can I begin to discover the hierarchy that organizes the various parts of the discourse?

Furthermore, once I have identified the discrete units of the text and discovered the hierarchical

relationships between them, how should this information guide my interpretation of the message

which the author of the discourse was attempting to communicate? The discipline which asks

and seeks to answer these questions is known as discourse analysis.

Semantic Cohesion, Constituent Relationships, and Boundary Markers

Semantic Cohesion

In order to gain a deeper understanding of discourse analysis, some key tenets of the

discipline must be observed. As a point of departure, consider the following statement from

Daniel Wu: “The proper concerns of discourse analysis are semantic cohesion, the constituent

relationships within a unit of discourse, and the identification of unit boundaries within

discourse.”4 There are three elements of Wu’s statement that call for further elaboration. The

first is the idea of “semantic cohesion.” Jeffrey Reed defines cohesion as “the means by which

an immediate linguistic context meaningfully relates to a preceding context and/or a context of

situation.”5 More simply, cohesion is “the use of linguistic means to signal coherence”6 in a

2

4 Daniel Tao-Chung Wu, “An Analysis of the Structure of 1 John Using Discourse Analysis” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998), 3.

5 Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Cohesiveness of Discourse,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 29.

6 Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 27. “A text is said to be coherent if, for a certain hearer on a certain hearing/reading, he or she is able to fit its different elements into a single overall mental representation.” Ibid., 23.

discourse. Describing the relationship between coherence and cohesion, Dooley and Levinsohn

state that “coherence is a matter of conceptual unity and cohesion is linguistic form.”7 We might

say that cohesion is the way in which an author syntactically indicates to the reader how to make

sense of what he or she is reading. An author does this using “cohesive ties,” which Dooley and

Levinsohn define as “signals of cohesion [which] indicate how the part of the text with which

they occur links up conceptually with some other part.”8 The concept of cohesion is important to

DA because it demonstrates that authors do not put words, sentences, and paragraphs together at

random, but according to a definite plan whereby “each part fits with the others and relates to the

whole by contributing to an interwoven thematic thread.”9 Furthermore, because the author

(presumably) wants to be understood, he will often provide (using “cohesive ties”) explicit

guidance telling the reader how to conceive of the discourse as a coherent whole.

Constituent Relationships

A second concern of discourse analysis is to identify and understand “the constituent

relationships within a unit of discourse.”10 One of the general presuppositions underlying DA is

that “discourse constituents, at various levels of the discourse, play roles that should be

identified.”11 A common refrain when reading the literature on DA is that meaning is found not

3

7 Ibid., 32.

8 Ibid., 27.

9 Andrew M. Bowden, “Interpreting Macrostructure through Discourse Analysis, with Specific Application to the Text of James 5:13-18,” (ThM thesis, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011), 6.

10 Wu, “Analysis of the Structure of 1 John,” 3.

11 Guthrie, “Discourse Analysis,” 257.

at the sentence level, but that the basic unit of meaning within a text is the paragraph.12

However, while it is true that a paragraph possesses “a single unitary semantic scope,”13 that

does not mean that every one of its sentences is saying the same thing in the same way. Consider

a theoretical paragraph containing six sentences. Sentence 1 may contain a positive assertion of

a theme (T), while Sentence 2 contains a restatement of that theme by denying its opposite (not-

T). Sentence 3 may clarify things a bit by adding an exception to that which was asserted in

Sentence 1, while Sentences 4 and 5 may draw out some practical implications or applications of

the theme for the readers’ day-to-day lives. Finally, Sentence 6 may conclude by creatively

restating the main theme in a way that transitions nicely to the paragraph that follows. Just as a

paragraph cannot be grasped without an understanding of how its sentences are related to one

another, so a discourse cannot be grasped apart from an understanding of how its paragraphs are

related to one another. Furthermore, because a discourse is usually composed of multiple

paragraphs, each one must be interpreted in light of its relation to the others which surround it.

Guthrie states this well when he notes that “if one does not have a degree of understanding of a

whole discourse one cannot adequately appraise a unit under consideration. Thus, discourse

analysis shifts the focus of biblical exegesis from individual words, and even passages, and

places it on whole discourses.”14

The relationship between discourse constituents can be understood not only in terms of

role and function, but also in terms of varying levels of importance and significance. As Robert

4

12 “Though the colon is the basic unit employed in discourse analysis, the most relevant unit for the explication of the semantic content of a discourse is the paragraph, since it is the largest unit possessing a single unitary semantic scope.” Johannes P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 98. See also Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 47.

13 Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek, 98.

14 Guthrie, “Discourse Analysis,” 256.

Bergen notes, “Not every part of a text is intended by the author to be equally significant. At

every level of textual organization some portions of each structure are encoded as being more

important that others.”15 The author’s use of encoding mechanisms to designate to the reader

which portions of text are most significant is known as prominence. Sebastiaan Floor says of

prominence, “It is probably the most important stylistic device in the New Testament and is

realized by a variety of devices: word order, repetition, contrast, and others.”16 Bergen explains,

“To help the audience figure out which portions [of the text] he considers to be more significant,

the author drops certain hints in the text. These hints are created by manipulating three variable

factors: (1) order of information17, (2) quantity of information18, and (3) type of information19.”20

Bergen observes that, in practice, “Highlighting [for prominence] normally occurs through the

simultaneous manipulation of several different variables in a text.”21

5

15 Bergen, “Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987): 330. Bergen adds, “The information of more central significance is often called ‘nuclear,’ while the other material is often called ‘marginal.’” Ibid.

16 Floor, “A Discourse Analysis of 3 John,” Notes on Translation 4.4 (1990): 11.

17 “Those parts of a text that are absent from their conventional place are naturally conspicuous. . . . One of the most obvious ways in which information may be made prominent is through the deviation from statistically normal word order within clauses.” Bergen, “Text as Guide to Authorial Intention,” 331

18 “Language structures may also be made more prominent grammatically as they contain unusually large numbers of statistically rare structures. . . . Repetition of literary phrases or formulae also give semantic prominence to a section of text.” Ibid., 332-333.

19 “This may be carried out grammatically/syntactically on the word level by using statistically unusual vocabulary, rare verb forms . . ., or irregularly formed words . . . . Above the word level it may be accomplished by the usage of statistically rare clause, sentence, or paragraph types . . . . Clauses and sentences may be made deviant either by the omission of expected information . . . or by the inclusion of normally absent information . . . .” Ibid., 333.

20 Ibid., 331.

21 Ibid., 335.

Boundary Markers

The third concern of discourse analysis mentioned by Wu is “the identification of unit

boundaries within discourse.”22 While linguists agree that good authors give their readers signals

to indicate where one unit of text (whether at the level of sentence, paragraph, or section) ends

and another begins, there is some debate over what qualifies as a legitimate boundary marker in a

discourse. Iver Larsen demonstrates this uncertainty:

A discourse analysis of any given text usually starts with trying to divide the text into major and minor sections and the sections into paragraphs. . . . However, it is not always a straightforward matter to find section or paragraph breaks in a text because there are seldom any grammatical criteria which clearly signal a new paragraph or section. Such breaks function in the deep structure of a text more than in the surface structure. . . . Although the basic criterion for establishing a section or paragraph boundary is the semantic (or pragmatic) concept of a single theme, there are various grammatical features which may lend support to such boundaries.23

In other words, although it is not the presence of specific grammatical features per se that creates

boundaries between units, those features are nevertheless often present when those boundaries do

occur. Some of these grammatical features which Larsen says lend support to unit boundaries

include: conjunctions (in Matthew, for example, tovte often begins a new paragraph), special

phrases (such as kai; ejgevneto in Luke and meta; tau:ta in John), performatives, back reference,

participant reference,24 rhetorical questions, vocatives, and introductions and summaries.25

However, with the exception of introductions and summaries, Larsen says that these criteria are

“more or less inconclusive as to establishing boundaries in a text,” and that such decisions are

6


23 Iver Larsen, “Boundary Features,” Notes on Translation 5.1 (1991): 48.

24 “When a full noun is used in a place where it is not needed for the sake of clarifying the reference, it probably marks the beginning of a new section.” Ibid., 50.

25 Ibid., 49-51.

best made on the basis of theme and not grammar.26 Expressing similar sentiment, Floor, after

listing several grammatical features that may be used to mark boundaries, states that “the most

convincing boundary is ‘change of theme’ or ‘change of topic.’”27

In his structural analysis of 2 Thessalonians, John Werner supports the unit breaks in the

letter using such boundary features as: asyndeton, the adverbial particle to; loipovn, vocatives,

the first use of a verb, ellipsis, performative speech, thematic parallelism, generic preview,

generic review, repetition, rhetorical questions, non-subordinated finite verbs, the particle dev,

speech orienters,28 tail-head linkage, grammatical parallelism, forefronted free pronoun

participants, forefronted imperatives, the conjunction gavr, and verbless sentence construction.29

Discourse Analysis and 1 John

To demonstrate the usefulness of DA and show how it contributes to the field of biblical

studies, we will now turn to examine the work of several scholars who have used DA techniques

to determine the structure of 1 John. The book has proven notoriously difficult to outline, and

the sheer number and variety of proposed structures that commentators have put forth over the

years is truly overwhelming.30 Daniel Akin remarks, “Few issues are more difficult in Johannine

7

26 Ibid., 51. Larson notes that the grammatical features he described “are more likely to be useful [in regard to establishing boundaries] in narrative texts than in nonnarratives.” Ibid.

27 Floor, “Discourse Analysis of 1 John,” 6.

28 “A speech orienter is an expression which indicates who is speaking to whom.” Dooley and Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts, 97.

29 John R. Werner, “Discourse Analysis of the Greek New Testament,” in The New Testament Student and His Field, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982), 216-228.

30 For a survey of the various outlines that have been proposed, see Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 37-47; L. Scott Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 23 (2005), 35-38; Birger Olsson, “First John: Discourse Analyses and Interpretations,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 369-391; P. J. von Staden, “The Debate on the Structure of 1 John,” HTS Teologiese Studies 47 (1991), 487-493; Wu, “Analysis of the Structure of 1 John,” 10-61.

studies than the structure of 1 John. There are almost as many opinions as there are

commentaries on the book.”31 L. Scott Kellum explains this phenomenon. He writes,

In a word, it is [John’s] subtlety. The transitions virtually flow from one unit to another. John also has a repetitive style; topics recur in cycles throughout the letter. . . . Nearly verbatim repetition exists without any structural meaning . . . . Above all, John prefers to use parataxis rather than hypotaxis. That is, he lays down his thoughts like planks on a boardwalk rather than steps on a stringer. This is heightened by his love of asyndeton rather than subordinating conjunctions.32

Commenting on not only the quantity but also the scholarly quality of the numerous outlines of 1

John, J. A. du Rand laments that “in spite of meritorious contributions, they are mere divisions

and not structural analyses. It so easily happens that the exegete uses, by sensing or selection,

certain aesthetic or even dogmatic principles of criticism to structure 1 John.”33 It is in

addressing this kind of unrestrained subjectivity that DA is most promising.34 John Callow

expresses his hope that, using the principles of DA, “discussion of differing structures [of 1

John] will be solidly based on the linguistic data, and accepted, rejected or modified on that

basis.”35 It is to such a discussion that we now turn.

Hershael York writes, “Nowhere has discourse analysis been more influential than in the

interpretation of 1 John.”36 In recent years, Edward Malatesta (1973), J. A. du Rand (1979),

8

31 Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 37.

32 Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John,” 35.

33 J. A. du Rand, “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John,” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 1-2.

34 This is not to say that DA is devoid of subjectivity, as Louw notes: “Discourse analysis is not a recipe that can be applied to ensure a final reading of a passage, void of any subjective notions. . . . [I]t is revealed reading; it charts the course of the reading process.” Louw, “Reading a Text as Discourse,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse, eds. David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 18.

35 John Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”, in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 406.

36 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” (PhD diss., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993), 87.

Helen Miehle (1981), Robert Longacre (1984 and 1992), Grace Sherman and John Tuggy (1994),

Daniel Tao-Chung Wu (1998), and L. Scott Kellum (2005) have all produced discourse analyses

of 1 John.37 To test the ability of DA to provide a solid, linguistic basis for evaluating different

structures of 1 John, this paper will compare the findings of Longacre, Wu, and Kellum

concerning three crucial passages in 1 John. Before doing so, however, it will be helpful to say a

few things about the general approaches of each of these scholars.

Distinctive Methodologies38 of Longacre, Wu, and Kellum

Robert Longacre39

Longacre claims that 1 John is “fundamentally not an expository but a hortatory

discourse. Accordingly, I shall take the command forms as the basic material around which the

rest of the book nucleates.”40 Although 1 John is essentially hortatory, many of its commands

and exhortations are mitigated; that is, they are covert rather than explicit. For example, 1 John

1:6 says, “=Ea;n ei[pwmen o{ti koinwnivan e[comen met= aujtou: kaiv ejn tw:/ skovtei peripatw:men,

yeudovmeqa kai; ouj poiou:men th;n ajlhvqeian.” While there are no imperatives, hortatory

subjunctives, or future indicatives present in this sentence, Longacre argues that it should be

9

37 Edward Malatesta, The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text and English Translation Schematically Arranged (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1973); J. A. du Rand, “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John”; Helen Louise Miehle, “Theme in Greek Hortatory Discourse: Van Dijk and Beekman-Callow Approaches Applied to 1 John” (PhD diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1981); Robert E. Longacre, “Exhortation and Mitigation in First John,” Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 9 (1984): 3-44; Robert E. Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse, eds. David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 271-286; Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy, A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas: SIL, 1994); Wu, “Analysis of the Structure of 1 John”; L. Scott Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John : A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 23 (2005): 34-82.

38 I am using the term “methodology” here to describe the process by which each completed his work, and not to the presuppositions which guided each scholar along the way. Thus, I can speak of Longacre and Kellum having different methodologies even though their theoretical frameworks are very similar.

39 Based on Longacre, “Exhortation and Mitigation in 1 John,” 3-44; Ibid., “Toward an Exegesis of 1 John,” 271-286. See Appendix A for Longacre’s outline of 1 John.

40 Longacre, “Toward an Exegesis of 1 John,” 271.

considered a mitigated command since the implication to the readers is that (considering what

John has just said) they should not walk in darkness. First John is replete with statements such

as these which contain an expository surface structure but a hortatory deep structure. However,

not all the commands in 1 John are mitigated in this way, an observation that will become

important shortly when discussing peak points.

Longacre relies heavily on the distribution of vocatives to determine the macrostructure

of 1 John. After the prologue of 1:1-4, Longacre identifies 15 structural paragraphs, most of

which he says are indicated by the presence of a vocative at the beginning. He also places a

great deal of weight on the distribution of the verb gravfw, noting that it occurs 12 times from 1:1

to 2:29, but does not occur again in the letter until its final appearance in 5:13. On this basis, he

concludes that the book’s two major breaks come at 3:1 and 5:13, dividing the book into three

parts: an extended introduction (1:1-2:29), a body (3:1-5:12), and a conclusion (5:13-21). He

then identifies dual ethical and doctrinal peaks in both the introduction and the body of the letter

based on the concentration of overt commands found in those sections. Longacre argues that

“the brute statistics of the book (as far as the types of verbs that occur) are misleading; that the

command forms are central; and that the book moves from mitigated (almost disguised)

commands to overt commands at the structures which we call the peaks of the book.”41

Daniel Wu42

Daniel Wu identifies unit boundaries by means of cohesion shift analysis and inclusio.

In doing so, he essentially adopts the methodology which George Guthrie uses in his discourse

analysis of Hebrews. In his book, The Structure of Hebrews, Guthrie identifies unit boundaries

10

41 Ibid., 277.

42 Based on Wu, “Analysis of the Structure of 1 John.” See Appendix A for Wu’s outline of 1 John.

by tracking what he calls “cohesion shifts” in the discourse. He notes that within every discourse

unit, there exist many grammatical and lexical features which together contribute to the cohesion

of that unit. Guthrie lists the following features which make a unit cohesive: genre, topic,

conjunction, logical relationship between parts of an argument or narrative, consistency of

grammatical subject, verb tense, person and number, lexical repetition, consistency of temporal

and spatial indicators, or various types of reference, including pronominals, demonstratives, the

definite article, or comparatives.43 He refers to these features as ‘cohesion fields,’ and notes that

“while shifts in the cohesion fields will occur throughout even the most cohesive discourse

unit . . . there should be corresponding shifts in several of the cohesion fields when the discourse

moves from one paragraph or embedded discourse to the next.”44 Guthrie therefore concludes

that locating these corresponding shifts through colon analysis of a text provides the analyst with

“a beginning point for the delimitation of discourse units by identification of unit boundaries.”45

He distinguishes three levels of intensity in discourse shifts, depending on how many of the

cohesion fields mentioned above contain shifts. Low-level discourse shifts will be accompanied

by four or less cohesion field shifts; median-level discourse shifts will be accompanied by five to

seven cohesion field shifts; and high-level discourse shifts will be accompanied by eight or more

cohesion field shifts.46

11

43 Guthrie, Structure of Hebrews, 49-53.

44 Ibid., 54.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., 59.

L. Scott Kellum47

L. Scott Kellum describes his approach to the DA of 1 John as “an adaptation of the

Semantic Structure Analysis developed by the Summer Institute of Linguistics,” though he adds

that he has “purposefully streamlined the method” for his own purposes.48 Kellum notes that his

proposal is not a discourse analysis in the strict sense because he does not provide an

interpretation of the text as a whole. Instead, he says that he is “looking for a coherent structure

to lay a hermeneutical foundation.”49 He began with a clause-by-clause analysis of the entire

text of 1 John. Next, he examined the semantic structure of the text as a whole, and based on

what he perceived to be the flow of John’s argument, made some initial conjectures about where

the major divisions of the letter occurred. He then tested these hypotheses by searching for

boundary markers at the transition points. The presence or absence of boundary markers in the

surface structure of the text would then either confirm or deny the initial decisions he made

regarding the deep structure. Through a process of hypothesizing, testing, readjustment, and

retesting, he arrived at what he believed was the underlying macrostructure of 1 John.50 Having

identified the major sections, Kellum organized the contents of each section into the following

constituent levels: propositions (clauses), propositional clusters (groups of propositions),

paragraphs (grammatically and syntactically related propositional clusters), sections (multiple

paragraphs that are semantically related), and divisions (made of multiple related sections).51

12

47 Based on Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John.” See Appendix A for Kellum’s outline of 1 John.

48 Ibid., 39.

49 Ibid.

50 L. Scott Kellum, interview, Wake Forest, NC, March 7, 2013.


Kellum found that 1 John is comprised of a short prologue (1:1-4), a body containing three

distinct divisions (1:5-2:27; 2:28-3:24; and 4:1-5:12), and an epilogue (5:13-21).52

1 John 2:1-2

First, we will look at the various ways in which Longacre, Wu, and Kellum answer the

question posed by John Callow in his essay entitled, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”53 There is

widespread agreement that 1 John 1:1-4 constitute a prologue, and that a new unit begins at 1:5.

What is in dispute is where the unit that begins at 1:5 ends.

Longacre argues that the ending boundary of this section is found at 1:10. He believes

that the vocative tekniva mou in 2:1 signals a new paragraph (2:1-6), and furthermore that with

the words tau:ta gravfw uJmi:n, John takes up again the reference to writing that is implicit in the

statement ajnaggevllomen uJmi:n from the first sentence in the previous paragraph (1:5).54 Iver

Larsen disagrees with Longacre’s use of the vocative to indicate unit boundaries. He writes, “It

is a rhetorical device, not a structural device, and it functions to establish a closer relationship

with the hearers.” Larsen specifically references Longacre’s analysis of 1 John, arguing that “he

uses the vocative as a boundary marker, and this, I believe, is not valid.”55 Longacre does not

comment on the anaphoric nature of tau:ta gravfw in 2:1,56 although he does note the cataphoric

13

52 Ibid. The paragraph from which this was taken erroneously identifies the third body division as 4:1-5:20, but Dr. Kellum confirmed in a March 7, 2013 interview (Wake Forest, NC) that this was a typo.

53 John Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”, in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 392-406.

54 Longacre, “Mitigation and Exhortation in 1 John,” 7.

55 Larsen, “Boundary Features,” 51.

56 See Martin M. Culy, 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004), 21; Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (Waco: Word Books, 1984), 35; Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John,” 41. Contra Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction sand Commentary, trans. Reginald and Ilse Fuller (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 85.

use of ejn touvtw/ in 2:3, which falls in the middle of 2:1-6.57 His decision to include 2:1-2 with

what follows rather than with what precedes it greatly influences his interpretation of 2:1-6. He

writes, “Because of the centrality of 2:1a to the structure of this paragraph, the decision as to

whether this paragraph is hortatory or expository depends on our interpretation of this verse.”58

Based on the mitigated command that is communicated by the subjunctive clause i{na mh;

aJmavrthte, he concludes that “since 2:1a is a command expressed via a performative . . . we must

call this paragraph hortatory.”59

Wu disagrees with Longacre and chooses to extend the paragraph in question all the way

to 2:2, with 2:3 beginning a new paragraph. As was mentioned earlier, Wu identifies unit

boundaries using cohesion shift analysis. He detects a shift in the following cohesion fields at

2:2: genre (from expository to hortatory), topic (from “cleansing from sin” to “keeping his

commands”), actor and subject (Jesus in 2:2 to the Christian community in 2:3), verb person and

number (third person singular to first person plural), reference (from “we” and “he” in 2:2 to

simply “he” in 2:3-6), and lexical field (aJmartiva occurs five times in 1:5-2:2 and not at all in

2:3-2:6, while ginwvskw, ejn touvtw/, ejntolhv, and threvw lend cohesion to 2:3-6).60 Significantly,

he notes that beginning in 2:3 “there are no more eja;n ei[pwmen orienters but rather a series of ejn

touvtw/ ginwvskomen o{ti (1 John 2:3, 5).”61 This observation, which goes unmentioned in

Longacre’s analysis, is picked up and elaborated upon by John Callow.62 Callow notes that

14


58 Ibid., 9.

59 Ibid.

60 Wu, “Analysis of the Structure of 1 John,” 94-102.

61 Ibid., 101.

62 See Appendix B.

1:5-2:2 contains a pattern of three units (1:6-7; 1:8-9; and 1:10-2:2), with each unit containing

two protasis-apodosis constructions, each protasis (six total) being introduced by ejavn, and the

first protasis in each pair being introduced specifically by eja;n ei[pwmen. Each protasis is

answered with a pair of apodoses, with the second in each pair being introduced by kaiv (and the

second in every other pair being negated by ouj or oujk).63 Hence, Wu’s observation of the series

of eja;n ei[pwmen orienters in 1:5-2:2 is more significant than he appears to realize.

Kellum also begins a new paragraph at 2:3 (2:3-11) rather than at 1:10. He notes the

tendency of many scholars to understand the tekniva mou in 2:1 to begin a new paragraph, but

rejects this approach. He references Callow’s findings on 1 John 1, agreeing that the structural

and lexical cohesion of 1:5-2:2 is conclusive evidence for placing 2:1-2 with 1:5-10. Kellum

adds:

This is further supported by the presence of the somewhat rare Johannine anaphoric ou|toV (it clearly points to the previous context). The ‘these things’ refers to the previous words from 1:5-10. The prominent vocative, then, does not introduce a new paragraph, but highlights the conclusion to the current paragraph. This conclusion makes evident the mitigated exhortations in the conditional antitheses of 6-10: he writes so that they may not sin, but if they do, they have an advocate with the Father.64

In the above quotation, Kellum notes that the vocative in 2:1 “does not introduce a new

paragraph, but highlights the conclusion to the current paragraph.” Interestingly, Longacre

makes a similar comment about tekniva in 3:18. He places this verse at the end of his third body

paragraph (3:13-18), and says that the sentence “begins with a vocative, which typically initiates

15

63 Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”, 395-398. In addition to the formal structure of the paragraph, Callow also notes several lexical links that serve to tie 1:5-2:2 together.


a paragraph but here apparently marks the closure of this one; it occurs in the vicinity of a

paragraph boundary, although not precisely where we might expect it.”65

It would appear that even Longacre would have to agree with Elinor Rogers’ statement

that “in itself, the vocative form cannot be said to signal change of theme.”66 His appeal to the

vocative cannot therefore hold much weight on its own. In addition, the connection he draws

between tau:ta gravfw uJmi:n in 2:1 and ajnaggevllomen uJmi:n in 1:5 is weak, and could just as

easily be considered an inclusio that ties the intervening material together into a single paragraph

(a possibility which Wu does not raise in his discussion of John’s use of inclusio as a means of

cohesion). Wu’s use of cohesion shift analysis to identify 1:5-2:2 as a single paragraph is

interesting, but in the end it is Callow’s work on the structural and lexical cohesion of 1:5-2:2

(referenced approvingly by Kellum) and Kellum’s supporting evidence of anaphora in 2:1 along

with his explanation of the relationship between 2:1-2 and 1:5-10 that is most compelling.

1 John 2:28-29

Longacre, Wu, and Kellum agree that 2:28-29 constitutes a single paragraph in 1 John.

What they do not all agree on is whether this paragraph is a conclusion to what has gone before it

or an introduction to what follows. Longacre considers 2:28-29 to provide closure for the

extended introduction (1:1-2:29). He takes the kaiv nu:n of 2:28 to have a summarizing function,

and says that the presence of this phrase plus the vocative tekniva signals a new paragraph, but

not a new section. (Recall that Longacre divides 1 John simply into an extended introduction

[1:1-2:29], a body [3:1-5:12], and a conclusion [5:13-21].) He locates the beginning of the body

16


66 Elinor Rogers, “Vocatives and Boundaries,” Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 11 (1984): 26.

section at 3:1, although that verse contains no vocatives. He concedes that “the vocative which

we are accustomed to seeing paragraph-initial is delayed until verse 2.”67

Wu, who divides 1:5-5:12 into three body sections, places 2:28-29 at the beginning of the

second body section (2:28-4:6). This means that instead of functioning as a conclusion, 2:28-29

rather functions as an introduction to another section. Interestingly, he does not find that a high-

level cohesion shift has occurred at 2:28, only a median-level shift. However, he does explain

that “because the significance of the varying degrees of intensity must be evaluated through

discourse analysis of the macro-discourse, all median-level shifts do not necessarily mean that

they are less significant than a high-level shift.”68 Wu also finds an inclusio between 2:29 and

3:9, which he believes lends cohesion to 2:28-3:10 (the first of four distinct units that together

comprise the section 2:28-4:6). In 2:29, John writes, “pa:V oJ poiw:n th;n dikaiosuvnhn eJx

aujtou: gegevnnhtai,” which Wu believes forms an inclusio with “pa:V oJ gegennhmevnoV ejk tou:

qeou: aJmartivan ouj poiei:” and “ouj duvnatai aJmartavnein, o{ti ejk tou: qeou: gegevnnhtai” in

3:9. He says that “the unit represents another example in which the elements of the inclusio are

located near the beginning or ending of a unit, rather than at the exact initiation or termination

points.”69 The cohesion that this inclusio gives to 2:28-3:10, combined with the median-level

shift found between 2:27 and 2:28, is the basis upon which Wu includes 2:28-29 at the beginning

of the second body section (2:28-4:6) rather than at the end of the first (1:5-2:27).

Kellum also ends his first of three body sections at 2:27 and begins his second section

(2:28-3:24) with the paragraph containing 2:28-29, but for different reasons. Instead of viewing

17

67 Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John,” 275.


69 Ibid., 119.

2:28-29 as the conclusion for the preceding material (as does Longacre), Kellum understands

2:26-27 as fulfilling that function. Concerning John’s use of mevnw in both 2:27 and 2:28, he

writes, “John characteristically employs tail-head linkage at 2:28, with the verb mevnw indicating a

new direction.”70 The anaphoric tau:ta e[graya in 2:26 supports the view that 2:26-27, and not

2:28-29, provide the conclusion to the preceding material. Because this is the last occurrence of

gravfw until its final appearance in 5:13, Longacre’s observation that the verb is absent after the

introduction (until the conclusion) would allow for a major division at 2:28, since Kellum says of

his first body section, “I believe Longacre is essentially correct in identifying this section as the

introduction to the Epistle, although, admittedly, a long one.”71 Kellum summarizes the evidence

for beginning a new body section at 2:28-29 this way:

The opening boundary (2:28) . . . is introduced by the very prominent kaiv nu:n, and the vocative tekniva. While some see this as the conclusion to chapter 2, given the combination of the vocative and the conjunctions, it is best to understand it as the introduction to the second major division of the Epistle. Not only does the presence of the vocative indicate a shift, but the phrase mevnete ejn aujtw:/ employed at 2:27 and 28, form a tail-head linkage that indicates a switch in paragraphs. The propositional clusters at 28-29 form a generic statement that will be made specific in the next two sections.72

1 John 4:1-6

As with 2:28-29, Longacre, Wu, and Kellum agree that 4:1-6 constitutes a paragraph.

However, they disagree on where the paragraph fits into the overall discourse of 1 John. Since

Longacre does not divide the body (3:1-5:12) that follows the extended introduction (1:1-2:29)

18

70 Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John,” 43. The text of the article reads “at 2:8” instead of “at 2:28,” but Dr. Kellum confirmed in a March 7, 2013 interview (Wake Forest, NC) that the text contained a typo, and that the article should have read “at 2:28”.

71 Ibid., 40.

72 Ibid., 44-45.

into sections, it is obvious that the paragraph containing 4:1-6 must be contained within that

single body section. This is not to say, however, that 4:1-6 is just one paragraph among many

without any special significance. Longacre identifies the paragraph as the body’s doctrinal peak,

and along with the ethical peak of 4:7-21 (itself made up of two paragraphs, 4:7-10 and 4:11-21)

believes it is the climax of the body and indeed of the whole letter.

Wu locates 4:1-6 at the end of his second body division (2:28-4:6). One would expect,

then, that his cohesion shift analysis indicated a median-level shift at 4:1 (since, in his analysis,

4:1 begins a new paragraph but not a new body section) and a high-level shift at 4:7 (since 4:7

begins both a new paragraph and a new body section). Actually, Wu found the opposite to be

true: he found a high-level shift at 4:1 and a median-level shift at 4:7. He notes that 4:1 contains

shifts in the following cohesion fields: topic (from “hope and self-purification” to “distinguish

the spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist”), genre (from expository to hortatory), main actor

(ajgaphtoiv), subject (the second person plural pronoun contained in pisteuvete), and verb tense,

mood, person, and number (from aorist indicative third person singular to present imperative

second person plural). Perhaps in defense of his choice not to begin a new section at 4:1 despite

the presence of a high-level shift, Wu comments that “because verse 24b is so different in theme

from the preceding section, it appears to be a link added to join on the next section.”73 He

further defends his choice to begin a new body section at 4:7 rather than at 4:1, observing that

“somewhat abruptly John turns from his discussion of true and false spirits (4:1-6) to present his

readers with a further appeal to love one another, ajgapw:men ajllhvlouV, in 1 John 4:7.”74

19

73 Wu, “Analysis of the Structure of 1 John,” 110n41.

74 Ibid., 126. Wu also makes an interesting observation about the alliteration which begins 4:7, “ajgaphtoiv, ajgapw:men ajllhvlouV.” Ibid., 171.

Kellum disagrees with Wu and includes 4:1-6 at the beginning of his third body section

(4:1-5:12), taking 3:24b (“kai; ejn touvtw/ ginwvskomen o{ti mevnei ejn hJmi:n, ejk tou: pneuvmatoV

ou| hJmi:n e[dwken”) to be transitional. He writes:

Here the person of the Spirit is introduced and forms a tail-head linkage with 4:1. Although a weighty minority continues the section through 4:6, that 4:1 is a strong transition to another topic is largely recognized by the combination of the vocative “=Agaphtoiv” and the prohibition “mh; . . . pisteuvete” and a shift to theological matters. These plus the tail-head linkage already mentioned (common between divisions in 1 John) make the separation fairly certain.75

Kellum adds that while the tail-head linkage, the vocative, and the use of the imperative could be

understood merely to indicate a new paragraph, “the mark of a new division [at 4:1] is the switch

from assurance from one’s actions, to assurance from one’s doctrine.”76 In other words, it is the

deep structure rather than the surface structure which provides conclusive evidence for beginning

a new section at 4:1.

Evaluating Longacre, Wu, and Kellum

In evaluating the different approaches that Longacre, Wu, and Kellum use to determine

the structure of 1 John, it must be said that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. A

strength of both Longacre and Wu is that they do a fairly good job of disclosing their method on

the front end. This is especially true for Wu, who had the luxury of space that the others did not

have (he devotes a 25-page chapter of his dissertation to “Method of Analysis”), but Longacre

(especially in his 1992 essay) also gives a fairly detailed overview of his method. Kellum is

weakest in this regard, for although he does a fantastic job providing evidence to support the

20

75 Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John,” 47-48.

76 Ibid., 49.

structure he proposes (much more than do Wu and, especially, Longacre), he simply does not tell

the reader anything about the process by which he arrived at that structure.

There is a sense, however, in which the strength of Longacre and Wu in this regard is also

a source of great weakness, for one often feels that they are constrained by their own clearly

defined methodology. For example, Longacre seems compelled by the presence of the vocative

in 2:1 to begin a new section there, even though the elaborate structural pattern (of six protasis-

apodosis constructions with alternating eja;n ei[pwmen o{ti / eja;n openings) that begins in 1:6 does

not reach its proper end until 2:2.77 Likewise, Wu’s method of counting cohesion field shifts

does not seem to properly account for tail-head linkage (which Kellum argues is common

between divisions in 1 John), which has the potential to lower the number of cohesion field shifts

at the precise points where John is making a significant transition. Would Wu be able to identify

those transitions that are particularly smooth? Overall, Wu’s method seems to be the weakest of

the three.

Comparing the work of Longacre and Kellum, one thing that stands out is the amount of

evidence which Kellum presents for each decision he has made. For this reason, Kellum’s work

is of great use not only to students and scholars, but also to pastors and teachers seeking to

effectively teach 1 John in the local church. To truly maximize the usefulness of his work,

however, Kellum needs to go a step further and clearly communicate his methodology so that

scholars, students, and pastors could replicate the process on their own.

21

77 To be fair, it should be noted that only Kellum (writing in 2005) had access to John Callow’s 1999 essay, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”

Conclusion

In this paper, I have attempted to provide a brief overview of the field of discourse

analysis and then demonstrate the usefulness of DA for biblical studies. This was achieved by

examining the approaches of three different scholars to the DA of 1 John, a book that has proven

to be one of the most difficult books of the New Testament to outline. Specifically, I examined

the way that these scholars handled three passages from 1 John on which there is significant

disagreement among scholars. The great benefit of DA as “revealed reading” which “charts the

course of the reading process”78 was demonstrated, and John Callow’s hope that the “discussion

of differing structures [of 1 John] will be solidly based on the linguistic data, and accepted,

rejected or modified on that basis”79 was, it is hoped, in some small way realized.

22

78 Louw, “Reading a Text as Discourse,” 18.

79 Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”, 406.

APPENDIX A

Robert E. Longacre’s Outline of 1 JohnI. Introduction: 1:1-2:29

A. Point 1 (P-3): 1:1-10B. Point 2 (P-2): 2:1-6C. Point 3 (P-1): 2:7-11D. Peak (Ethical): 2:12-17E. Peak (Doctrinal): 2:18-27F. Closure: 2:28-29

II. Body: 3:1-5:12A. Point 1 (P-4): 3:1-6B. Point 2 (P-3): 3:7-12C. Point 3 (P-2): 3:13-18D. Point 4 (P-1): 3:19-24E. Peak (Doctrinal): 4:1-6F. Peak (Ethical): 4:7-21

1. 4:7-102. 4:11-21

G. Peak +1: 5:1-12III. Closure of the Epistle: 5:13-21

Daniel Tao-Chung Wu’s Outline of 1 JohnI. Prologue: The Word of Life (1.1-4)II. Light and Darkness (1.5-2.27)

A. Walking in the Light (1.5-2.2)1. God is Light (1.5-1.7)2. Renouncing Sin (1.8-2.2)

B. The Command to Love (2.3-2.11)1. Knowledge of God and Keeping His Commandments (2.3-2.6)2. New Commandment (2.7-2.11)

C. Digression about the Church (2.12-14)D. Three Warnings (2.15-2.27)

1. Warning against the World (2.15-2.17)2. Warning against the Antichrist (2.18-2.23)3. Warning against the Lie (2.24-27)

III. The Privileges and Responsibilities of God’s Children (2.28-4.6)A. The Revelation of God’s Children (2.28-3.10)

1. The Confidence of God’s Children (2.28-2.29)2. The Identity of God’s Children (3.1-2)3. God’s Children and the Children of the Devil (3.3-3.10)

B. The Community’s Message (3.11-3.12)

23

C. The Marks of God’s Children (3.13-3.24)1. Love in Community Life (3.13-18)2. Shoring Up Christian Confidence (3.19-3.24)

D. Test the Spirits (4.1-6)IV. Faith in God and Love One Another (4.7-5.12)

A. God’s Love Evokes Human Love (4.7-4.11)B. Confidence in God’s Love (4.12-4.18)C. Appealing to Love Each Other (4.19-4.21)D. The Victory of Faith (5.1-5.5)E. Testimony to the Son (5.6-5.12)

V. Epilogue: Final Remarks (5.13-5.21)A. The Confidence and Certainty of Believers (5.13-5.20)B. The Final Exhortation (5.21)

L. Scott Kellum’s Outline of 1 JohnI. Prologue: 1:1-4II. Division I (1.5-2.27): Overview

A. 1.5-2.2: True Christians Walk in the LightB. 2.3-2.11: True Christians Keep His CommandmentsC. 2.12-2.17: Mature and Do Not Love the WorldD. 2.18-2.27: Abiding and Departing

III. Division II (2.28-3.24): The Ethics of God’s ChildrenA. 2.28-2.29: Abiding Brings BoldnessB. 3.1-3.10: The Children of God Sanctify ThemselvesC. 3:10-3.24: The Children of God Keep His Commandments

IV. Division III (4.1-5.12): DoctrineA. 4.1-4.6: Test the SpiritsB. 4.7-4.12: The Theological Basis of Brotherly LoveC. 4.13-4.21: Confidence from Correct DoctrineD. 5.1-5.12: The Testimony and the Proof

V. Epilogue: 5:13-21A. Specific 1: 5:14-17B. Specific 2: 5.18C. Specific 3: 5.19D. Specific 4: 5.20E. Final Comment: 5.21

24

APPENDIX B80

25

80 Callow, “Where Does 1 John 1 End?”, 396-397.

Bibliography

Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. New American Commentary 38. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

Allen, David L. “The Discourse Structure of Philemon: A Study in Textlinguistics.” In Scribes and Scripture: New Testament Essays in Honor of J. Harold Greenlee, edited by David Alan Black, 77-96. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

Anderson, Jay, and Joy Anderson. “Cataphora in 1 John.” Notes on Translation 7.2 (1993): 41-46.

Anderson, John L. “Cultural Assumptions Behind the First Epistle of John.” Notes on Translation 4.4 (1990): 39-44.

——. An Exegetical Summary of 1, 2, & 3 John. Dallas: SIL International, 1992.

Baugh, S. M. A First John Reader: Intermediate Greek Reading Notes and Grammar. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1999.

Beekman, John, John Callow, and Michael Kopesec. The Semantic Structure of Written Communication. Fifth Revision. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1981.

Bergen, Robert D. “Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987): 327-336.

Black, David Alan. “The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics.” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 16-49.

——. Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

——. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Black, David Alan, and David S. Dockery, eds. Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001.

Bowden, Andrew M. “Interpreting Macrostructure through Discourse Analysis, with Specific Application to the Text of James 5:13-18.” ThM thesis, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011.

26

Burge, Gary M. Letters of John. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Callow, John. “Where Does 1 John 1 End?” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 392-406. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Coombes, Malcom. “A Different Approach to the Structure of 1 John.” Australian eJournal of Theology 14 (2009): 1-30. http://aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/197648/Coombes_Structure_1John.pdf (accessed February 22, 2013).

Culy, Martin M. 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004.

Dooley, Robert A., and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts. Dallas: SIL International, 2001.

du Rand, J. A. “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John.” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 1-42.

___. “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John.” Addendum to Neotestamentica 13: Studies in the Johannine Letters (1981): 1-16.

Edwards, Ruth B. The Johannine Epistles. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Feuillet, Andre. “The Structure of First John: Comparison with the 4th Gospel: The Pattern of Christian Life.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 3 (1973): 194-216.

Floor, Sebastiaan. “A Discourse Analysis of 3 John.” Notes on Translation 4.4 (1990): 1-17.

Guthrie, George H. “Discourse Analysis.” In Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, 253-271. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001.

——. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 73. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.

Haas, C., M. De Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel. A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John. New York: UBS, 1972.

Jensen, Matthew. “The Structure and Argument of 1 John.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (2012): 54-73.

27

Kellum, L. Scott. “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John : A Modest Proposal.” Faith and Mission 23 (2005): 34-82.

Larsen, Iver. “Boundary Features.” Notes on Translation 5.1 (1991): 48-54.

——. “The Phrase ejn touvtw/ in 1 John.” Notes on Translation 4.4 (1990): 27-34.

——. “Word Order and Relative Prominence in New Testament Greek.” Notes on Translation 5.1 (1991): 29-34.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2000.

——. “The Relevance of Greek Discourse Studies to Exegesis.” Journal of Translation 2 (2006): 11-21.

——. Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative Discourse Analysis. Dallas: SIL International, 2011. http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/narr.pdf [accessed February 22, 2013].

——. Self-Instruction Materials on Non-narrative Discourse Analysis. Dallas: SIL International, 2011. http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/NonNarr.pdf [accessed February 22, 2013].

Longacre, Robert E. “Exhortation and Mitigation in First John.” Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 9 (1984): 3-44.

——. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. Topics in Language and Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press, 1996.

——. “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text.” In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn, 271-286. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Louw, Johannes P. “Discourse Analysis and the Greek New Testament.” Technical Papers for the Bible Translator 24 (1973): 101-118.

——. “Reading a Text as Discourse.” In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse, edited by David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn, 17-30. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

28

——. Semantics of New Testament Greek. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

——. “Verbal Aspect in the First Letter of John.” Neotestimentica 9 (1975): 98-104.

Malatesta, Edward. The Epistles of St. John: Greek Text and English Translation Schematically Arranged. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1973.

McDill, Matthew. “Discourse Analysis and Hermeneutics.” http://matthewmcdill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/DISCOURSE-ANALYSIS-AND-HERMENEUTICS-PAPER.pdf (accessed February 24, 2013).

——. “Methods in New Testament Discourse Analysis.” http://matthewmcdill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/METHODS-IN-NEW-TESTAMENT-DISCOURSE-ANALYSI1.pdf (accessed February 13, 2013).

——. “New Testament Discourse Analysis: Definitions and Approaches.” http://matthewmcdill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/NEW-TESTAMENT-DISCOURSE-ANALYSIS.pdf (accessed February 22, 2013).

Miehle, Helen Louise. “Theme in Greek Hortatory Discourse: Van Dijk and Beekman-Callow Approaches Applied to 1 John.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1981.

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. Cape Town, South Africa: Bible Society, 1983.

Olsson, Birger. “First John: Discourse Analyses and Interpretations.” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 369-391. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Ott, Willis. “Marking the Sections in 1 John.” Notes on Translation 4.4 (1990): 44-50.

Poythress, Vern S. "The Use of Intersentence Conjunctions De, Oun, Kai, and Asyndeton in the Gospel of John." Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 312-34.

Reed, Jeffrey T. “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Toward a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse.” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 28-46. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

29

Reed, Jeffrey T. “Discourse Analysis as New Testament Hermeneutic: A Retrospective and Prospective Appraisal.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996): 223-240.

Rogers, Elinor. “Vocatives and Boundaries.” Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 11 (1984): 24-29.

Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles: Introduction sand Commentary. Translated by Reginald and Ilse Fuller. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Sherman, Grace E., and John C. Tuggy. A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles. Dallas: SIL, 1994.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Smilie, Bruce Durelle. “‘Sin unto Death’: A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 John 5:16-17.” PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999.

Thomas, John Christopher. “The Literary Structure of 1 John.” Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 369-381.

Tollefson, Kenneth D. “Certainty within the Fellowship”: Dialectical Discourse in 1 John.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 29 (1999): 79-89.

van Staden, P. J. “The Debate on the Structure of 1 John.” HTS Teologiese Studies 47 (1991): 487-502.

Werner, John R. “Discourse Analysis of the Greek New Testament.” In The New Testament Student and His Field, edited by John H. Skilton, 213-233. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982.

Wu, Daniel Tao-Chung. “An Analysis of the Structure of 1 John Using Discourse Analysis.” PhD 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 John.” PhD diss., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993.

30

discourse analysis and the enigma of 1 john a research paper presented to · 2013. 3. 1. ·...

Documents