I am working through 1 Peter for an exegesis class at TEDS over the next 2 weeks. One of the most helpful things I have done in my Greek education has been syntactical diagraming. For me there is no better way to understand how the clauses fit together to form thoughts and ideas. It also helps me consider how every word acts in a clause, phrase and sentence instead of simply producing a translation. Diagramming a passage is the first think I do in my exegesis now. Sometimes the syntax and grammar of the Greek defies the normal rules of diagramming, the NT authors probably did not write with 21st century students in mind, but even then struggling to see that a section does fit easily into a diagram helps be deal with it better.
If you have Accordance this is very easy with the built in diagraming tool, if you don’t have Accordance, you should so shame on you, but you can still diagram by hand with pencil and paper. I use the form found in Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis by Darrell Bock and Buist Fanning and there is a very similar description in Interpreting the Pauline Epistles by Tom Schreiner.
Click each to enlarge or all three pages in PDF.
June 16, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Daniel, what would you say is the main verb (or participle) in this long sentence?
also, while syntactical diagramming is cool and all I tend to prefer more of a flow of thought analytical diagramming (some examples can be seen in Kaiser’s Exegetical Theology – and I blogged on it too). Getting at the flow of thought better helps me see what is being said, especially for preahing.
Good post – Good work too.
June 17, 2009 at 10:23 am
Brian,
I definitely like to go through the text in order of flow too. I just really like syntactical diagraming because it makes me understand how all the clauses and phrases fit together and express the thought.
June 17, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Daniel, are you intending, by your diagram, to demonstrate authorial intent? I might have a few recommendations if that is the case.
June 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Michael,
I think here authorial intent is not the best way to describe it because the order of the outline is not the order of the text and there are reasons Peter order certain things the way he did that cannot be reflected in a syntactical outline. For me the point is to come to an understand of the grammatical and syntactical relationships and then use the information in these relationships to better understand the text, in its original format.