Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

The field of biblical studies is a field that blossoms with books and books and more books. Scholars love to read and write books. While we are people of "The Book" we are also people of "books". Many of us can easily be classified as bibliophiles. With so many books out there, however, the issue of which books to use and not to use is an important one. Certainly, some books are better than others. Some books are not worth the paper they were published on! As a TA, one of my frequent duties is to grade students' papers. This can be both a joy and a pain. Part of that pain comes from terrible writing but part of it also comes from seeing students use sources for exegesis and interpretation that simply should not be used. In fact, the terrible writing often seems like a direct reflection of the sources that the student used. Having said these things, I offer to exegetes--with an eye toward seminary students-- a short list of 5 authors that should pre...

It has become somewhat of a tradition to repost here on Pisteuomen a piece I wrote a few years back regarding the relationship between Christians and Halloween.  Each year I have posted this, great conversation has been sparked and I hope that the same will be true this year.  So, if you are a Christian who is debating whether or not Halloween is right for you and your family, please, check out this post because it may just help you out.  Happy reading! It's not uncommon these days in North America to find some Christian somewhere who makes it their agenda to moderate and critique holidays. Currently, this can be illustrated by a simple perusing of Godtube.com, where a ridiculous debate is going on between those who call themselves believers. Some think it is okay to celebrate Halloween and others do not. Those who do not, as you might expect, label those who do as "un-Christian", "satanic", "worldly", "secular", etc. I can't help bu...

Here's a video I made last semester to share with students on how (not) to do a word study. The volume is a little static-ridden at times but is certainly bearable. The video is about 4 and 1/2 minutes in length and is certainly worth a look. So, check it out! (Note: For a better view, click the "full screen" icon in the lower right corner of the video.) Unable to display content. Adobe Flash is required.

Many of you are not tuned-in to the Asbury Theological Seminary news feed, so, I thought I'd share some breaking news from Asbury with you all, particularly news concerning Dr. Craig Keener's forthcoming book on miracles.  I'll share just a few of the comments here and then you can click the link below to read the article in its entirety. Keener worked on “Miracles” for three years. It’s a wide-ranging and meticulously researched work that cites more than 4,000 secondary sources and includes more than 3,000 references from extra-biblical ancient sources. Keener presents what many scholars are calling the most thorough, current defense of the credibility of miracle accounts in the Gospels and Acts. He debunks David Hume’s argument that uniform human experience prevents miracles from being credible. Keener challenges Hume’s claim about “uniform” human experience by citing stories from various global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the matter. Renown...

In this review I will cover two of the final three chapters (6-7) of Part 2 of Runge’s Discourse Grammar .   I will deal with each of these chapters in turn, beginning with the sixth chapter, which deals with the “Historical Present,” and then turn my attention to chapter seven, which reviews the notion of “Redundant Quotative Frames”.   I turn now to Runge’s discussion of the “Historical Present” (HP). It is well-known by those who have studied languages that, while there are linguistic rules to be followed, there are almost always exceptions to the rules. In English, for example, it makes little sense that the singular word “goose” has the plural counterpart “geese,” while the singular word “moose” does not have the plural counterpart “meese”.   Irregular patterns like these often make languages difficult to work with!   When it comes to tense, there are also irregular patterns.   The HP might be thought of in this way! The term “Historical Present...

For some odd reason, a few months back the thought crossed my mind:  Humans don’t eat humans (for the most part), so, isn’t it weird that animals eat animals?  In the end, I guess it’s not all that odd but the initial though kind of made me pause and ponder the concept for a few minutes.  Now, this may be a very crude analogy, but it is something that helps me understand the concept of “Metacomments” (denoted by the symbol V ) which Runge talks about in Pt 2/Ch 5.  Runge defines a metacomment as the occasion “When speakers stop saying what they are saying in order to comment on what is going to be said, speaking abstractly about it” (101).  In other words, it is the act of commenting on a forthcoming comment.  So, how does my analogy above relate?  Well, like metalanguage, which is using language to describe language (an act of turning language in on itself) and metacomments, which is using comments to describe comments (an act of turning comm...

Building on the previous discussion concerning how connectives function in relation to one another, Pt 2/Ch 4 is concerned with what Runge calls Point/Counterpoint sets and how they are related to propositions.   A “counterpoint” is indicated by the symbol B , while a point is marked with A .   While Runge refers to B as the proverbial first “shoe to drop” (73) and A as the shoe drop to follow, personally, I like to think of it as a 1-2 punch routine.   That is, B marks the initial, setup punch, which also prepares the way for a second punch ( A ) to follow.   In short, the writer hits the reader with a combination pattern; the first punch not only catches the reader’s/hearer’s attention, it also telegraphs an impending second hit/point to follow!   You may find it helpful to develop your own analogy!   I have found that even in just attempting to rethink such matters, whether I end up coming up with a different analogy in the end or not, is often he...

So, today is my birthday...the big 31!  To celebrate, I want to be the gift-giver!  I am giving you a $5 off coupon on Vol. 1 of my New Testament Polyglot !!!  This is only going to last for 1 week (until next Saturday) or until the first 25 people use the coupon, so, head on over and get your copy asap! Here's how you do it: 1.  Click the following link:   NT Polyglot 2.  Click the "Add to cart" button 3.  In the "apply code" section, type (or copy/paste) the following code:  FLXB6R2C 4.  Hit the "apply code" button 5.  Enter your info, place your order, checkout

In Part 2, Chapter 4 of Runge’s Discourse Grammar , the discussion focuses on “forward-pointing” devices. Such devices are “conventions used to attract attention to something significant in the discourse” that is, devices used to garner attention to elements of the discourse that otherwise would not have been recognized. (59). According to Runge, there are two criteria used to qualify and classify these devices:  1) None of the forward-pointing devices is actually required to understand the content that is being pointed to, and 2) Not only is the forward­­-pointing device unnecessary to understand the content of the forthcoming material, but in fact, the following material would actually be conveyed more simply without it (59).  To put it differently:  forward-pointing devices (fpd) are unneeded and can even be distracting; however, this need not be an inherently negative distraction! For Runge, forward-pointing is denoted by the symbol D , while what it is poin...

I saw a video floating around Facebook today and when I watched it, I was floored. As someone who has served with the poorest of the poor in the developing country of Ethiopia, this video really touches my heart...and mind. I want to replicate this...I want to help my brothers and sisters in Ethiopia with this; I want to take this movement there! Watch and be amazed!  Then visit the site by clicking HERE . Who's in?

In Pt 4 of my review of Runge’s Discourse Grammar , we looked at the first four “connectives” of chapter 2.  Here, in Pt 5, we will look at the final 5 connectives.  Let’s begin with ou=n .  Right out of the gate, Runge suggests that the two-pronged answer of BDAG (Note: There is a typo on Pg. 43 in the second paragraph, where “cite” should be “cites”), which contends that, on the one hand, ou=n is backward-pointing, and on the other hand, it is a marker of continuation in a narrative, is problematic.  For Runge, this is only partially correct; he wants to parse this out a bit more and suggest that while ou=n does indeed link discourse elements together, it also signals a new development (+).  Often times, he suggests, ou=n occurs at “high-level boundaries in the discourse, where the next major topic is drawn from and builds upon what precedes” (43).  Yet, it can “be used to mark lower-level developments in the discourse as well” (44).  Follow...

Before moving on to review Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Runge’s Discourse Grammar , I want to reiterate a thing or two.  First of all, if you have not read the previous parts of this review series, I would highly encourage you to.  In those reviews and the comment sections accompanying them, I explain the vantage point from which I am approaching Runge’s work, namely, more as a teacher in the church and less as a linguist!  As I have shown, the preface and subtitle of Runge’s book explicitly state that coming at this grammar from such a stance is not only fitting, but expected.  Indeed, the following video is another place that explicitly states that this is aimed at pastors, preachers and church teachers, not simply linguists.  Thus, I am asking questions that a normal pastor or preacher might ask! Another matter I would like to address, which Runge himself and Mike Aburey have drawn attention to is the fact that I may be conflating the t...