Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

As the title of this post points out, this is the 13 th post in my review of Steve Runge’s Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament .  At this point, I’m still thoroughly enjoying Runge’s.  Even so, life is catching up to me and the busyness is preventing me from being able to write on it as I wish I could.  I have several projects due both within and outside of my Ph.D. program, not to mention the fact of being a T.A., having 3 holidays right in a row to celebrate, and that I’m traveling to San Francisco for SBL (where I’m presenting a paper and presiding over a session) and Israel within the next 6 weeks.  I say all that to say that the 13 th part of my review is going to be necessarily basic and brief.  Basically, I’m going to do little commenting and critiquing and just give an example of each of the remaining portions of Part 3 of the grammar (Chapters 12-14).  As for the Part 4 of the grammar and its 4 remaining chapters, I will try to cover...

In chapters 10-14, which make up the rest of Part 3 of Runge’s Discourse Grammar , eight specific types of framing devices are brought into view in addition a few general types.  In this review I will look at 4 specific, all of which are given in chapters 10-11:  Topical Frames, Temporal Frames, Spatial Frames, Conditional Frames, Comparative Frames and Reason/Result Frames.  I will deal with each of these in turn. In the previous review I covered the topic of “frame of reference” which is basically the element of discourse that helps set the context for what is being said.  You can read more about that HERE.  With that idea of “frame of reference” in mind, we can more aptly look at the various types of frames Runge offers.  The first type of frame is a Topical Frame, which is denoted with the open and closed bracket symbol and the superscripted letters TP [TP … TP] .  Here, I am using the dots to denote the place where the content belongs...