IVP - Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Cotterell, Turner)

[Antony]

Could Accordance get Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation by Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, published by IVP?

https://www.ivpress.com/linguistics-biblical-interpretation

 

There's no ebook available as far as I'm aware, so it would be great to have access to it in Accordance.

 

It's from 1989, but as Poythress said in a 1990 review reprinted in 2017 on his website, it's a good introduction to the "full range" of linguistic topics for exegesis:

"This book meets an important need in the field of biblical interpretation. Some excellent books already exist on the lexicology of biblical languages, but until now nothing that introduces the full range of linguistic topics most relevant for exegesis. This book should therefore be regarded virtually as required reading for biblical scholars."

https://frame-poythress.org/review-of-cotterell-and-turner-linguistics-biblical-interpretation/

Edited February 6, 2020 by Antony

[MattChristianOT]

I would second the motion

[A. Smith]

Gosh. That book is so old and out of date in terms of linguistics theory. I'm not sure there's much of a point. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I am always somewhat torn between the old and the new. Sometimes the latest and greatest (?) is just confusing because it's so unsettled. Sometimes the old is out of date and superceded. A decent grammar has the virtue of having allowed the debates to try to settle a bit on contentious points and produce a distillation where necessary of the relevant theories. It isn't to say that following the latest and greatest theories and controversies isn't fine for some, but coming at a language from meta-language is an arduous road. Not for everyone. And yes I read a bit of linguistics but I think the best thing is to just to read the language and get a feel for it through direct exposure more than anything else.

 

Now, on this book itself, my guess is if there is no etext then it won't make it into Acc. unless there is a lot of interest. There are other more recent books on linguistics and exegesis though.

 

Thx

D

[Alistair]

Gosh. That book is so old and out of date in terms of linguistics theory. I'm not sure there's much of a point. 

Would you elaborate on why you think so?

[A.D. Riddle]

Would you elaborate on why you think so?

Yes, and is there another work you can recommend that would replace Cotterell and Turner?

[MattChristianOT]

"Old and dated" are all subjective. We could say the same about BDB and HALOT but they are still very usable resources. The more the merrier. When I write papers, I go to the old guys first before I start sifting through the new. Gotta lay a foundation somewhere, even if more current trends move away from the foundation. In terms of research, if you don't have and understand the older theories, you miss alot of the point of the newer theories. Like missing the forest for the trees. Yes there are many great examples of newer scholarship on both topics, but this could be a step in the right direction yes?

 

I would always push Accordance to invest more time and energy on tagged, original language texts BEFORE focusing on books and monographs. This is what will set them apart in their market. How many Assyriologists use software they didn't create on their own to look through Akkadian and Sumerian texts? If Accordance would go so far as to even look at some of the vast amounts of Patristics and Syriac material out there, they would do well to bolster their reputation. But I digress, Accordance needs to choose if they want to be a digital library like Logos or a research tool for many fields in Semitic and Other languages.

[Fabian]

In 30 years the actual linguistic view point is outdated too. Do we now lay beside the current discussion? No, there was and there is some correct thoughts. And some old get new insights with a new research. I see this in Commentaries and Exegesis too. I even miss some deep insights in the newer commentaries against the Kommentar zum Neuen Testament von Theodor Zahn. The new HTA (I recommended this, also available in Logos now) can reach the lack. 

 

Only a good reputation is not all. What Christian want is good I have nothing against this, but I would now hire a new content developer who made the simple books to satisfied a big majority, which are done in a few days to fill the store and to sell it, so Accordance can sell a lot of books and get more money as he costs (Cash Cows). He will get some skills for harder books and he should then change to the Akkadian, Patristic, Syriac etc. In my opinion the market is here not so big. Needless to say another new content developer takes the place for the simple books ... If a new content developer for the simple book found the way to Accordance the more skilled ones can do the harder books. 

In my opinion in minimum 3 developers are needed. 1. one for simple books which cost not much, but a majority will buy it. 2. one for the harder books which brings a good reputation and is demanded by Scholars. 3. One who primarily does Bibles, especially foreign Bibles to go in new markets. I see this as the opener.

One of the big problems for Bible software users now is. The Software with the Bibles they want is lacking the sophisticated app. And the sophisticated app lacks the Bibles. The premier don't have the skills, and the latter don't want develop Bibles. I see Accordance in the latter. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but this would be the way I would go for Accordance contents. 

I'm also not sure what would be the best for BS users. If BW rise again or they give the rights to others from their projects. It would be sad if the good projects from BW get lost.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Fabian

[MattChristianOT]

You gotta grow the market. No one else is doing Akkadian or other Cuneiform languages. Even tagged Arabic texts beyond the Quran would be great. You build the data sets, work on marketing and concentrated targeting and build a buyer set. It's not as difficult as it sounds, just need to break the mold a bit.

[Antony]

The book isn't too dated. An internet search shows that profs who teach Greek exegesis still list Cotterell and Turner's "Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation" as "required reading" or "recommended reading" on their class syllabi in recent years at various seminaries and universities

 

Also I thought that Helen said OakTree could get any IVP book, regardless of whether there's already an etext available. If that's true, then I ask again for OakTree to get this book for Accordance, since it's not available electronically elsewhere.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

You gotta grow the market. No one else is doing Akkadian or other Cuneiform languages. Even tagged Arabic texts beyond the Quran would be great. You build the data sets, work on marketing and concentrated targeting and build a buyer set. It's not as difficult as it sounds, just need to break the mold a bit.

There are many language texts that might studied with the capabilities of Accordance given an adequately large basic set of texts, lexica and grammars. Shakespeare for example, Old Norse materials and so on. But for sure Akkadian - but Egyptian, Sumerian too - the list is basically endless - well except that the world is finite and the recoverable texts are necessarily finite, but, how shall I put it, substantial. So 3 thumbs up for more texts and direct necessaries.

 

ok .... dismounts from hobby horse ... returns to barn ...

 

Thx

D

[A. Smith]

Would you elaborate on why you think so?

 

Without getting too deep into theoretical linguistics, nobody--including Chomsky--does transformative grammar any more. Deep structure is gone. Has been for years decades. Componential analysis is gone. At least as discussed that book. Structural semantic analysis is not totally out of favor but nearly. Functional approaches to linguistics, whether SFL, RRG, or contemporary chomskyan approaches like the Minimalist program are much more fruitful, especially in working with the biblical texts. And these are at least as old as the book, if not older.

 

As for contemporary seminaries using this book still. Well . . .. For some reason, biblical studies is always looking at linguistics decades behind the rest of the world. I really don't understand. It's getting better in some areas. Good grief, seminaries still read Nida for translation and recommend John Lyons for an introduction to linguistics! It's not that these older theories are wrong (although they are in some respects) but that they don't represent anything close to the present state of the discussion. If I asked you to give me an introduction to the New Testament, would you recommend that I read Henry Clarence Thiessen from the 40's? Of course not. That's absurd. Why? Not just because they're old and not because they're were totally mistaken about all they said. But they don't address the current state of the question. Why should Biblical linguistics be 30 years behind the curve? That's silly. There are better, more contemporary options. 

 

Now, part of the problem is that in biblical studies the 'state of the art' doesn't mean what it does in other fields. But linguistics is a very dynamic discipline and the newer theories nearly always offer a more complete, and often simpler, way at examining the language. As Matt said, our Lexica are old. Very old. But that's somewhat apples and oranges. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by A. Smith

[A. Smith]

Here is a great alternative. https://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Biblical-Exegesis-Lexham-Methods/dp/157799664X/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=biblical+linguistics&qid=1581282406&sr=8-4

 

And here's one that Accordance may actually be able to get (rather than the one by Lexham above). Second edition of DA Black's book.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Students-New-Testament-Greek/dp/0801020166/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=biblical+linguistics&qid=1581282406&sr=8-7

 

Again, it's not that cotterell and turner are wrong or bad. They're not. But they are objectively old and out of step with anyone doing contemporary linguistics today (with the exception of some in the world of biblical studies, unfortunately). 

[Fabian]

 tagged Arabic texts

https://arabbible.com 

[MattChristianOT]

Without getting too deep into theoretical linguistics, nobody--including Chomsky--does transformative grammar any more. Deep structure is gone. Has been for years decades. Componential analysis is gone. At least as discussed that book. Structural semantic analysis is not totally out of favor but nearly. Functional approaches to linguistics, whether SFL, RRG, or contemporary chomskyan approaches like the Minimalist program are much more fruitful, especially in working with the biblical texts. And these are at least as old as the book, if not older.

 

As for contemporary seminaries using this book still. Well . . .. For some reason, biblical studies is always looking at linguistics decades behind the rest of the world. I really don't understand. It's getting better in some areas. Good grief, seminaries still read Nida for translation and recommend John Lyons for an introduction to linguistics! It's not that these older theories are wrong (although they are in some respects) but that they don't represent anything close to the present state of the discussion. If I asked you to give me an introduction to the New Testament, would you recommend that I read Henry Clarence Thiessen from the 40's? Of course not. That's absurd. Why? Not just because they're old and not because they're were totally mistaken about all they said. But they don't address the current state of the question. Why should Biblical linguistics be 30 years behind the curve? That's silly. There are better, more contemporary options. 

 

Now, part of the problem is that in biblical studies the 'state of the art' doesn't mean what it does in other fields. But linguistics is a very dynamic discipline and the newer theories nearly always offer a more complete, and often simpler, way at examining the language. As Matt said, our Lexica are old. Very old. But that's somewhat apples and oranges. 

Not dis-agreeing but alot of linguistic approaches are designed to focus on spoken and somewhat current languages. Biblical studies is behind the curve mainly because they are dead languages. The current rise in linguistics in Biblical studies is very exciting, but we do have to lay a foundation. We have to read and understand where the others started to have any context for the broader discussion these days. Better to start slow and read the old guys, even if they were way off. And we are not even bringing up synchronic versus diachronic linguistics etc. That is another part of the puzzle for biblical studies (and every dead language for that matter). The second book you suggest is a bit specific to NT Greek (much different from any Semitic languages etc), Dr Black is at the school I attend and he surely knows his stuff, I have had a few classes under him personally. Yet there are new approaches every year or so and who is to say who is fully right or wrong? If we had that figured out, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. Unfortunately, there is no one solution to approaching linguistics yet and many are still trying to catch up in biblical studies. I for one am all for gaining different perspectives on the debate, helps to see where others have been and if even a bit of what they said rings with truth.

[Antony]

Here is a great alternative. https://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Biblical-Exegesis-Lexham-Methods/dp/157799664X/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=biblical+linguistics&qid=1581282406&sr=8-4

 

And here's one that Accordance may actually be able to get (rather than the one by Lexham above). Second edition of DA Black's book.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Students-New-Testament-Greek/dp/0801020166/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=biblical+linguistics&qid=1581282406&sr=8-7

 

Again, it's not that cotterell and turner are wrong or bad. They're not. But they are objectively old and out of step with anyone doing contemporary linguistics today (with the exception of some in the world of biblical studies, unfortunately). 

 

I already had electronic copies of both those books which you recommended as alternatives, so I thought I should mention that both those books recommend Cotterell and Turner several times for further reading on specific topics and for general overviews. For example, pages 9-10, 38, 49 in the first book, among other references/quotes.

 

And Black lists Cotterell and Turner along with 8 other books which he says "will give the newcomer the best overview of linguistics and some details on specific modern linguistic schools"  (p 22). And he lists the book among 12 other books which he says are "excellent surveys of textlinguistics" (p 197)

 

So I still think that Coterell and Turner are worth reading and having available electronically in Accordance, even it shouldn't be someone's only book on the subject.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Antony

[A. Smith]

Not dis-agreeing but alot of linguistic approaches are designed to focus on spoken and somewhat current languages. Biblical studies is behind the curve mainly because they are dead languages. The current rise in linguistics in Biblical studies is very exciting, but we do have to lay a foundation. We have to read and understand where the others started to have any context for the broader discussion these days. Better to start slow and read the old guys, even if they were way off. And we are not even bringing up synchronic versus diachronic linguistics etc. That is another part of the puzzle for biblical studies (and every dead language for that matter). The second book you suggest is a bit specific to NT Greek (much different from any Semitic languages etc), Dr Black is at the school I attend and he surely knows his stuff, I have had a few classes under him personally. Yet there are new approaches every year or so and who is to say who is fully right or wrong? If we had that figured out, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. Unfortunately, there is no one solution to approaching linguistics yet and many are still trying to catch up in biblical studies. I for one am all for gaining different perspectives on the debate, helps to see where others have been and if even a bit of what they said rings with truth.

 

Yes . . . but . . . 

 

I think of it like this. For a student of the New Testament, is it relevant to know the intricacies of Bultmann and Form Criticism? Not really. And certainly not at the start. But, should they be aware of N.T Wright, Kingdom theology an the New Perspective? Well, we might be able to disagree about the NPP, but you can't get far in understanding the current state of NT studies without knowing Wright. Of course, if you're going to go deep--Ph.D. in NT--then you may very well go all the way back to the foundations of the discipline. But even still, that's not the place to start.

 

By that analogy, there is virtually no value in current students of the Bible learning about deep structure transformations and kernel sentences. Absolutely no one talks about these things any more. And there is no need to know these things to understand the current state of linguistic understanding. Yes, if you're going to go deeply into the study of linguistics you'll eventually have to learn TG, at least at a rudimentary level. But beyond that, you can completely ignore it and suffer no loss. There is no reason in the world someone can't start with a simple introduction to, as an example, syntax from an MP or LFG perspective. Frankly, after a general introduction in one of those theories, there's no need for most biblical studies students to go any deeper. And there are up-to-date introductions to general linguistics that won't even bother confusing you with various theoretical approaches but rather introduce you to the commonalities they all agree upon (x-bar, for example). And, here again, something like Language Files

https://www.amazon.com/Language-Files-Materials-Introduction-Linguistics/dp/0814252702/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=language+files&qid=1581294523&sr=8-2

 

or Contemporary Linguistics

https://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Linguistics-Introduction-William-OGrady/dp/1319039774/ref=pd_sbs_14_3/142-8480970-1329453?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1319039774&pd_rd_r=7270ffb8-fcfa-4d60-ba2f-2bd742597fb4&pd_rd_w=xtAjP&pd_rd_wg=LhqdC&pf_rd_p=547f2794-55d2-4e81-a21e-8fe99f7ce60a&pf_rd_r=H0MRGRH0NJSKX2AYZSCY&psc=1&refRID=H0MRGRH0NJSKX2AYZSCY

 

will provide more than most will ever need.

 

As for analyzing a 'living' or 'dead' language, there really isn't much of a difference. Language is language. If the theory works, it works. Every theory worth anything is looking at linguistic typology--theories that apply in some way to all human language. 

 

So, lay a foundation in linguistics. Absolutely. But if we're going to go through the work to do that, why do it with one hand behind our back, learning antiquated linguistic theory when more contemporary theories will work as well or better for the job and equip us to more easily interact with current linguistic discussions? Yes. There are new theories every year. And there are also new ideas about the origin of Israel or Messianism every year. But that's no reason to insist that neophytes should begin their theological education with literature from the 1800's. An exaggerated analogy, I know. But biblical studies is a slow moving discipline. There have been more changes in linguistics in the last 50 years than probably the last 200 years of biblical studies. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by A. Smith

[A. Smith]

I already had electronic copies of both those books which you recommended as alternatives, so I thought I should mention that both those books recommend Cotterell and Turner several times for further reading on specific topics and for general overviews. For example, pages 9-10, 38, 49 in the first book, among other references/quotes.

 

And Black lists Cotterell and Turner along with 8 other books which he says "will give the newcomer the best overview of linguistics and some details on specific modern linguistic schools"  (p 22). And he lists the book among 12 other books which he says are "excellent surveys of textlinguistics" (p 197)

 

So I still think that Coterell and Turner are worth reading and having available electronically in Accordance, even it shouldn't be someone's only book on the subject.

 

Yes. I tried to make the point clearly that Cotterell and Turner are not wrong and that not all of their discussion is out of date. I mentioned some specific instances in my original reply. Nonetheless, I'll stand by my original statement.

 

As an analogy, one can still find helpful info in TDNT even though much has been learned in every conceivable field since this dictionary was completed. Moreover, simply because TDNT is often cited and a 'standard' reference work, does not mean it should be the first reference consulted. And, when consulting it, one has to be mindful of it's errors and of where the state of the art has advanced. And so, for this reason, NIDNTTE has become the contemporary 'standard' dictionary of this type. Yes. It references it's forefather. But it has also surpassed it in most respects. 

 

Because this is not a linguistics forum, I'm going to step out of the discussion at this point. Thank you. 

[MattChristianOT]

 

So, lay a foundation in linguistics. Absolutely. But if we're going to go through the work to do that, why do it with one hand behind our back, learning antiquated linguistic theory when more contemporary theories will work as well or better for the job and equip us to more easily interact with current linguistic discussions? Yes. There are new theories every year. And there are also new ideas about the origin of Israel or Messianism every year. But that's no reason to insist that neophytes should begin their theological education with literature from the 1800's. An exaggerated analogy, I know. But biblical studies is a slow moving discipline. There have been more changes in linguistics in the last 50 years than probably the last 200 years of biblical studies. 

And the funny thing is, Most of my resources from the 1800's are still my go too or Semitic languages ironically enough. I don't touch Greek, Way different from Hebrew (we don't even have diplomatic editions beside the Byzantine stuff that has been pushed by Dr Robinson. Yes language is language, but text that is transmitted language and recopied many times over is not the same as oral transmission. Yes their are rules but if it were that simple, we would n't be having this conversation. I would assume getting back on topic, if many schools are requiring this text (either they are right or wrong is another matter), Accordance may have an easy sell here which makes them some $$. As for how linguistic and general theories of linguistics is concerned, we could type back and forth for hours and still be going back and forth and no one wants to read us doing that LOL. Your point is well noted and taken and respected by me, yet I am one that likes to have a broad sweep of any topic. Heck, I am still reading Saussure currently, which is some of the ground work for Jan Joosten's theory of the Hebrew verbal system....

[A. Smith]

And the funny thing is, Most of my resources from the 1800's are still my go too or Semitic languages ironically enough. I don't touch Greek, Way different from Hebrew (we don't even have diplomatic editions beside the Byzantine stuff that has been pushed by Dr Robinson. Yes language is language, but text that is transmitted language and recopied many times over is not the same as oral transmission. Yes their are rules but if it were that simple, we would n't be having this conversation. I would assume getting back on topic, if many schools are requiring this text (either they are right or wrong is another matter), Accordance may have an easy sell here which makes them some $$. As for how linguistic and general theories of linguistics is concerned, we could type back and forth for hours and still be going back and forth and no one wants to read us doing that LOL. Your point is well noted and taken and respected by me, yet I am one that likes to have a broad sweep of any topic. Heck, I am still reading Saussure currently, which is some of the ground work for Jan Joosten's theory of the Hebrew verbal system....

 

There is definitely a different approach to history-of-the-discipline-and-discussion between NT studies and OT studies. That probably does explain a bit of our different perspectives. 

[Fabian]

(we don't even have diplomatic editions beside the Byzantine stuff that has been pushed by Dr Robinson. 

 Did you talk about https://www.sbl-site.org/HBCE/HBCE_Volumes.html?I personally would buy this series if it comes to Accordance. In my opinion it is funny how the people are keen on critical texts for the NT, but refuses the critical texts of the OT. I think both should be in Accordance for the academic discussion. 

[MattChristianOT]

There is definitely a different approach to history-of-the-discipline-and-discussion between NT studies and OT studies. That probably does explain a bit of our different perspectives. 

It took me a bit to realize that may be our disconnect. Two totally different worlds IMO and way off topic here LOL. I very much see your point but I feel a more firm foundation is needed for OT studies as the field is more focused on exemplars texts and directing their nature. I wish the same could be said for NT studies and LXX studies. The term "THE LXX" still makes me cringe but I digress. a HUGE topic and a HUGE topic to debate

[MattChristianOT]

 Did you talk about https://www.sbl-site.org/HBCE/HBCE_Volumes.html?I personally would buy this series if it comes to Accordance. In my opinion it is funny how the people are keen on critical texts for the NT, but refuses the critical texts of the OT. I think both should be in Accordance for the academic discussion. 

The BHQ volumes are great and they are still built off of the Len Codex which to a degree has some "reconstruction" by editors, Yet the NA 28 and UBS 5 and Rhalfs LXX are almost fully composite texts made by editors from vast amounts of manuscripts etc. Critical editions of the OT are MUCH different from editions of the NT and the linguistic study of them (to a degree) is much different in my opinion, yet I am open to being wrong (as always, I am not one that knows all things- God reserves that right). I am excited for the release of all BHQ volumes and really curious to see if they publish a one volume edition with the commentary in subsequent volumes or how they do that!

Edited February 10, 2020 by MattChristian

[Robert Holmstedt]

This thread has veered quite a bit. I am not in favour of Accordance spending any time preparing an e-text of an outdated (not just old, but obsolete) superficial textbook on linguistics. I read it as a grad student and thought it left much to be desired; my opinion now would likely be similar or stronger.

 

As for the HBCE edition, I'm sure Accordance will eventually have the text, and probably also the commentary volumes that go with the text. But I am principally opposed to "eclectic" editions.  I've written on it in blog posts below:

 

https://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/eclecticism-and-the-hebrew-bible-a-critical-edition-hbce-project-part-4/

https://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2018/06/06/eclecticism-an-additional-thought/

https://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2018/06/06/eclecticism-a-final-thought/

 

I've made similar arguments from the perspective of Ethiopic (OT and NT) and I would argue that they apply equally to Greek NT.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Robert Holmstedt