@Steve_Runge should be flogged, flayed, and foot roasted @logos @academiclogos

I had the pleasure of having a meal with Steve Runge at SBL this past year (2012). He is a true delight of a scholar, and what’s more, I like his work.

Before SBL, he had sent along a pdf copy of the introduction to his new Lexham Discourse Handbook on Romans.

From Logos:

The Lexham Discourse Handbook: Romans guides readers through the Greek text, integrating insights from the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Runge explains how the various discourse devices each contribute to the overall flow and structure of the book by providing a unifying analysis of the text. His approach complements traditional approaches by helping readers understand the exegetical implications of the writer’s choices. The handbook offers sustained commentary on the text, but does not engage issues like background, setting, and audience that preoccupy traditional commentaries. Instead, Runge applies his years of research in discourse grammar to a running exegesis of the Greek. If you have been disappointed by the lack of discussion about structure, discourse flow, and rhetorical strategies in modern commentaries, then the Lexham Discourse Handbook: Romans is for you.

It is currently in pre-order, by the way — so go buy it.

Anyway, since my classwork is now down, I had time to sit down and read it via the Goodreader app on my iPad. I was severely disappointed. Severely.


Look at Paul… He has no clue what he is doing… And is that Greek? Everyone knows he wrote in the King’s English.

I was disappointed because it ended at verse 15. I wanted more, and not like the Twihards or Fanboys, but like I wanted to know what is revealed next. And there I was, late at night, with the project’s completion too far distant….

From what I can read of the work, it is going to be a fantastic volume in the Discourse Grammar series. So, go… pre-order it.


A few things, however — and these are not concerns — but I wonder what he will do with the Stowers’ identified apostrophe and prosopopoeia? The basic premise of the discourse grammar is that the author of the Text has some choice in his meaning. In other words, he wrote with a purpose. In Greek, Runge assures us, there are hallmarks of this connexion long absent in English. Indeed, look at your translations now. You know full well that verses and chapters, while helpful, are equally if not more so harmful in breaking up the Text.

Anyway, this is the pdf with such highlights and brief notes: Romans LDH (Runge) – Annotated (Watts)

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “@Steve_Runge should be flogged, flayed, and foot roasted @logos @academiclogos”

  1. You got me with the “severely” remark above the fold, I’ll admit it. But I expect there will be actual disappointment as well when the volume comes out. You raise legitimate and important potential connections of the handbook to the broader field, and I will not be able to put a dent in what could be done. There will be disappointment.

    My goal is to point out the grammatical and exegetical implications drawn from the analysis so that folks like YOU can take it into applications where YOU are the expert rather than me. Think 1 Corinthians 12. I’ll be a good toe and do what toes do best: toe the line. You be a good, well, whatever you are. And Chris Tilling, well let’s just not go there.

    1. I don’t think my cheekyness has come across well – my ONLY disappointment is that it I did not have the completed volume! The concept is sound, and better, the freedom it allows while also providing the interpreter with a solid foundation is of the utmost importance!!!

      No one, ever, wants to go with Chris Tilling!

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.