Jump to content

Using the ARC method with Accordance


davidmedina

Recommended Posts

I am reading about the ARC method and arcing. Does anyone here has any experience using it with Accordance?

 

Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently visited the Bible Arc site. They used to offer basic instruction in the method for free on this site, but I couldn't find it this time. It appears they have changed their policy to offering paid courses only. At least, that was all I was able to find.

 

Disappointed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Dr. J, I am not sure if it is the same but when you login there is a very basic explanation of the arcing method. It is not easy to find it, I just stumbled into it. I did however found something John Piper wrote and I will take a look.

 

Is there a podcast or have you considered doing a podcast or training on how to do sentence flow charting method that you teach your students? I would love to learn it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, David!

 

I am currently writing a Bible Study Methods course for Accordance that will include the method. Meanwhile, If you have Fee's NT Exegesis, it offers a slightly different version of the method on pp. 41ff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome! Looking forward to that. In the meantime I'll look into Fee's book.

 

Thanks

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a search for 'bible arcing how-to' and found this. Looks useful.

 

EDIT: It's downloadable, from Piper.

Edited by Julie Falling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Julie! this is very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Thanks.

 

I did find a Arcing 101 series within the app itself (on the right panel). I must say that it looks very interesting concept. I am also reading Fee's NT Exegesis as suggested by Dr. J. We need a 30 hours day so I can get everything (or most) of what I want to do each day. lol

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently writing a Bible Study Methods course for Accordance that will include the method. Meanwhile, If you have Fee's NT Exegesis, it offers a slightly different version of the method on pp. 41ff.

 

That sounds great, Dr J. In the meantime, we can start to get a handle on the method. Like the flow-charting you have shown in one of your podcasts, arcing is a way to break the text down for the purpose of determining how it all works in relation to the parts and determining what is being said, right? Mounce has a section on phrasing in his Graded Reader that looks a lot like flow-charting. Is one method superior to another, or is it just a matter of preference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Julie!

 

Yes, I saw Mounce's chapter, too. [it's odd. I thought I created this method in the late 80s/early 90s, a result of becoming frustrated with trying to teach students sentence diagramming. Both Fee and Mounce published this method somewhat later (though neither took credit for inventing it). I am wondering if my students passed this along to them and they both liked it—or if a number of us just created similar methods at about the same time. Curious...]

 

Anyway, Bible arcing is more highly structured. It seems to focus more on the nature of the relationship between phrases, asking students to define precisely what that is in each case. The latter part of Piper's paper illustrates that perfectly. Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about that. I like its precision and can see where it would be really helpful in complex didactic passages (where the method shines). I am concerned, however, that it is so involved practitioners might wind up focusing more on their analysis than the text itself! Does that make sense?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it does make sense. The analysis ought to have understanding the text as the goal, not the production of a really impressive arc-diagram. Or pinning down the 'unpinnable.' Sometimes the text is ambiguous. I think what Ryken says in The Word of God in English is correct – if there is ambiguity, it is intended by the Author. It might not be either/or, but both/and. Still, the thinking that goes into producing an arc ought to get the student to at least think about what is going on. We don't do that enough – at least I don't.

 

Studying a Biblical language is the same —> the goal ought to be understanding the text. Frankly, I fell in love with Greek and enjoy the language for itself. But mostly I love what it can tell me that I can't get from just an English version. I just don't have the time to devote to study that I would like to have.

 

EDIT – The flow-charting looks very useful. Maybe Mounce was having the same problem with his students? Maybe he learned it from one of yours? You might want to ask him! It's a sad thing that sentence diagramming has mostly gone by the wayside. Those poor kids with whom I shared a classroom for Greek! Their biggest obstacle early on was their lack of understanding of English grammar. They were bright kids. They'd just never been taught much grammar. They struggled with learning English grammar and Greek grammar at the same time. I went to a public school back in the 'dark ages' when there was actually some grammar taught, and Latin was an available elective.

Edited by Julie Falling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! Students often find they need to learn the grammar of their native language before they learn the grammar of a foreign language.

 

I also think you captured what I meant to say better than I said it: "Sometimes the text is ambiguous." And "not the production of a really impressive arc-diagram."

 

Next time I see Fee or Mounce, I may just ask them. Hadn't really thought of it until now. I know I'd be honored if I had created a method that was used by men of this caliber. Hey, I'm just impressed we have all thought it useful enough to pass it along to our students!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Next time I see Fee or Mounce, I may just ask them. Hadn't really thought of it until now. I know I'd be honored if I had created a method that was used by men of this caliber. Hey, I'm just impressed we have all thought it useful enough to pass it along to our students!

 

Well, wherever the idea may have originated, or if it sprang up, out of necessity, in multiple minds at different schools, the goal is the same: to enable students to analyze and understand the Biblical text when they've entered college hampered by an inadequate understanding of their own language (and unable to diagram a sentence). I remember a very good student asking, 'What's an adverb?" Makes one wonder what is going on in the American classroom, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, you [and I!] are far behind the times.

 

Don't you know there isn't any such thing as an adverb anymore? People go "quick" or draw "good." I can't recall the last time I heard "-ly" appended to an adjective and used correctly as an adverb. It isn't "language drift" anymore; it's "language in decline"!

Edited by Timothy Jenney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen! And it's sad. Language is a gift. It's principally how the Lord communicates with us, and also how we communicate with one another. Used well, it can be a source of joy. Used poorly, . . . . let's not go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us still use them goodly :)

 

But I wonder about what the classically educated Greek's thought when they saw Koine

We seem to be happy to discuss the disappearance of particular forms and constructs in ancient languages but in our own we look on it differently. This seems natural - it's what we grew up with and now it's "changing", for better or worse - not sure which. I say this I might add as one who pretty regularly cringes at things I see written in the press.

 

In English we have a number of influences bearing on the language that I suspect also bore on Greek at one time.

 

Language is so interesting ....

 

I meant to comment on the phrasing, arcing etc. thing. I've not used arcing but I have used Phrasing. I was never taught grammatical diagramming but I've played with the basics. Grammatical diagramming seems to be just that - aimed at exposing grammatical elements in visual form. It's pretty low level. Phrasing and arcing attempt to work at a higher level to expose and clarify meaning. Mounce's reader which explains phrasing indicates that it's trying to expose which thoughts (phrases) are subordinate to the other and which are peers. Arcing seems to formalise some of this a bit more. But the both slow the reader down so he/she can think in detail about what is written and by so doing actually begin to understand what it's really trying to convey - perhaps that's the main point. For some, a very formal method may be more desirable but I share the concern about a text being forced into an analysis technique, for its own sake.

 

Thx

D

Edited by Daniel Semler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS someone who began in classical Greek, Koine, was a shock. Gutter Greek, or as we might say here in Australia, Bogan-Greek, perhaps Hicksville Greek would resonate with you "Muricans.

 

Don't forget the rules, just ignore them whenever you want, or you can't be bothered or....

 

Oh well, enough complaining.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at the videos at Bible Arc I think is best to use their software for arcing as it has everything needed. After all it was designed for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used arcing a bit. Using the website makes it a lot easier than using in Accordance. You can save your results as a PDF so when we can reference external files in Accordance notes it will really help.

 

What I find arcing really good at is getting to grips with the flow of an argument in a section of scripture. As Dr J points out it is not really designed for narrative but for didactic passages. It works well in Jesus' teaching passages in John, for instance. In the past I have often tried to get to grips the the flow of a book but then focused down at verse level such that verses can get disconnected from each other. Arcing helps to force you away from that.

 

Of course you still need to understand the context of the whole book which arcing is not really so helpful for, although the results of it can feed back up into the flow of the book. Interestingly when I was reading the NT Wright/John Piper books on justification NT Wright seemed to be at the 'overall thrust of the book level' and John Piper at the arcing level. I really wanted something that synthesised both.

 

I think, as with any technique, we can assume there must be a 'right' answer and only one 'right' answer which is a problem of our implementation of it rather than the technique. Arcing tends to highlight the options available and therefore the decisions to make and so can highlight ambiguity in a similar way to how Wallace describes the use of genitive, for example, in his grammar which gives you all the possible options but only couple may fit. You then have to decide whether there is ambiguity or a correct option.

 

I tend to stick with the ambiguity because I don't like making decisions!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve, that was very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...