Analyzing Argumentation and Narrative Flow — How to Trace Logic and Plot in New Testament Greek

Introduction: From Connected Clauses to Convincing Claims

In the previous lesson you learned how Greek writers build cohesion (the linguistic glue) and coherence (the conceptual unity) across lines and paragraphs. This lesson takes the next step: how to analyze argumentation and narrative flow so that you can follow—and then teach—what a text is trying to do. In epistolary discourse, Paul and other writers advance arguments that move from thesis to reasons, from objections to rebuttals, from grounds to inferences. In narrative discourse, the Evangelists shape stories that move from setting to complication to crisis to resolution and evaluation. Koine Greek gives you the signals to see both the logic and the plot in real time: connectives (γάρ, δέ, οὖν, ἀλλά, διό, ἵνα, ὥστε), information structure (topic/focus), aspect and mood (aorist mainline, participial background), rhetorical questions and vocatives (diatribe), and summary frames and scene pivots. Your task is to map these signals into an “argument diagram” for letters and a “story spine” for narratives, always tied to the Greek on the page (Runge, 2010; Levinsohn, 2000; Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996; Witherington, 2009; Stowers, 1981; Kennedy, 1984).

What follows is a practical, graduate-level method you can apply to Romans and Galatians as easily as to Mark and John. You will (1) learn the grammar of persuasion in Greek; (2) learn how Greek narratives flow; (3) work through detailed case studies with the Greek text open; and (4) complete guided exegesis and intensive practice that solidify these skills for research and teaching.

1. The Grammar of Persuasion: How Greek Signals Argument

1.1 Claims, Grounds, and Inferences in Greek Clothing

Arguments are built from claims (what the author wants you to accept), grounds (reasons/evidence), and inferences (what follows from those grounds). Koine Greek marks these relationships with connectives and constructions you already know, but now you will read them as argument cues rather than mere dictionary glosses.

• γάρ introduces grounds or explanation for a prior claim. It seldom starts a brand-new topic. If you can paraphrase “for/since” without breaking the paragraph’s logic, you have likely found a ground (Wallace, 1996, pp. 673–676; Runge, 2010, pp. 141–160).

• οὖν advances an inference or conclusion drawn from what precedes. In John and Acts it also functions as a step, but in Paul it normally marks logical advance (Runge, 2010, pp. 50–57).

• διό/διόπερ/ἄρα are marked inferentials—heightened “therefore” signals that often introduce a peak (Rom 5:12; Heb 2:1). Translate with weight (Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 151–154).

• ἀλλά/πλήν cue strong contrast or exception; δέ is a lighter development or step, not necessarily adversative.

• μέν… δέ pairs two sides of a development (“on the one hand … on the other”), useful for tracking counterpoints.

• ἵνα/ὥστε carry purpose and result; in argument they often set telic goals (“in order that”) or logical outcomes (“so that”), each crucial to recognizing the shape of reasoning (Porter, 1992, pp. 252–262).

• Conditional sentences (εἰ/ἐάν) test lines of reasoning and regularly appear in diatribe to stage hypothetical cases (Stowers, 1981, pp. 100–129).

When you annotate a paragraph, label each connective with a one-word function: claim, ground, inference, contrast, purpose, result. Doing so forces you to read with the author’s logic rather than against it.

1.2 Diatribe: The Fictive Interlocutor in Romans and Beyond

Paul frequently argues by posing an objector. The signs are stable: second-person address (ὦ ἄνθρωπε, Rom 2:1–3; 9:20), rhetorical questions that anticipate objections (τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν;, 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14), the rebuttal formula μὴ γένοιτο (“Absolutely not!”), and ἄν + verbs of saying (ἐρεῖ τις, “someone will say…”) (Stowers, 1981, pp. 74–129). Read these not as random Q&A but as a structured debate: claim → anticipated objection → rebuttal → stronger claim.

1.3 Rhetorical Architecture: Exordium to Peroratio in Pauline Letters

Ancient rhetoric organized speeches into exordium (winning goodwill), narratio (statement of facts), probatio (proofs), refutatio (refutation), and peroratio (conclusion/exhortation). While epistles are not speeches, Paul often follows similar macro-moves: an opening exordium of thanksgiving (e.g., Phil 1; 1 Thess 1), a narratio of the gospel’s manifestation (Rom 1:1–17; Gal 1–2), probatio and refutatio in the body (Romans 1:18–11:36; Gal 3–4), and peroratio in exhortation (Rom 12–15; Gal 5–6) (Witherington, 2009; Kennedy, 1984). Recognizing these moves keeps you oriented in the larger argument.

1.4 Information Structure in Arguments: Topic and Focus

Greek word order helps you hear what the author is talking about (topic) and what is newly asserted or emphasized (focus). When Paul front-positions a constituent (νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται, Rom 3:21), he is aligning topic (“now—apart from law—God’s righteousness”) and focus (the shocking χωρὶς νόμου) to pivot the argument (Runge, 2010, pp. 169–178; Wallace, 1996, pp. 263–269).

2. The Flow of Greek Narrative: How Stories Move

2.1 The Story Spine: Setting → Complication → Development → Crisis → Resolution → Evaluation

Greek narratives are not strings of miracles; they are plots with recognizable beats. The story typically begins with setting (time/place/participants), introduces a complication (problem), develops tension through events and dialogue, reaches a crisis (turning point), moves to resolution, and ends with evaluation (summary, amazement, command) (Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 99–110). Aspect and clause-type mark which lines carry the mainline (aorist indicative events) and which supply background (imperfects, participles, subordinate clauses) (Porter, 1992, pp. 196–229).

2.2 Scene Pivots, Peaks, and Peripety

Authors use direct speech for peaks, imperatives at climaxes, and rhetorical questions to heighten crises. In Mark, historical presents and εὐθύς (“immediately”) accelerate the pace toward key moments. In John, signs lead to discourses in which the theological meaning is unpacked (John 5; 9; 11). Learn to expect peripety—sudden reversal—at miracles and confessions.

2.3 Intercalation (“Sandwiching”) and Framing

Mark’s famous intercalations (e.g., Jairus’s daughter/the hemorrhaging woman in Mark 5:21–43) weave two stories so that each interprets the other. Luke often uses inclusio (beginning/ending echoes) to frame a unit (Luke 4:16–30). John structures narrative episodes around sign → misunderstanding → clarification. Recognizing these patterns keeps you from flattening the plot into isolated sayings.

3. Case Studies in Argument: Mapping Pauline Logic

3.1 Romans 3:21–26 — Thesis, Grounds, and Purpose

Read the Greek in cola; then mark connectives.

Thesis (Claim). νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται (v. 21). The νυνί and the fronted χωρὶς νόμου mark a pivot from 1:18–3:20. The μαρτυρουμένη participle (“being witnessed”) backgrounds the OT’s supporting testimony—cohesion with Scripture.

Specification. δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (v. 22). Prepositions preach: διὰ names means, εἰς names scope/goal.

Ground. γάρ: πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον (v. 23). This is not a new topic; it is the evidence grounding the “no distinction.”

Mechanism and Agent. δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (v. 24). The articular phrase τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ fixes the location/sphere of redemption.

Divine Act and Means. ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (v. 25a). The ὃν relative binds Jesus back to v. 24; the διὰ… ἐν pair maps instrument and sphere.

Divine Purpose (ἵνα). εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ … πρὸς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα (vv. 25b–26). Two purpose lines: God publicly demonstrates his righteousness and does so so that he is both just and the justifier. The ἵνα clauses are the argument’s telos (Runge, 2010; Wallace, 1996).

Takeaway. A disciplined reading sees claim (νυνὶ δὲ) → grounds (γάρ) → means (διὰ) → purpose (ἵνα). You do not interpret διὰ πίστεως in isolation; you read it as part of the argument spine.

3.2 Romans 6:1–14 — Diatribe and the Logic of Baptism

Objection. Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμενοῦμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; (6:1). The οὖν ties this to the grace argument of 5:20–21.

Rebuttal. μὴ γένοιτο. The strongest Pauline “No.”

Grounds by Participation. ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν (6:3). The εἰς prepositions map participation’s goal/sphere.

Inference. οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς … λογίζεσθε (6:11). The οὕτως signals so then—reckon yourselves dead to sin.

Imperative Peak. μὴ βασιλευέτω … μηδὲ παριστάνετε … παραστήσατε (6:12–13). The shift to imperatives marks the argument’s practical aim (Stowers, 1981; Runge, 2010).

3.3 Galatians 2:15–21 — From Shared Premise to Theological Conclusion

Shared Premise (Narratio → Probatio). ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί … εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2:15–16a). The participle εἰδότες backgrounding a shared knowledge that sets the argumentative table.

Claim. καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν … ὅτι δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (2:16b).

Objection (Diatribe). εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; (2:17).

Rebuttal. μὴ γένοιτο. Followed by reductio: εἰ γὰρ … παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνίστημι.

Theological Conclusion. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι … ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός (2:19–20). The perfect συνεσταύρωμαι presents a state that grounds ethics.

Peroration. οὐ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (2:21). The argument circles back to grace as the controlling category (Witherington, 2009).

4. Case Studies in Narrative: Tracing the Story Spine

4.1 Mark 4:35–41 — Calming the Storm (Plot Peak in a Question)

Setting. Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ … διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν (4:35–36). The aorists set the scene; μετ’ αὐτοῦ establishes participant grouping.

Complication. γίνεται λαῖλαψ μεγάλη … τὸ πλοῖον ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι (v. 37). Middle/passive γεμίζεσθαι backgrounded as threat rising.

Crisis. The disciples’ plea: Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; Direct speech increases prominence.

Resolution. διεγερθεὶς … ἐπετίμησεν … ἐκόπασεν (v. 39). Aorist indicatives mark mainline decisive actions; γέγονεν (perfect) can mark resultant state in some witnesses.

Evaluation. Jesus’ question Τί δειλοί ἐστε; πῶς οὐκ ἔχετε πίστιν; is the interpretive point. The narrator’s tailpiece—ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν—cements the theme (Levinsohn, 2000).

4.2 John 9 — The Man Born Blind (Sign → Inquiry → Confession)

John crafts a staircase of scenes:

1. Sign (vv. 1–7): ἦλθεν … ἦν … ἀπῆλθεν … νίψαι. Imperatives and aorists; the healing is understated.

2. Neighbors’ inquiry (vv. 8–12): Repetition of ἐκεῖνος and αὐτός tracks the healed man as topic; lexical cohesion on τυφλός/βλέπω.

3. Pharisees’ hearing (vv. 13–34): πάλιν marks resumption; οἴδαμεν vs οὐκ οἶδα plays the irony; the man’s speech crescendos to confession.

4. Confession and evaluation (vv. 35–41): Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; … Πιστεύω, κύριε. Jesus’ final evaluation turns the sign into a parable of sight and blindness.

Watch the πρὸς and ἐκ prepositions in interrogations; note ἵνα purpose statements for the sign’s meaning (Keener, 2003).

4.3 Acts 15:1–21 — Deliberation and Decree (Argument in Narrative Form)

Complication. Καὶ τινὲς … ἔλεγον ἐὰν μὴ περιτμηθῆτε … οὐ δύνασθε σωθῆναι (15:1). Conditional claim frames the dispute.

Development. συνέστη στάσις … ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παῦλον καὶ Βαρνάβαν (v. 2). Decision to bring the matter to Jerusalem.

Deliberation. Speeches by Peter, Barnabas/Paul, James. Notice ἀναστάς peaks; γάρ in Peter’s speech grounds inclusion of Gentiles by the Spirit (vv. 7–11). James’ ἐγὼ κρίνω introduces judgment; the ὅπως purpose clause in v. 17 cites Amos LXX to ground the decision.

Resolution. ἔδοξεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν** (v. 28). The formula is both theological and rhetorical: the decree coheres by Spirit-church consensus.

Evaluation. The churches rejoice; narrative closes with encouragement. You have just watched argumentation embedded in story (Kennedy, 1984; Runge, 2010).

5. A Repeatable Method: Argument Maps and Story Spines

5.1 Building an Argument Map (Epistles)

With your Greek text open, proceed as follows.

First, stichograph the paragraph (one independent clause per line; subordinate clauses indented). Second, label the function of each connective: Claim (often unmarked or fronted), γάρ (Ground), οὖν/ἄρα/διό (Inference), ἀλλά/δέ (Contrast/Step), ἵνα/ὥστε (Purpose/Result). Third, identify diatribe signals (rhetorical questions, vocatives, μὴ γένοιτο, ἐρεῖ τις). Fourth, mark topic/focus: fronted constituents and emphatic pronouns. Fifth, circle peak indicators (marked inferentials, imperatives, summary claims). Finally, write an 8–10 sentence synopsis in which you narrate the argument in Greek terms (“Paul’s νυνὶ δὲ introduces the claim; γάρ in v. 23 grounds universality; διὰ phrases specify means; ἵνα clauses state God’s purpose …”).

5.2 Building a Story Spine (Narratives)

First, identify setting (temporal markers, locale, participants introduced with anarthrous nouns that become articular on reintroduction). Second, locate the complication (verbs of danger, need, conflict). Third, trace development via καί + aorist mainline, with participles and imperfects for background. Fourth, isolate the crisis (direct speech, questions, historical present). Fifth, mark the resolution (decisive aorists, healings, departures). Sixth, note the evaluation (summary statements, amazement, narrative aside). Seventh, add frames (inclusio, intercalation) and theme words (lexical cohesion).

6. Guided Exegesis Labs (with Greek)

For each lab, perform the full method and submit a short exegesis paragraph that depends on your mapping.

Lab A — Romans 8:31–39 (From Rhetorical Questions to Assurance)

Stichograph vv. 31–39. Label the chain of rhetorical questions (τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; τίς ἐγκαλέσει; τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν; τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει;). Mark γάρ grounds in vv. 32, 36. Identify the peak at ἀλλ’ ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν ὑπερνικῶμεν and the merism of inseparables (οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωή …). Explain how the rhetorical form creates the conclusion it announces (Runge, 2010; Wallace, 1996).

Lab B — Galatians 5:13–26 (From Indicative Freedom to Imperative Walk)

Map γάρ grounds for love fulfilling the law (v. 14), δέ steps into warning (v. 15), λέγω δέ pivot (v. 16), ἵνα purpose of the Spirit’s desire (v. 17), φανερά δέ list introduction (v. 19), and δὲ contrast with the fruit (v. 22). Locate the peak at ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν (v. 25). Show how the argument moves from status to walk.

Lab C — Mark 2:1–12 (Healing of the Paralytic) — Argument in Narrative

Map the story spine; then, inside the narrative, map Jesus’ argument: τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον … → ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε → λέγω σοι. Explain how purpose (ἵνα) builds a mini-argument inside a plot.

Lab D — John 11:1–44 (Raising of Lazarus) — Signs and Meaning

Divide into scenes (vv. 1–16; 17–27; 28–37; 38–44). Track λέγει αὐτῇ/αὐτοῖς; note ἐγώ εἰμι saying (peak of meaning). Trace the movement from sign to confession to glory. Show how ἵνα clauses (vv. 4, 15, 42) govern purpose.

Lab E — Ephesians 4:1–6 (From Indicative to Exhortation)

Map the οὖν inference from chs. 1–3; the μετὰ prepositional string (virtues of unity) as means; the sevenfold ἓν anaphora (cohesion and peak). Explain how the exhortation rests on prior argument and creates community identity in Greek.

7. Intensive Practice (for Mastery)

Prepare a portfolio over the week that demonstrates mastery of both argument and narrative flow.

1. Argument Map Portfolio (Romans 3:21–26; 6:1–14; Galatians 2:15–21). For each passage, include stichography, connective labeling, diatribe markers, topic/focus notes, and an 800–1,000-word analysis that reconstructs the author’s logic and states the exegetical payoff.

2. Narrative Spine Portfolio (Mark 4:35–41; John 9; Acts 15:1–21). For each, mark setting/complication/development/crisis/resolution/evaluation, list scene pivots, identify peaks, and produce a 600–800-word narrative-theological synthesis.

3. Connector Concordance (γάρ/οὖν/διό/ἵνα/ὥστε). Collect 15 occurrences of each across one Pauline letter and one Gospel. For each, assign function (ground, inference, purpose, result), defend it in one sentence, and note how a mistranslation would distort the argument or plot.

4. Diatribe Dossier (Romans). Catalogue all occurrences of τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; μὴ γένοιτο; ἐρεῖ τις; in Romans. For two of them (Rom 6:1; 9:14), write a two-page brief explaining the interlocutor’s claim, Paul’s rebuttal, and the rhetorical purpose of the exchange.

5. Oral Defense (Recorded). Choose either Romans 8:31–39 or John 11:1–44. Record a 10-minute oral walkthrough of your argument map or story spine, naming each Greek signal as you go. Submit a one-page handout for teaching.

Suggested Assignments (graded)

1) Research Essay (8–10 pages): “From νυνὶ δὲ to ἵνα: The Argument Spine of Romans 3:21–26.”
Provide a fresh translation with stichography. Demonstrate how νυνὶ δὲ functions as the hinge, γάρ supplies grounds, διὰ/ἐν/εἰς map mechanism and scope, and ἵνα signals divine telos. Engage Runge (2010), Levinsohn (2000), and Wallace (1996), with one theological commentary (e.g., Moo, 2018) for interaction.

2) Exegetical Commentary (6–8 pages): “Diatribe at Work: Romans 6:1–14.”
Identify objection, rebuttal, and inference. Trace the εἰς/σὺν prepositions’ participatory logic and the imperative peak. Dialogue with Stowers (1981) on diatribe and Witherington (2009) on rhetorical strategy.

3) Narrative Analysis (6–8 pages): “Question at the Peak: Mark 4:35–41.”
Present a story spine and show how the crisis question and the resolution’s aorists shape the theological evaluation of faith and fear. Interact with Levinsohn (2000) and Porter (1992) on foreground/background.

4) Mixed-Genre Study (6–8 pages): “Argument in Narrative: Acts 15 as Deliberative Discourse.”
Trace the speeches, mark γάρ/οὖν/ὅπως, and explain how Scripture citation (Amos LXX) functions as proof (probatio). Engage Kennedy (1984) and Witherington (2009).

5) Teaching Module (4–5 pages): “How to Build Argument Maps and Story Spines.”
Create a student-facing handout with a step-by-step method, two sample diagrams (one for Rom 3:21–26, one for Mark 4:35–41), and short practice prompts. Anchor every step in Greek features.

Conclusion: Let the Greek Drive Both Logic and Plot

Beneath every profound theological paragraph and every moving story lies a structure the Holy Spirit inspired through the Greek language. In arguments, connectives like γάρ, οὖν, διό, ἵνα, and ἀλλά are not ornamental; they are the joints of the reasoning. In narratives, aorist mainlines, participial backgrounds, direct-speech peaks, and evaluative tailpieces are not stylistic quirks; they are the bones of the plot. When you learn to build argument maps and story spines, you stop paraphrasing and start seeing. You know where the claim is, why the γάρ belongs, where the ἵνα points, when the crisis hits, and how the resolution teaches. This clarity will change how you translate, how you preach, and how you write. It will also steady your theological judgments: you will let the Greek lead, and you will follow. That is the discipline of doctoral-level exegesis—and the joy of hearing the New Testament’s logic and stories sing in their own key.

References (APA)

Kennedy, G. A. (1984). New Testament interpretation through rhetorical criticism. University of North Carolina Press.

Levinsohn, S. H. (2000). Discourse features of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.). SIL International.

Moo, D. J. (2018). The letter to the Romans (2nd ed., NICNT). Eerdmans.

Porter, S. E. (1992). Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.). Sheffield Academic Press.

Runge, S. E. (2010). Discourse grammar of the Greek New Testament: A practical introduction for teaching and exegesis. Lexham.

Stowers, S. K. (1981). The diatribe and Paul’s letter to the Romans. Scholars Press.

Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek grammar beyond the basics: An exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan.

Witherington, B. (2009). New Testament rhetoric: An introductory guide to the art of persuasion in and of the New Testament. Cascade.