Grammatical Diagramming Methodology

How I Diagram Greek Sentences

My grammatical diagrams—pencil marks and erasures included—are beneficial for exposing grammatical structure and patterns of meaning. I follow George H. Guthrie and J. Scott Duvall’s method from Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Graded Approach to Learning Intermediate and Advanced Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998) (“G-D”), preferring it over my childhood Reed-Kellogg love because it keeps Greek word order intact while mapping meaning. As stated in G-D: “Grammatical diagramming serves as our primary tool for clarifying the relationships between words and groups of words….” G-D, 1998), 27.

The method itself is genius in its simplicity. Unlike a Reed-Kellogg diagram, there are not a whole lot of positions and rules that you need to learn. The system takes a little practice, but is easy to pick up.  G&D understands that diagramming is a rather personal exercise and they make provision for customizing the method to suit ones needs and preferences.  One of the main takeaways from their method is that “[t]he rule of thumb is clarity.  G-D, 33.

The semantic layer.  G-D also have a method for incorporating semantic diagramming onto a grammatical diagram.  Grammatical diagramming “cannot depict fully ‘meaning’ relationships or exact functions, and this is where semantic diagramming comes in….” G-D, 39.  The G-D method of semantic diagramming is intentionally comprehensive, marking nearly every functional relationship in the text. While this level of analysis can be valuable for detailed exegetical work, it often produces visual density that obscures rather than highlights the most salient relationships for rapid comprehension.

TBWM does not attempt to label every clause, phrase, or word with a semantic category. Such systems are designed for exegetical analysis after grammatical relationships have already been settled. TBWM’s semantic annotations operate prior to that stage, in service of careful reading rather than interpretive closure.

As I have used both methods, I have found there are relationships that I want to communicate that are not visualized or surfaced the way that I would like, so I have developed a set of my own house rules. The purpose of this page to describe those house rules, so that you understand the visual language of my diagrams.

Example Grammatical Diagram

My handwritten III John 3 diagram—where the genitive absolute brought the text alive. It turns text into a clear guide, from Ephesians 4:13’s depth to III John’s truth. This isn’t just grammar—it’s a window to God’s living Word (Heb 4:12).

TBWM Diagramming House Rules

I. Scope & Purpose

  1. The diagram represents grammatical structure, not interpretation.
    It visualizes what the Greek does, not what it means theologically.
  2. The unit of diagramming is the syntactic/discourse unit, not the verse.
    Verse divisions may appear within a diagram, but they do not govern layout.
  3. The diagram is a comprehension tool, not a diagnostic tool.
    It highlights meaningful grammatical relationships and abstracts away secondary detail.

II. Default Rules

  1. For grammatical diagramming, the default rules are those laid out in G-D as described above.
    I highly encourage you to obtain a copy of Biblical Greek Exegesis so you can learn their grammatical diagramming method and begin to practice it.
  2. TBWM makes limited use of semantic annotations to complement grammatical diagramming.
    These annotations are not a second diagramming system, nor are they an attempt to classify every word or phrase according to semantic function. Instead, they serve a narrowly defined purpose: to make visible certain logical or discourse relationships that are not always apparent from grammatical structure alone.

III. Layout & Visual Hierarchy

  1. Vertical space signals structure; verse numbers are metadata.
    Extra vertical spacing is used only to mark real syntactic or discourse breaks—not verse boundaries. For example, diagrams may encode coordination or contrast visually, even where Greek uses minimal or implicit marking.
  2. Default verse-to-verse vertical spacing is eliminated.
    Verses flow together visually when the Greek flows together.
  3. When vertical space appears, it must mean something.
    (New sentence, major clause shift, resumptive move, or discourse pivot.)
  4. Verse numbers may remain visible but visually muted.
    Verses serve navigation, not structure.  See Rule 11.
  5. These conventions are designed for continuous discourse. When a diagram is excerpted or detached from its literary context, additional navigational markers may be introduced to preserve clarity.

IV. Main Clauses & Modifiers

  1. Main assertions form the backbone of the diagram.
    Main clause alignment tracks grammatical function, not linear proximity. Subordinate material is positioned relative to what it modifies.
  2. Verse-number principle.
    Verse numbers align with clause entry points, not predication points.
  3. Modifiers stay with what they modify.
    Elements contained within a modifier are not pulled out as independent objects.
  4. Objects are not automatically extracted.
    Earlier G-D practices of always pulling objects out are not followed unless clarity genuinely requires it.
  5. When two elements refer to the same entity (especially in genitive chains), apposition is visualized by alignment rather than subordination.
  6. Word order may influence layout, but does not dictate it.
    Greek order is respected where it contributes to sense or emphasis, but clarity governs final placement.

V. Participles

  1. Participles are treated according to function, not form alone.
    (Substantival, adjectival, adverbial, etc.)
  2. Substantival participles function as nouns and are diagrammed accordingly.
    They may anchor a clause or receive modifiers like a noun would.
  3. Participles are not automatically subordinated.
    Their relationship (attendant circumstance, manner, content, etc.) is inferred from context and positioned accordingly.
  4. Coordinated participles sharing a single article are presumed to form a unified characterization rather than sequential actions or independent conditions.

VI. Conjunctions & Clause Relationships

  1. ἵνα governs all following coordinated subjunctives unless clearly restricted.
    Parallel subjunctives remain visually linked under the same purpose marker.
  2. ἀλλά marks contrast at the same structural level unless syntax demands otherwise.
    It does not default to modifying the nearest element.
  3. Coordinated clauses remain visually parallel.
    Parallelism in the Greek is preserved spatially whenever possible.
  4. γάρ clauses are diagrammed as explanatory support for a prior assertion, not as narrative progression.
    This aligns with an already existing G-D practice of “pulling out” postpositives.
  5. When conjunctions stack (e.g., ἵνα followed by καὶ), each is diagrammed according to its independent function. Purpose markers establish domain; additive conjunctions signal inclusion within that domain and are not absorbed into clause structure.

VII. Pronouns, Anaphora, and Reference

  1. Anaphoric reference is made visible when clarity requires it.
    Arrows or light indicators may be used to show what a pronoun refers to.
  2. Anaphora is treated as its own phenomenon, not ellipsis.
    It involves reference recovery, not omitted syntax.
  3. Anaphoric/Resumptive Reference markers are explanatory, not structural.
They assist the reader but are not part of the grammatical skeleton of the clause. Arrows may be labeled (e.g., “ana.” for anaphora, “res.” for resumptive reference) when multiple reference relationships are present and clarity would otherwise suffer.

VIII. Discourse Awareness

  1. Discourse flow governs layout decisions.
    The diagram should help the reader see how the argument moves.
  2. Verse boundaries never override discourse flow.  Typically, that means there is no vertical space between verse boundaries.
    Typically, verses boundaries are marked in the margins with a small horizontal bar. Vertical space between verses will be used if the spacing clarifies the syntax or discourse.
  3. The grammatical diagram may anticipate later semantic diagramming but does not attempt it.
    Semantic relationships are acknowledged but not yet fully formalized.
  4. Some constructions carry conditional or inferential force through discourse context rather than explicit markers; diagrams may preserve surface syntax while acknowledging implied logic elsewhere.

IX. Semantic Annotations

  1. Scope and Purpose. Semantic annotations in TBWM are used only when they meet both of the following criteria:
    • The relationship being marked materially affects how the argument or discourse is followed.
    • That relationship is not already clear from grammatical structure, word order, or explicit conjunctions.
    • If a relationship is obvious from reading the Greek itself—or already visible in the grammatical diagram—it is not annotated.
    • The goal is not completeness, but clarity.
  2. What Semantic Annotations Do. These annotations help the reader track how claims are grounded, developed, or concluded—especially in dense or compact argumentation. Semantic annotations may be used to highlight:
    • logical force (e.g., basis, cause, result, purpose, inference),
    • argument flow (e.g., assertion, supporting point, problem / resolution), or
    • discourse pivots where a reader might otherwise miss how a clause functions in relation to the whole.
  3. What Semantic Annotations Do Not Do. Semantic annotations in TBWM do not:
    • replace grammatical explanation,
    • perform theological interpretation,
    • label rhetorical force (e.g., warning, promise, exhortation),
    • resolve ambiguity where the Greek permits more than one reading, or
    • assign a category to every construction.
    • They are not a substitute for exegesis, nor are they intended to “program in” meaning.
    • Where interpretation is required, it is handled in prose (e.g., in Syntax Sense), not through labels.
  4. Relationship to Grammatical Diagrams. Semantic annotations are explanatory, not structural. They do not alter the grammatical skeleton of the diagram and are visually distinct from core syntactic relationships. Grammar remains primary; semantic annotations are layered only when they add clarity that grammar alone does not provide.
  5. Flexibility and Restraint.
    • Not every passage requires semantic annotation. Many passages require none at all. The absence of annotations should not be read as absence of meaning, but as evidence that the grammatical structure already communicates what needs to be seen.
      • Some readers may find it helpful, especially while learning, to develop unobtrusive personal visual cues (such as light color marking or underlining) in private diagrams to reinforce recurring semantic relationships.
      • TBWM does not prescribe or model such systems, as the goal is to internalize these relationships rather than rely on visual encoding.
    • TBWM prefers restraint. When in doubt, textual explanation is favored over annotation.

X. Annotations & Pedagogy

  1. Diagram annotations may be added for teaching but are visually distinct.
  2. Annotations explain what is happening “under the hood,” they do not provide new content.
    They will never do interpretive or theological work.

XI. Consistency & Evolution

  1. Consistency serves clarity, not rigidity.
    The house rules may be intentionally bent when clarity genuinely improves. Flexibility is key.
  2. New rules emerge from practice, not theory.
    A pattern repeated without friction is a candidate for formalization.

Print 🖨 PDF 📄