cwconrad wrote:Two disturbing trends in the latter are (1) the abandonment of any expectation that seminary students should gain any real competence in Biblical Greek, and (2) the emerging consensus that Biblical software -- and in particular parsing guides and interlinear displays -- are sufficient stand-ins for that real competence in Biblical Greek.
The one positive trend has been the emergence of real endeavors such as those spearheaded by Randall Buth and Daniel Sreett to teach the ancient languages as living languages in which students can and should think and communicate with each other; the big question is whether that has any real chance of catching on and spreading in the schools that matter. It may already be too late for that.
I was partly amused and partly saddened to learn that Rod Decker's discovery of Smyth's grammar was practically an accident, although I think that he would have discovered Smyth sooner or later somehow.
In addition, I think that what's been said about BDF and the fact that (a) it isn't really up to date, and (b) it isn't really a full-scale Hellenistic Greek grammar, are related to another significant fact: for several decades now the authoritative academic voices in NT Greek have been insisting that the approach to Biblical Greek pedagogy and scholarship should be strictly synchronic. And the seminaries have accepted that and have ceased to insist that incoming students have an undergraduate grounding in Classical Greek.
One consequence of all this is that, even if the funding were available now to underwrite the project of compiling a true Hellenistic Greek grammar, we might very well be hard put to assemble a body of competent teacher-scholars who could put together a Hellenistic Greek grammar even on the scope of Smyth. What I mean by that is a grammar that expounds Koine Greek morphology and syntax with a perspective on both earlier and later Greek morphology and usage, as Smyth expounds Classical Greek grammar with a look backward toward Homeric Greek and forward toward Hellenistic Greek.
Jonathan Robie wrote:For perspective - do the classics people wish they had a Danker to work on LSJ?
cwconrad wrote:Users of the hardcover edition consulting entries in the main body of the lexicon will find marks indicating where there is supplementary information in the appended Glare supplement. But the Logos implementation of LSJ-G incorporates the Glare material into the body of the lexicon. Logos is now accessible to Mac users like myself (my chief Biblical software is Accordance, but the Accordance LSJ is not yet available).
Shirley Rollinson wrote:It is a rather sobering thought that when Smyth was written, it was intended as a text for High School students.
Paul-Nitz wrote:I'm wondering if anyone could compare and contrast Smyth's grammar with A.T. Robertson's.
Thanks very much for the education we've enjoyed through this thread. I was inspired to print and bind myself a large print version of the 1920 edition of Smyth.
Jonathan Robie wrote:Paul-Nitz wrote:I'm wondering if anyone could compare and contrast Smyth's grammar with A.T. Robertson's.
Robertson and Smyth have opposite virtues.
Smyth is concise, precise, systematically laid out, and very readable.
Robertson has a huge number of examples, many more pages than Smyth, but his explanations are fuzzy and confusing, at least to my poor brain.
So read the explanation in Smyth, then look for examples in Robertson.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests