Re: Mounce

From: Jonathan Robie (jwrobie@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Dec 01 1999 - 10:16:46 EST


<x-flowed>At 10:42 PM 11/30/99 -0800, George Goolde wrote:

>It seems to me that there is something which is apparent through this
>thread. While this is not a forum for the discussion of theology or
>doctrine, it is evident that one of the considerations which should be
>made in the selection of a Greek grammar is its doctrinal orientation. We
>most certainly ought, as professionals, to agree to disagree agreeably,
>but we would only be fooling ourselves if we pretended there were no
>doctrinal differences or doctrinal considerations in the way we interpret
>the Greek text.

Actually, I would be perfectly comfortable having people learn Greek from
Smyth, a classical Greek text which has no doctrinal orientation, since it
does not deal with the Bible. If I wanted to teach you German, it is very
unlikely that I would use a text that has a particular doctrinal
orientation. And the main issues of debate in Greek syntax and grammar are
not cleanly split along doctrinal lines - people of all theological flavors
and colors may take one particular view of tense and aspect, for instance.

Of course, if a Greek grammar is full of doctrinal statements, as Mounce
is, then its doctrinal orientation is more relevant. To me, one test of a
good grammar is that people of all theological persuasions should be able
to look at it and reason from the examples it presents, whether or not
their doctrine is the same as that of the author of the grammar.

Jonathan

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

</x-flowed>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:47 EDT