Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

I don't understand what my textbook is saying about X. Can someone help me?
Leonard Jayawardena
Posts: 20
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 3:30 am
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Leonard Jayawardena »

I recently read Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek from cover to cover as a refresher, excluding only the index at the back, and came across some errors of various types, four of which are mentioned below (the first of which is just a typo).
  • 1. Page 138, line 15--hollakis should be pollakis.
    2. Page 329, line 14--the second "protasis" should read as "apodosis."
    3. Page 340, line 14--Translations are said to be "one step" removed from what Jesus said. Actually they are two steps removed since Jesus spoke in Aramaic and his sayings are recorded in Greek, which is already one step removed from the original.
    4. On page 334, section 36.6, Mounce writes
    The primary function of the article is not to make a word definite. For example, proper names are definite without the article. This is also why Jehovah Witnesses' [sic] understanding of John 1:1 is wrong. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means, "the Word was God," not "a god," even though the article does not occur before θεὸς.
    The above is an error that you would not expect someone of Mounce's knowledge to make. Grammatically, there is no objection to rendering θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as "the word was a god," and it is exegetical considerations that require "the word was God" as the correct translation. When this clause is translated "the word was a god," θεὸς is taken in a non-definite, countable sense (cf. John 10:34 [Ἐγὼ εἶπα · Θεοί ἐστε;]).

    I would like to see Mounce render the sentence "And Zeus was a god" into Greek. :)
I wrote to Mounce at his website to bring these errors to his notice and, not receiving a reply, posted a message on his Facebook, but, to my disappointment, he did not so much as acknowledge my message. I was hoping that he would thank me for bringing them to his notice. :cry:
Leonard Jayawardena
Posts: 20
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 3:30 am
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Leonard Jayawardena »

I forgot to mention that what I wrote in my last post is based on the 3rd edition of Basics of Biblical Greek. I now understand that there is a 4th edition. Whether the errors pointed out in my post still appear in the latest edition I do not know.

Also, I just realized that I had posted this thread under the wrong category ("Other," whereas it should have been "Grammar"). Too late now to rectify.
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Jason Hare »

Leonard Jayawardena wrote: June 4th, 2021, 11:37 am I forgot to mention that what I wrote in my last post is based on the 3rd edition of Basics of Biblical Greek. I now understand that there is a 4th edition. Whether the errors pointed out in my post still appear in the latest edition I do not know.

Also, I just realized that I had posted this thread under the wrong category ("Other," whereas it should have been "Grammar"). Too late now to rectify.
Not too late for a moderator. I've moved it under "textbooks," since it specifically deals with Mounce's textbook and issues with it. I hope that is acceptable to you.

Since I don't have the fourth edition (I think we used the second edition when I used that book back in 1998-1999), I can't really comment on these issues. I will say that every textbook contains mistakes of some kind.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Leonard Jayawardena
Posts: 20
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 3:30 am
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Leonard Jayawardena »

Here are further errors I came across in Mounce's Grammar. They occur in Chapter 16, headed "Present Active Indicative," page 130, under "Exegetical Insight."

After mentioning a number of passages in which ἐγώ εἰμι occurs in the NT in relation to Jesus, the writer goes on to say
There is more. Jesus' use of ἐγώ εἰμι harks back to the Old Testament, to the story of Moses when he was approached by God at the burning bush (Exod 3). When Moses challenged to Lord to give his name, God replied by saying (in the Septuagint) eg ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ("I am the one who is"). That is, Yahweh is the great "I AM" (Exod 3:14). Jesus taps into this famous title for God when he says to the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι)" (John 8:58), ascribing to himself the very name that Yahweh used in the Old Testament concerning himself. And this same name and expression underlie all of Jesus' ἐγώ εἰμι statements in John's Gospel.
It is amazing to see such exegetical nonsense in a book teaching basic Biblical Greek grammar. There are the following three errors in the passage quoted above.

1. The Greek form of the divine name is actually ὁ ὤν, not ἐγώ εἰμι.
אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:14 is rendered ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν in the Septuagint, in which ὁ ὤν represents the Greek form of the divine name, not ἐγώ εἰμι, which are simply the subject and the linking verb of the sentence respectively. This is confirmed later in the same verse by the words addressed to Moses: ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The New Testament further confirms this in Revelation 1:8, where God again describes himself as ὁ ὢν, not ἐγώ εἰμι.

2. In πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (John 8:58), ἐγὼ εἰμί means simply "I have existed." Jesus affirms his existence in some form before Abraham was born. This truth is affirmed also in Colossians 1:17: καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων.

The parallelism between John 8:58 and Colossians 1:17 is clearly seen when the two are juxtaposed with the word order of the latter rearranged:

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
πρὸ πάντων αὐτός ἐστιν.

3. The statement "And this same name and expression underlie all of Jesus' ἐγὼ εἰμί statements in John's Gospel" is demonstrably false. For example, in Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, Ἐγώ εἰμι is simply the subject and the verb of the sentence respectively, with τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου as the complement. In the case of Ἐγώ εἰμι without an expressed complement, as in Mark 14:62, it is just a matter of supplying the approprite complement (Ἐγώ εἰμι the Christ in Mark 14:62). In Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, we have false Christs claiming Ἐγώ εἰμι, i.e., "I am the Christ." This is confirmed by the parallel in Matthew 24:5: Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ χριστός. Even the blind man in John 9:9 says, Ἐγώ εἰμι ("I am he").
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Jason Hare »

Leonard Jayawardena wrote: July 17th, 2021, 9:07 amIt is amazing to see such exegetical nonsense in a book teaching basic Biblical Greek grammar. There are the following three errors in the passage quoted above.
I remember when I was younger also thinking that ἐγώ εἰμι was the name of God in that passage from Exodus. I think I got it from this Exegetical Insight when I was first learning Greek at 17 years old. I used Mounce's grammar, and I must have picked that up. It would be a few years before I unlearned that "insight."
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

I agree with Leonard except for John 8:58 and Col 1:17. You should show the proof how the present tense can mean the same as the imperfect would mean with πρὶν or πρὸ. These two instances aren't enough. If there are more examples from the whole Koine corpus I'm sure someone can point them out. The "extended-from-past-present" explanation doesn't work here, either. Additionally, in John there's an event in time (birth of Abraham) while in Col there's not an event in time.

I don't mean that ἐγώ εἰμι would directly be the name of God in John 8:58, only that I don't by your explanation, and that I don't see John and Col as grammatical parallels.

But this is off-topic.
Leonard Jayawardena
Posts: 20
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 3:30 am
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Leonard Jayawardena »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: July 17th, 2021, 7:13 pm I agree with Leonard except for John 8:58 and Col 1:17. You should show the proof how the present tense can mean the same as the imperfect would mean with πρὶν or πρὸ. These two instances aren't enough. If there are more examples from the whole Koine corpus I'm sure someone can point them out. The "extended-from-past-present" explanation doesn't work here, either. Additionally, in John there's an event in time (birth of Abraham) while in Col there's not an event in time.
What then is your understanding of these two verses?
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Leonard Jayawardena wrote: June 4th, 2021, 8:56 am
The primary function of the article is not to make a word definite. For example, proper names are definite without the article. This is also why Jehovah Witnesses' [sic] understanding of John 1:1 is wrong. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means, "the Word was God," not "a god," even though the article does not occur before θεὸς.
The above is an error that you would not expect someone of Mounce's knowledge to make. Grammatically, there is no objection to rendering θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as "the word was a god," and it is exegetical considerations that require "the word was God" as the correct translation. When this clause is translated "the word was a god," θεὸς is taken in a non-definite, countable sense (cf. John 10:34 [Ἐγὼ εἶπα · Θεοί ἐστε;]).

I would like to see Mounce render the sentence "And Zeus was a god" into Greek. :)
[/list]

I wrote to Mounce at his website to bring these errors to his notice and, not receiving a reply, posted a message on his Facebook, but, to my disappointment, he did not so much as acknowledge my message. I was hoping that he would thank me for bringing them to his notice. :cry:
I missed this somehow. No, Mounce is correct. The primary reason for the lack of the article at θεός is to mark it as the predicate. Notice that the actual subject of the clause ὁ λόγος has the article, which marks it out as the subject. This is standard Greek grammar throughout the period of ancient Greek. It is therefore perfectly fair to see θεός as definite, though that's as much a function of context as syntax.

As for the lack of the article equating to indefiniteness, again a function of context. In the following verse, which singular noun is indefinite?

1 Tim 2:5 ​εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς...

And your comparison to Zeus is not accurate, since John 1:1 is about as far from the pagan context as you can get.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Leonard Jayawardena
Posts: 20
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 3:30 am
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Leonard Jayawardena »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: July 18th, 2021, 6:39 amI missed this somehow. No, Mounce is correct. The primary reason for the lack of the article at θεός is to mark it as the predicate. Notice that the actual subject of the clause ὁ λόγος has the article, which marks it out as the subject. This is standard Greek grammar throughout the period of ancient Greek. It is therefore perfectly fair to see θεός as definite, though that's as much a function of context as syntax.

As for the lack of the article equating to indefiniteness, again a function of context. In the following verse, which singular noun is indefinite?

1 Tim 2:5 ​εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς...

And your comparison to Zeus is not accurate, since John 1:1 is about as far from the pagan context as you can get.
The error I see in what Mounce has written is that he seems to reject even the grammatical possibility of translating θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1c as "and the word was a god." He seems start with the assumption that θεὸς in John 1:1c is definite and, since a definite θεὸς does not require the article, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος should be rendered "and the word was God." That looks like arguing in a circle.

I myself take θεὸς in a definite (or qualitative, see below) sense ("and the word was God"), but that is due to exegetical, contextual reasons, not grammatical.

Incidentally, before writing this I checked with Wallace's Greek Grammar and he prefers the word "qualitative" rather than "definite" to describe θεὸς of John 1:1c. His objection to "definite" is that it would mean the identity of ὁ λόγος with θεὸς of 1:1b. Qualitatively, θεὸς denotes identity of essence, not person and could be translated "divine."

If a definite θεὸς in John 1:1c must mean the identity of ὁ λόγος with θεὸς (the Father) in every respect, then I have no problem accepting the word "qualitative," but cannot θεὸς of John 1:1c be definite with ὁ λόγος being that θεὸς in only a representive sense (in the sense of sharing the nature of the Father)?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I should like to note for the record that Mounce isn’t the author that exegetical insight. It is attributed to Daniel B. Wallace. Please correct your attributions. Thank you.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Textbooks”