[SNIP]
> Rod's proposal makes sense in itself, but personally, I find disturbing the
> NATURE of the attack on Wallace's "Grammer." I have some objections of my
> own to some things in the grammar, particularly the multiplication of
> explanatory categories and questionable terminology for some of the new
> categories. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the "debate" suggested here
> has as its purpose the exposure of deliberate distortion of grammatical
> facts in order to promote a particular docrine or reject another. . . .
[SNIP]
I agree with Carl here, and I would like to add a word about Dan Wallace.
I know Dan through our work on the revision of Blass-Debrunner-Funk. I
find the suggestion that he would be dishonest in order to support his
theology to be very distasteful. It could only be made by someone who
does not know him. My own theology differs from his in a number of ways
but I don't believe for a second that he would ever use Greek grammar to
try to convince me that his views are better than mine. He simply has too
much integrity to do that.
It is possible that any of us can be blinded by our theology and read the
biblical text (including its grammar) incorrectly because of that
theology, but it is a long way from there to *intentionally* distorting
the grammar to support a particular theological perspective.
M. Palmer