Re: Dan Wallace's Grammar
Carlton Winbery (winberyc@alex1.linknet.net)
Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:14:23 +0400
John Baima wrote;
>>I argued that Wallace failed to mention John 14:9 in the NT, and
>>passages like Genesis 31:38, 41 in the LXX, which from all references
>>I've seen are indisputable uses of "eimi" as a historical present.
>
>Sorry to everyone else if I'm dredging up old news, but I don't see how
>you can think that John 14:9 is a historical present unless you redefine
>"historical present" to be something completely different than the normal
>definition. Have you read Turner's Syntax, page 62? I'm sure all of
>Wallace's students have. Turner lists this passage as a present which
>indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the
>moment of speaking. How could it be read otherwise?
>
>>I would think that a scholar like Wallace would know these passages
>>far better than an amateur such as myself.
>
>Somehow, I think he does.
>
>I'd also like to add my comments about Dan Wallace as a person. Is he
>opinionated? Good grief yes! Does he lack integrity? Absolutely not. In
>fact, when I think of all the people I have met on my life's journey, Dan
>rates very high on my list of people with integrity.
>
Like John 14:9, John 15:27 also indicates a state of being that endures
through a period of time until the present. For this reason James Brooks
and I used them as examples of the "durative" present. The so-called
historical present occurs in narrative, mostly in the third person.
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
Fax (318) 442-4996
Phone (318) 487-7241