Somebody else has probably already answered your question by now, Clay, but
as there may well be more than one opinion about it (pretty rare is the
question on B-Greek about which there is only one opinion!), so I might as
well say my say.
If the Greek of the NT were a wholly different language from classical
Attic, then Denniston's great work--one of the truly great achievements in
classical Greek scholarship--might reasonably be ignored. In fact, however,
NT KoinŽ is in continuity with classical Attic, for all its attenuation of
Attic morphology and syntactic simplification and innovation. Moreover, the
particles, even if some of their usage can be shown to have undergone
change from 5th and 4th century classical usage, are nevertheless vitally
important to the nuancing of expression even in the KoinŽ, although perhaps
not to an equal degree in every writer in the NT.
For that reason I'd say it's worth consulting any time you want to
understand how a particle in a NT text nuances the tone of the statement.
And finally, if you are seriously questioning whether the work is worth
you're keeping when you're only interested in the Greek of the NT, I will
offer to be the first to take it off your hands at any reasonable price: I
have no copy of it in my own library and would snap it up in a flash!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/