I agree that MacA. ought not be treated as a grammarian, but on the other
hand, I would be interested in the list's evaluation of Eric's original
query *on grammatical grounds* and not see it simply swept under the rug
with a dismissal of MacA's qualifications. I'm not seeking to defend or
rebutt the view, but I have read it before and note that it is an
internally consistent argument. I.e., the text can be read coherently with
that presupposition. What I'm curious about is whether or not it is a valid
grammatical/exegetical argument. As I have thought about it previously (not
too recently), I do not see any grammatical problem (unless I'm overlooking
something that is either too obvious or too subtle). And please, let's not
argue the cessationist/charismatic position here (that would, I'm afraid,
degenerate quickly into flames). What does the text require on this
particular exegetical point of the alternation between singular and plural
of GLOSSA? How any of us may prefer to use that information to impact our
own theological commitments is not a "list-able" topic!
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800
rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit PA 18411
http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/Index.htm USA
_________________________________________________________________