From: George Goolde (goolde@mtnempire.net)
Date: Wed Dec 01 1999 - 14:39:00 EST
<x-flowed>Jonathan wrote,
"Actually, I would be perfectly comfortable having people learn Greek from
Smyth, a classical Greek text which has no doctrinal orientation, since it
does not deal with the Bible. If I wanted to teach you German, it is very
unlikely that I would use a text that has a particular doctrinal
orientation. And the main issues of debate in Greek syntax and grammar are
not cleanly split along doctrinal lines - people of all theological
flavors
and colors may take one particular view of tense and aspect, for instance.
Of course, if a Greek grammar is full of doctrinal statements, as Mounce
is, then its doctrinal orientation is more relevant. To me, one test of a
good grammar is that people of all theological persuasions should be able
to look at it and reason from the examples it presents, whether or not
their doctrine is the same as that of the author of the grammar."
I am not defending or attacking Mounce's work. But I do think it is
appropriate to mention that some of us study Greek only to interpret and/or
translate the Bible, not because we are motivated in the direction of
classical languages. I suppose we will have an inferior knowledge compared
to those who are classicists, but to us the language is a means to a very
specific end: interpreting the text of the NT and/or LXX. None of us
should force our theology into our interpretation. But in honesty, we may
decide that something is an objective rather than a subjective Genitive
based on other theological understandings. It is more than a little bit
artificial to discuss the Greek text and *pretend* that we have no
underlying theological considerations.
The fact that debate over tense and aspect is not split along theological
lines is good. Undoubtedly *some* debate will lead to theological
conclusions (hO THEOS, for example) and we should not pretend that these do
not exist.
One part of the bottom line, as I have said before, is that as
professionals we ought to agree to disagree agreeably. I already know that
my interpretation of John 1:1 will not be in agreement with some others. I
do not need to flame them to get this point across. I merely say: "I
believe this should be interpreted this way because of this grammatical
principle." Others might respond, "I use this other principle here." I do
agree that this list is not the place for discussion which is primarily
theological. Rather it is the place for exegetical discussion which will,
in some or even many cases, have theological implications which are
apparent to all.
Just one last note. Most seminary students do not really want to study
Greek. They know, that like a medicine, it is good for them. One reason
that theological tidbits are placed in Greek grammars intended for
theological students is to keep them interested in what is frankly a long,
hard, uninteresting pull. Somewhere along the way some come to love the
language. Alas, more pass their tests and never open their Greek texts
after graduation from seminary. As for me, I have no love for my shovel,
but I like the holes it digs!
No disrespect in intended towards those who have made a study of the
classics their lifelong work. They are much advantaged in the
language. I'm just trying to help them understand some of us who have a
different emphasis.
George
George A. Goolde
Professor, Bible and Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary
El Cajon, California
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:47 EDT