From: JTAMIN@aol.com
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 12:12:15 EST
The point has been made by some (e.g., Dale Wheeler) that D&M have not
clearly presented, or even incorrectly presented certain aspects of Greek
syntax (e.g., Granville Sharp, aorist, etc.). However, on that point, can
one say that the Granville Sharp is never applicable? Or would it be better
to say that the application of that rule has some merit, but there are other
instances where it needs to be modified? I believe the latter is the more
accurate and correct position to be taken.
With reference to the aorist, while it is true that a great many pastors have
in many instances not fully understood the use of the aorist, it is just
plain wrong, in my humble opinion, to blame D&M for that. Indeed, if one
would carefully read D&M with regards to the aorist, one would find that they
clearly present the aorist's aspect as signifying "nothing as to
completeness, but simply presents the action as attained" (p.193).
Therefore, I must take objection to what I perceive as a castigation of D&M
by Dale Wheeler. Certainly he has a right to his opinion, but I personally
have no problem at all in recommending D&M to a beginning student, while at
the same time encouraging that student to read carefully the material and
resort to other sources as well (e.g., Brooks and Winbery, Wallace,
Robertson, etc.).
Therefore, I would find myself in agreement with Clay in his assessment of
the bashing of D&M, as well as his evaluation of Wallace.
God bless you,
Justin T. Alfred
Murrieta, CA
--- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:49 EDT