Re: Dan Wallace's Grammar
Sun, 12 Jan 1997 10:38:35 -0500 (EST)

Alan has written

>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.
>I would think that a scholar like Wallace would know these passages
>far better than an amateur such as myself. But since Wallace's
>argument number (3) implies by omission that such passages do not
>exist, he is failing to present information that shows that his
>argument is incorrect. I argued that such an omission is deliberate
>and unscholarly.<

I would dispute that these are "indisputable" uses of "EIMI" as a historical
present. Usually historical presents are restricted to the past. All of these
uses extend from the past into the present (John 14:9, Jesus is still with
them). These references would better fit in the "Extending from past to
present" category in Wallace's grammar. Therefore, IMHO, I think Wallace's
comments stand.

Charles Powell