Syntax Grammars

JTAMIN at aol.com JTAMIN at aol.com
Wed Dec 8 12:12:15 EST 1999


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



More information about the B-Greek mailing list