Smyth's grammar
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon Aug 19 14:14:43 EDT 2002
on 8/19/02 10:16 AM, Anh Michael wrote:
> Symth's grammar was never referred to me by any Greek instructor or professor
> in Theological school.
As Trevor has pointed out Smyth isn't a NT Grammar, HOWEVER, as a reference
book for ancient Greek Smyth is hard to beat. It is one of the last books in
my library I would be willing to part with. I use it more often and with
consistently better results than BDF, Moulton-Turner, ATR, Zerwick, and all
the lesser grammars combined. Obviously for NT idioms you will need to look
at a NT Grammar.
> They explained that he does not have all those theological presuppositions
> that NT Greek Grammars contain.
For the most part this is just post-modern rhetoric. The only grammars I
know of that get embroiled in theology, apologetics and so forth are also
books that fail on the strictly linguistic level. So they should be avoided
primarily because of their approach to language and only secondarily because
they tend to get embroiled in dogmatics and apologetics. In other words
they are just marginal grammars.
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list