Smyth's grammar

Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Aug 20 11:28:08 EDT 2002


on 8/19/02 10:16 AM, Anh Michael wrote:

> They explained that he does not have all those 
>theological presuppositions > that NT Greek 
>Grammars contain.

To which Clay replied,

>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.

I too would not wish to accuse the major NT
grammars of being diverted by theological or
apologetic concerns. But it seems to me that the
NT is not the ideal corpus of texts upon which to
base a grammar. If one is to support a grammatical
abstraction by means of a given text, the meaning
of that text, so far as it bears upon the point
at issue, must be clear not only to the grammarian,
but also to his target audience. While in many
cases there will be no problem, particularly in
narrative, the NT texts are highly complex and
sophisticated. They make extenisve use of 
intertextual effects (allusions to and echoes of
the OT and other literature; though mostly prose, 
they are often highly poetic; they are all 
rhetorical pieces, and use rheotorical devices
such as ambiguity to great effect; and they use
structural devices such as chiasmus pretty 
extensively. All this makes them difficut,
sometimes, to understand. 

I really like Smyth; like ATR, it is readable and
Inherently interesting and enjoyable. But I am
Concerned that it is a classical, not a Hellenistic
Grammar; I am often unsure whether some of the 
Rules he elicits were still normative in the first 
century. Cam someone reassure me?

Paul Toseland
 
  
 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list