A.T.Robertson, additional

From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 18 1995 - 13:07:12 EDT

          May I add a warm second to Carlton Winbery's excellent posting on
A. T. Robertson? Like him, I hold Robertson's work in the highest esteem,
As a graduate student, I scrimped and saved to buy his great Grammar,
together with the two volumes of Moulton then out (I had to wait till
Germany recovered enough from the War to reprint Debrunner, whereupon my
wife-to-be gave it to me as my engagement gift!). The main problem with
Robertson, as Carlton wrote, in not its defects, but its age. We have
continued to learn about ancient Greek, and about language in general as
well. I still consult Robertson, as Carlton says he does. It rests just
two feet from the end of my hand as I sit here in my study and write this--
a closeness reserved for very few books.
     It is very distressing to read the frequent flames against "liberals"
and their views on Greek grammar, which are always misrepresented. I am
sure that I would be categorized as a "liberal" in my scholarship, meaning
that I do not hold any part of the Bible as beyond the critical use of
reason and of the best tools available for studying other history and
     (I happen also to regard myself as quite "evangelical" in my high
     regard for the Bible, and rather "Catholic" in my Nicene-
     Chalcedonian theology, and Protestant in my rejection of the
     claims of one bishop to head the world-wide Church. In other
     words, I am revealing myself to be an Anglican!--And that really
     isn't a synonym for wishy-washy.)
But I hold many devout conservatives' work in very high regard -- Robertson
(Baptist), Moulton (Anglican), and Zerwick (Roman Catholic), for example.
It even happens that I share Carlton Winbery's appreciation of H. E. Dana
(though I haven't seen the wonderful MSS. he has), but I am not an admirer
of the work of Dana's 1927 co-author, Julius Mantey. In every case, the
theological position of the grammarian is not an issue for me, unless the
grammarian himself intrudes it into his work.
     We happen to have a number of really good grammarians on this List,
such as Edgar Krentz, Carl Conrad, Carlton Winbery, Bill Mounce, Micheal
Palmer, James Tauber, and Philip Graber (the last two--unbelievably--still
students!). I am aware of the denominational connection of only two of
them, and the only one whose theology is known to me is Edgar Krentz,
simply because he has published enough in New Testament (i.e., I have read
enough of his work) for me to have this (probable) knowledge of his views.
The religious and theological positions of the rest are irrelevant to my
appreciation of their contributions.

     Please, no more flames.

Edward C. Hobbs

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:30 EDT