Re: Proffessor [sic] Blackwelder and participles

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Sat Mar 14 1998 - 14:35:33 EST

Paul S. Dixon wrote:

> Clay, you have managed to keep this discussion general (I am not sure if
> you are arguing for or against Dale's position here), which is just as
> well.


Actually my argument is not dealing with Dale's post at this point. I was
thinking about the original question and how it was framed. It reminded me of
the kind of thing that students used to do in their greek exegesis class. I
never took Greek in seminary, my focus being theology exclusively. But some of
my friends were writing these papers and I remember thinking that the
arguments seemed to be stretching the data to the breaking point. Even when I
agreed with their conclusions I could not support their methods.

I am suspicious of any dogma that is supported primarily by minor technical
points in Greek grammar. The reason I am suspicious is simple. Most technical
points in Greek grammar are controversial.

I am not ruling out the idea that detailed exegesis can be used to support
dogma. I think that Murray J. Harris ("Jesus as God") has done a fine job of
showing us how this can be done. However, I wonder if we ever need to rely on
something as slippery as verb aspect/aktionsart to support a major doctrine. I
hope not.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT