Re: Mounce's first year grammar

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Tue Nov 30 1999 - 20:07:24 EST

>From: A K M Adam <>

> I second Jonathan's and Clayton's observations, with the further note that
> among those of us who don't assent to Mounce's theological conclusions, the
> Exegetical Insights are even more distracting . . .

I probably overstated for the sake of simplicity my "assent" with
Mounce's theological conclusions. I only assent in broad terms like
Trinitarian Theism. On issues like eschatology and what not I would
probably tend to exercise sort of a perennial suspended judgement which
would be considered "doubt" in some parts of Texas or even in Spokane

Anyway, Greek grammars are a bad place to be doing theology either
systematic, biblical or any other kind of theology. The temptation to
use a proof text for your favorite hobby horse doctrine as an example of
some point in Greek syntax should be resisted at all cost. It really
muddles the grammatical issue and gets the student into bad habits right
from the beginning.

I don't have Mounce on hand but I could probably round up half a dozen
quick examples from Wallace without too much trouble. Wallace is
gathering dust up at the local library all I need to do is go check it


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

--- B-Greek home page: You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [] To unsubscribe, forward this message to To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:47 EDT