Re: Mounce's first year grammar

From: Theodore H Mann (
Date: Wed Dec 01 1999 - 09:18:20 EST

I would like to add the following:

   I have worked my way through Machen (twice), Mounce (at least twice),
Wenham, Summers and Dobson, and I much prefer Mounce. First of all, In
my opinion, the clarity of presentation makes the Mounce text
particularly suited to those of us who are attempting to learn the
language on their own. Secondly, Mounce's system reduces the need to
memorize (and continually re-memorize) 50-some-odd paradigms. Lastly,
his text is tied into several other helpful volumes published by
Zondervan as a series: Mounce's "Basics of Biblical Greek," "Graded
Reader of Biblical Greek" and "Morphology of Biblical Greek," Wallace's
"Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics," and Trenchard's "Complete Vocabulary
Guide to the Greek New Testament." For me, Mounce has worked well.
   As regards Mounce's "Exegetical Insights," one of his stated goals is
to approach Greek as a tool for ministry. Whether or not that's a good
idea, I don't know; but I don't think it interferes with learning the



Dr. Theodore "Ted" Mann

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:03:16 -0600 "Michael Burer" <>
>Clayton wrote:
>> Anyway, Greek grammars are a bad place to be doing theology either
>> systematic, biblical or any other kind of theology. The temptation
>> 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
>> muddles the grammatical issue and gets the student into bad habits
>> from the beginning.
>> I don't have Mounce on hand but I could probably round up half a
>> 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
>> out.
>I disagree with your assertion in the first paragraph. A Greek grammar
>is a
>fine place to wrestle with particular passages which are traditionally
>to teach various doctrines, especially since so many key passages
>hinge on
>an aspect of Greek grammar. Why not wrestle with the grammatical and
>syntactical issues to see why various doctrines have been taught from
>various passages? If done in the right way, this can be very helpful
>students. It is certainly appropriate to use a well-known,
>freighted passage to illustrate an aspect of grammar or syntax as long
>as it
>is a true illustration of the point under consideration.
>I am not quite sure what you are asserting in your second paragraph.
>If you
>think Wallace has used verses inappropriately, meaning the value of
>particular verse for illustrating the particular point of grammar or
>under consideration is little or none, and that he is only using
>verses to ride a "hobby horse doctrine," then your assertion requires
>evidence to support it. On the other hand, if you are asserting that
>has used verses which have theological import to illustrate aspects
>grammar and syntax, then of course he has done that, as well as any
>which discusses any verse in the Greek NT. It is impossible to discuss
>grammar and syntax adequately and fully without discussing the meaning
>the text, and since the text is the NT, obviously the discussion will
>theological and doctrinal in nature.
>Best regards,
>Michael Burer
>Ph.D. Student
>Dallas Theological Seminary
>B-Greek home page:
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as:
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>To subscribe, send a message to

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