tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post7950025172829972639..comments2023-11-22T12:30:25.017-08:00Comments on Paroikos Bible Blog: A Comparative Analysis of Four 1st Year Greek TextbooksPaul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-30801310406947487462021-01-22T11:44:43.160-08:002021-01-22T11:44:43.160-08:00Loooking forward to your review!Loooking forward to your review!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-70578966440263634132019-05-29T13:52:09.619-07:002019-05-29T13:52:09.619-07:00A good question, that I'm afraid I can't a...A good question, that I'm afraid I can't answer thoroughly right now because I haven't seen Mounce's 4th edition yet. What I really need to do this summer is a thorough rewrite on this topic, comparing not just these four but any other significant ones that have come out, once I can get to a good theological library that has all of them. Mounce is a good choice regardless, I just think Black is a better, easier-to-follow writer (though of course I'm biased!)Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-54726309486593605552019-05-28T12:00:46.166-07:002019-05-28T12:00:46.166-07:00Hi, after Mounce's 4th ed which is now out. Ar...Hi, after Mounce's 4th ed which is now out. Are these rankings still the same? And now, where would you rank Mounce's.. (since he has come out with a 3rd and 4th ed)?<br />ThanksAinsleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-72673274874921628992017-11-10T07:03:35.588-08:002017-11-10T07:03:35.588-08:00Hi, Arief, good to hear from you again. Dr. Decker...Hi, Arief, good to hear from you again. Dr. Decker is a follower of Stanley Porter in regards to his views on the Greek verb, but I think he's a bit more easier of a writer than Dr. Porter. Looking at his table of contents, I kind of like the way he approaches things (even though I'm still not a fan of starting with the Aorist tense). I personally haven't used it so I can't really say much about it but I can attest that Dr. Decker is [was] a fantastic scholar [sadly he's with the Lord now, having died of cancer a couple years ago; this was really his last scholarly work].<br />As far as clarity and user-friendliness, I still think Dr. Black's Learn to Read New Testament Greek is overall the best, though [granting my bias].Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-55512753507533842602017-11-08T21:33:45.161-08:002017-11-08T21:33:45.161-08:00Hi! Its been a while...
I have heard good news ab...Hi! Its been a while...<br /><br />I have heard good news about the late Rodney Decker's first year primer.. another gift for us trying to learn the language I suppose? whats your opinion about it? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12508995374053155424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-75816988686371162572015-04-02T17:37:49.940-07:002015-04-02T17:37:49.940-07:00Thanks for your questions; my father, John Himes, ...Thanks for your questions; my father, John Himes, feels that Dr. Black's grammar is in the general tradition of Machen in how it treats the topics, but beyond that I'm not as familiar with Machen (my father is, though, since he taught from it in Japan). I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with Wenham and Duff, but it does seem from what I've read that Duff is indeed the update of WenhamPaul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-21134699268432052122015-03-14T01:35:40.579-07:002015-03-14T01:35:40.579-07:00I've just starting to build interest in biblic...I've just starting to build interest in biblical greek.<br /><br />is it true that Dr. Black's grammar is using an approach similar to machen? <br /><br />how is your opinion about wenham? It is one widely used in my country and as far as I know the first english-greek beginning grammar translated to my language. and how do you think about Dr. Duff grammar? I read that it is the update of wenham.<br /><br />ThxAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12508995374053155424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-4202869701188929532012-09-04T22:22:57.853-07:002012-09-04T22:22:57.853-07:00Thanks, Dad! I wonder if anybody has ever consider...Thanks, Dad! I wonder if anybody has ever considered revising/updating Machen.Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-22954893447060792902012-09-04T17:43:10.618-07:002012-09-04T17:43:10.618-07:00Hi Paul. When I first began teaching Greek in Japa...Hi Paul. When I first began teaching Greek in Japan, Machen was almost all there was, so we went with that. One semester Machen was out of print so I had to use a textbook by a Japanese that was hand written, copied then bound. Not so good!<br /><br />Having used Machen and still using him in Japanese, I still like him. I know I should look at the couple of new ones in Japanese, but Machen is orderly, handles the participles well, and is not really so out of date. Davis' grammar had 7 cases, but 5 are back in style--like Machen! Plus, there are one or two great teacher's aids based on Machen.<br /><br />John R. HimesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-21690943283898054412012-08-30T15:18:23.521-07:002012-08-30T15:18:23.521-07:00Thanks for the question. In my experience, those w...Thanks for the question. In my experience, those who use J. Gresham Machen's Greek grammar generally tend to be fundamentalist schools that prefer the Textus Receptus (I'm thinking of one school in particular right now that is both kjv-only and TR-only that uses, or used to use, Machen's book). I think in some cases this stems from a general distrust of modern evangelical Greek scholars and a desire to use a textbook that utilizes the TR (I think Machen used the TR, not because he was kjv-only but because it was more generally accepted back then; please correct me if I'm wrong). <br />It's worth noting, of course, that not all fundamentalist schools distrust modern grammars. My own alma mater, an independent Baptist school, used Mounce for 1st year and Wallace for 2nd year.<br />If there are non-fundamentalist schools that use Machen, I'd be really interested to know why. Perhaps a more traditional Presbyterian school might use him since he was a Presbyterian?<br />Thanks for your interest and comments.Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-60051518311163577532012-08-28T14:49:10.406-07:002012-08-28T14:49:10.406-07:00With all these newer books out, why do you think s...With all these newer books out, why do you think some schools still use Machen? Is it just because that's what the prof is more comfortable with, since it's what he/she learned from?Brian Rodenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00026316545177087233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-67663097519205305952012-08-08T14:35:32.445-07:002012-08-08T14:35:32.445-07:00Good question, Tim. Porter and co. is the only tex...Good question, Tim. Porter and co. is the only textbook that actually argues against the concept of deponency in Greek, but here's a general summary of the 4 views.<br />1. Dr. Black (Learn to Read) simply defines the deponent as a Greek verb which does not have an active form (pp. 88-89), noting also that some deponents can function as true middle voices. He views the middle voice as the voice where "the subject is involved in the action of the verb, but the manner of the involvement must be inferred from the context" (p. 88).<br />2. Mounce (Basics of), has a similar definition to Black, but argues that a deponent is always active, pp. 150-151 (not sure if he means to specifically exclude the possibility of a middle-sense here). Regarding the Middle voice, the way he describes it, the deponent is almost a kind of middle (top of p. 152) Elsewhere, he acknowledges that some verbs have a different meaning in the middle than they do in the active (p. 208). In contrast to others, Mounce argues that the so-called "self-interest" meaning of the "true middle" is very rare, and that most middles are basically active in meaning (see pages 230-231; he does acknowledge the possibility of a "self-interest"/"reflexive" idea for the middle, he just says it's really rare)<br />3. Baugh (Primer, in his glossary at the end, sees deponents like the others do, generally having an active meaning (pp. 209-210) Regarding the Middle, however, Baugh is a little different from the others (p. 70). He argues that the the reflexive idea or "self-itnerest" idea was pretty much becoming passé in Hellenistic Greek, but that it was more commonly used "with verbs that express intransitive meanings" (70), also noting that most middle voice forms are deponent anyways.<br />4. Porter/Reed/O'Donnell (Fundamentals) flat out question the very concept of deponency. They state, "In our view, every verb expresses the meaning of its voice form, even when other forms--such as the active voice --may not exist" (125). They cite as an example "egenomhn" (I become) and argue that "the Greek middle voice is still being expressed, even if the English translation does not capture its complete sense in Greek" (125). Regarding the definition of the Middle voice, Porter/Reed/O'Donnell are closer to the others. For them, the Middle "is used to express the direct participation of, or benefit received by, the grammatical subject in performing the action of the verb" (p. 118), and they stress 3 types of middle, the reflexive, the reciprocal, and the proper middle (pp. 121-122).<br />As for myself, I have no strong feelings yet and I'm still open to various views. I'm intrigued on how Porter and co. do away with deponency. I'm open to their argument, but a bit skeptical. There's a fairly recent article on the issue that I need to get around to reading (Jonathan Pennington, "Deponency in Koine Greek. . ." in Trinity Journal 24 Spring 2003)<br />Here's one thing I'm currently puzzling over, though: why some verbs lose the active voice for some tenses but not others, if Porter and co. are right and the middle form is always emphasizing the middle idea. For example, "tiktw," the act of giving birth, has the active voice in such places as Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7. Yet I can't find any place where the future of tiktw has the active, and in such places as Genesis 18:13 (LXX) it's future middle/deponent. My question is, then, what's the difference in meaning between Mary giving birth and Sara theorizing about her giving birth in the future? Perhaps Sara's thoughts a more naturally reflective than the narrator's thoughts? But see also Genesis 31:8 LXX regarding Jacob's flocks, also future middle (and/or deponent)<br />It's a tough issue!<br />Thanks for your interest and comments.Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-48381686584183901842012-08-05T11:50:51.879-07:002012-08-05T11:50:51.879-07:00Paul,
Good comparison. Thanks for your hard work...Paul,<br /><br />Good comparison. Thanks for your hard work.<br /><br />Here is a question: how did each of the four deal with the deponent issue? Where do you stand on it, and which teaches what? <br /><br />Good stuff here!<br /><br />TimTimhttp://www.timandlizdecker.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com