Strange Greek Grammar Advice

I came across a website with an outline of Greek Syntax. It was quite traditional and rather simple. I didn’t look through the whole thing, but everything I saw seemed quite harmless. I’m guessing the author isn’t done. It only covers a few cases, the Perfect, infinitives, and participles. But then I came to the Bibliography section. This is what I found:

Bibliography

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th. Ed. New Yourk [sic], Hodder & Stroughton, 1923.

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Blass and Debrunner. Trans. Funk. University of Chicago, 1961

An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament. W. D. Chamberlain. Macmillan, 1941 – republished Baker.

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey. Macmillan 1927.

An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek. C.F.D. Moule. 2nd. Ed. 1959

A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Vol III Syntax. Nigel Turner. T&T. Clark. 1963

A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek, H. P. V. Nunn. Cambridge Uni. Press, 5th ed. 1938.

Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Nigel Turner. T.&T. Clark, 1965

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel Wallace, Zondervan, 1996.

Idioms of the Greek New Testament, S.E. Porter. Shefield [sic], JSOT Press. 1992.

Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, E.D.W. Burton. T&T Clark, 3rd. ed. 1898.

Syntax of New Testament Greek, J.A. Brooks and C.L. Winbery. Washington University Press, 1979.

All the above manuals are reflected in these notes. Students considering purchasing a book on Greek Grammar are probably best to leave the “oldies” behind, although Dana and Mantey’s manual is worth having. Brooks and Winbery is a simple beginner, while Porter is good at explaining the workings of Greek Syntax. Wallace is the master of detail in simplicity and there is no other modern manual to challenge his supremacy in this department.

Its a decent bibliography, though it misses the rest of MHT–Turner’s two volumes on syntax and style are the weakest volumes in the set–if someone with limited funds asked me, I’d stay skip Turner all together and just go with Moulton and Howard in the first two volumes. But what made my shake my head in disbelief was the statement above that I’ve put in bold. Of all the “oldies,” Dana and Mantey are worth having? I’d definitely go with Moule or Robertson over Dana and Mantey any day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s