Wallace writes here that theological bias can interfere with the correct interpretation of adverbial participles. Whether you agree with him or not regarding the knowledge of Jesus, you cannot deny that theological bias can interfere with the correct interpretation of adverbial participles.Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I believe that I should say a few more words about theological bias and distortions in Greek grammars. In an article entitled, “When Did Jesus Know? The Translation of Aorist and Perfect Participles for Verbs of Perception In the Gospels” by the Greek language scholar Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D., we read:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The following passages are but a sample of the kinds of texts that should show that Jesus, too, grew in knowledge: Matt 12.15, 25; 16.8; 22.18; 26.10; Mark 8.17; 12.15; Luke 9.47; John 6.15, 61; 19.28.
If we treat these adverbial participles when Jesus is the subject in a manner that is different from how we treat them when others are the subject, then our translations are suspect of theological bias. Integrity in translation demands that we not be inconsistent in this matter, even if such consistency makes us theologically uncomfortable. In this respect, the NET Bible stands apart from most other translations.
James Wesley Stivers, in his book, Restoring The Foundations, writes,
And here is a review of Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 5.0: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament:“Most seminaries teach Greek grammar from a theological bias, and their reference works are biased also.
The point that I am making here is that in the study of the Greek New Testament using Greek grammars it is very important to be aware of the theological background of the author because the author’s theological background is going to have a very significant part in the author’s understanding and presentation of the grammar of the Greek New Testament. The twisting and distorting that the bias causes may not be deliberate, but it is a very present reality.Is it a grammar or an Evangelical apology ?, April 12, 2004
Reviewer: moomintroll2000 "moomintroll2000" (Beijing China)
Please do not misunderstand the provocative title of my comment: I am not saying that this book is worthless and that you should avoid buying it.
On the contrary, I think that Wallace's grammar is an invaluable work worth every dollar you spend for it. First of all, unlike other grammars, this one is as thrilling as a detective novel. Of course, unless you are deeply interested in NT exegesis, you will probably find Wallace's huge treatise anything but gripping. But if like me you are an impassioned reader of the Gospel and its original text, you will surely love this book.And the good news is that it is not for advanced learners of koine Greek only. In fact I started using it with minimal knowledge of Greek and I have little doubt that a complete stranger to the language of Luke and Paul could also glean immensely useful information from its pages provided he be a serious student of the Scriptures.
Having said that I must warn potential buyers and readers that Wallace is not an objective grammarian and linguist at all. Unlike a real scientist, he does not put aside his own religious and philosophical convictions aside and look at the NT dispassionately. What he does almost sistematically is to advance his own Protestant views of Christ and atonement and other crucial points with the help of Greek grammar. Fortunately, he does state the opinion of scholars who disagree with him but he gives them minimal space. Most of the time he does not even quote them!
A perfect example of Wallace's bias is the discussion on the use of the prepositions "uper" and "anti" in relation to the question of atonement. He mentions the fact that W.Bauer translates these prepositions by "on behalf of" rather than by "instead of" but he does not illustrate or expatiate on Bauer's point of view. Instead the reader is presented with several pages of arguments in favor of his own opinion, so that the naive reader may end up thinking that the translation favored by respected scholars like Bauer has no solid ground under it. And that is only one example among many, many others.
Of course, one could argue that many dubious points of Greek grammar simply cannot be cleared without a previous choice and that all exegesis must involve a certain amount of eisegesis. This may be true but Wallace really goes too far. Does he write for only for his small chapel? Aren't there Catholics and eastern Orthodox and Jews out there too?
Strangely enough this is a BCE(before common era)/CE(common era)book. Does Wallace not realize that these acronyms are basically anti-Christian and contribute to the secularization of our culture?
I say to all Christian authors: FOR GOD'S SAKE USE BC AND AD !!!
So my advice to you is: buy this grammar. But be sure to buy another one to know the two sides of the Biblical coin.
The doctrine of eternal security is a relative new doctrine that evolved as a consequence of a distorted understanding of several Biblical themes, including the sovereignty of God and predestination. However, the grammar of the Greek New Testament does not support the arguments put forward from Scripture in defense of the doctrine of eternal security, and novel and innovative theories have been concocted that supplant even some of the basic rules and principles of Greek grammar.