brainout wrote:What I mean by 'classical' with reference to theology, was the standard theological teachings of the 1930's, as well as the standard Greek language teachings of the 1930's.
Yeah, that's clear now. I'm kind surprised you were taught by someone who was at DTS in the 1930's. That was the L.S. Chafer era. I have no knowledge of what was being taught then in relation to Greek exegesis.
My college mentor[1] was at DTS 1958-62, room mate with Hal Lindsey, they both took Jimmy Williams (founder, Probe Ministries) under-their-wings. Williams told me this in two hour phone call. My not-mentor in seminary was at DTS same era, he was hebrew scholar who did a ThD under Waltke. I have never been to Texas. The school I attended was very west coast and Not-DTS. My reading of the exegetical work done by students and profs would place them solidly in the evangelical exegetical tradition of the 1970s. Nothing old fashion about it. The most popular NT guy was F. F. Bruce. The older ICC works by people like Sandy/Hedlam, A. Plummer were used a lot.
Decades later Wallace at DTS published his GGBB which was the reductio ad absurdum for the traditional treatment of the Greek Case system. His treatment of the genitive was instrumental in causing some of us to wonder if the whole approach was wrong. There are
linguists who use GGBB to teach greek. I will not name names.
The question that lingers: Why do we need semantic categories to define the syntax of the Greek genitive? Some people see a pedagogical benefit achieved by sorting genitives into groups based on the semantic situation. Students are required to attain proficiency in identify these groups. Others wonder if this whole exercise leads to a misunderstanding about how the case actually functions. The long term benefit of memorizing the categories is weighed against the risk of habitually fussing over distinctions between this or that category, a futile exercise since the categories are a convention of
Classical Philology and have no actual referent in the language itself.
This old fashion treatment of the Greek Case system is an artifact of
Classical Philology. All the NT and LXX Scholars of yesteryear were trained in Classical Greek first, Henry Alford, H. A. W. Meyer, H. B. Swete.
Historically UBS and SIL have been agents of change, introducing "modern linguistics" into greek exegesis. However, I haven't run across many recommendations suggesting a different analysis of the case functions. Finding something like this is made difficult by the volume of the publications.
Case Agreement in Ancient Greek: implications for a theory of covert elements... Chet Creider
ftp://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/pub/Word-Grammar/greek.pdf
Case alterations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case.
Christina Sevdali
https://www.academia.edu/12643684/Case_ ... o=download
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
[1]Did his internship at Peninsula Bible Church, under Ray Stedman. Decades later became the father in law to a certain
infamous mega-church pastor from Seattle. (google that string)
POSTSCRIPT: Having attended a school like mid-20th century DTS has remarkably different impact on different students. Some students violently reject the framework, examples Robert Wall, Gregory Beale. Others become life long defenders of what they learned in seminary. I spent most of the summer of '68 in Goetera El Salvador with guy who studied at Mutlnomah. It was
Walboord and Pentecost ... he was pre-Hal Lindsey. My college mentor passed through DTS unscathed. He wasn't even interested in eschatology. His whole approach to life was radically out of phase with DTS. The social gospel of Martin Luther King combined with an orthodox theology. He didn't do greek exegesis. He told his young men to avoid the languages, waste of time.
C. Stirling Bartholomew