I submitted this paper for Advanced Greek Grammar (New Testament 705) at Bob Jones University on April 14, 2005.
Introduction
While dozens of elementary Greek grammars are available today, intermediate and advanced grammars have not been as easy to come by until very recently.1 The last century of Greek scholarship has produced several important grammars. This paper will consider (usually in this chronological order) the contributions of Burton;2 Blass, Debrunner, and Funk (BDF);3 Robertson;4 Dana and Mantey;5 Turner;6 Young;7 and Wallace.8 These grammars vary in size, organization, difficulty, and purpose. But each has value and has made a significant contribution to the field of New Testament Greek studies. Every serious New Testament Greek student should be familiar with, if not own, each of them.
History
While many of these grammars have had only a single edition, several have gone through significant development. The three earliest grammars have gone through multiple editions: Burton five, BDF eleven, and Robertson four. The other four grammars have only had a single edition. BDF is the only grammar that was not originally an English work, being translated from German.
Burton
Ernest De Witt9 Burton (1856–1925) was Professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago.10 The first edition of his Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek was first made available as a pamphlet in 1888. The second edition, which was a revision and expansion of the former, was released in 1893. In 1898 the third edition was published, which corrected typographical errors and made other minor modifications.11 The fourth edition was simply a reprint of the third in 1900. The fifth edition came out in 1903 with a much needed Scripture index.12
Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
This grammar has had a significant history of development.13 It went through eleven editions in sixty-five years. Friedrich Blass (1843–1907) was Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Halle-Wittenberg. His Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch first appeared in 1896.14 It was translated into English by H. St. John Thackeray (1869–1930) in 1898 as the Grammar of New Testament Greek. The second edition appeared in German in 1902 and in English in 1905. In 1911 the third German edition was released along with a reprinting of the second English edition. In 1913 Albert Debrunner (1884–1958),15 Professor of Indo-European and Classical Philology at the University of Bern, revised and updated Blass’s work, which became the fourth German edition. Debrunner edited and updated the work on several occasions resulting in the fifth edition in 1921, the sixth edition (with a new appendix) in 1931, the seventh edition in 1943, the eighth edition in 1949, the ninth edition (with new pagination) in 1954, and the tenth edition in 1959. In 1961 Robert W. Funk (1926-) of the Theological School of Drew University translated and revised the tenth German addition into English, “incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner.”16 It is this version that remains today.
Robertson
Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863–1934) was Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville from 1895 until the year of his death. His massive work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, was first published in 1914.17 The second edition, including over 500 changes, followed just a year later. In 1919 the third edition was published, and the fourth and final edition was released in 1923.
Dana and Mantey
Harvey Eugene Dana (1888–1945) was Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary of Fort Worth, Texas, and Julius R. Mantey (1890–1981) was Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Chicago. They coauthored A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which was first released in 1927. In 1957 it was printed with a new index of Scripture references, but it never had a second edition.18
Turner
Nigel Turner’s (1916-) volume on Syntax, the third volume of Moulton’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament, was first published in 1963 by T & T Clark International. It was reprinted in 2003, but there have been no new editions. Turner began working on the volume after both James H. Moulton (1863–1917), who authored volume one, and Wilbert F. Howard (1880–1952), who authored volume two, had died. Dr. Howard had made only a few plans for volume three before his death. Henry G. Meecham (1886–1955) took over the task but lived only long enough to put together the bibliography. Turner assumed the responsibility at this point and brought the grammar to completion.19
Young
Richard A. Young (1944-) has a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University. His grammar, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach, was published in 1994 by Broadman and Holman. To date there have been no updated editions.
Wallace
Daniel B. Wallace (1952-) has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary where he is Professor of New Testament Studies. His popular 827-page grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, was the product of years of teaching intermediate Greek. It began as a 150-page intermediate Greek syllabus in 1979, and over the next several years it doubled in size and was finally published in 1996 by Zondervan.20 No new edition has yet been published.21 The more recent printings, though, reflect several minor modifications.22
Intended Audience
All of these grammars were, at least in part, intended for students on some level—some for the intermediate and some for the more advanced. The majority were written with the intermediate or second-year Greek student in mind. Young, Burton, and Dana and Mantey belong here, and probably Wallace.23 The others—BDF, Turner, and Robertson,24—are more geared for the advanced student, professor, and scholar.
Burton
Burton intended his grammar to be a textbook to “assist English-speaking students in the task of translating the Greek New Testament into English forms of thought and expression.”25 It was not intended for the pure grammarian or linguist but for the exegete and interpreter.26 While those who deal with philology and historical grammar have an important contribution to make to the study of New Testament Greek, Burton aimed beyond these disciplines and focused on exegesis, constructing his grammar “with reference to the point of view of the interpreter.”27
Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
BDF is probably the most technical and advanced of the grammars. It certainly targets those beyond the intermediate level. This is evident by the deliberate “choice of technical language.”28 Yet it was the intent of the authors and editors that the grammar be “a practical tool in which theologians, philologians and linguists, pastors and scholars, and students can find… as much usable data, analysis and interpretation… as possible.”29
Robertson
Robertson attempted to produce an advanced grammar, not including “too much of general grammar.”30 He aimed “to keep in touch at salient points with comparative philology and historical grammar,”31 yet, aware of the minimal Greek training of many, he sought to avoid overly technical language or at least to explain it. His grammar ends up somewhere “out in the middle of the linguistic stream.”32 He intended its use in the classroom setting, but realized that some chapters should probably be skipped over.
Dana and Mantey
Dana and Mantey intended to provide “an accurate and comprehensive compendium of grammar” that would be “adaptable to the average student.”33 Their target audience was not “the technical Greek scholar” but “the average Greek student.”34 The primary reason for writing a new grammar was to produce a work that would be “readily adapted to class-room use.”35 They have made it their aim to avoid technical language wherever possible without sacrificing accuracy.
Turner
Moulton had intended that his four-volume grammar would be both scholarly and “a practical guide to the student.”36 Turner designed his volume with three groups in view:
“first, the teacher with an interest in exegesis, or the Bible translator… who wishes to know the exact significant of every construction; then the textual critic whom characteristic differences in the author’s style may help to decide between variants; and also the student of comparative philology whose concern is the relationship of Biblical Greek to classical and Hellenistic.”37
Young
Young’s grammar was intended for the classroom. He wrote it with the student in mind, not the scholar. His desire was to write “an exegetically based textbook for use in intermediate Greek classes.”38 This is clear from his title, Intermediate New Testament Greek.
Wallace
The most prominent function of Wallace’s grammar is probably as an intermediate textbook. But Wallace designed his grammar in order to accommodate several groups of people: “intermediate Greek students, advanced Greek students, [and] expositors of scripture.”39 It targets both students in the classroom40 and pastors in the study.41 It was not intended for the linguist or translator but for those “whose concern is the interpretation of the text, exegesis, exposition.”42
Organizational Scheme
Each of the grammars under discussion takes a different approach in organizing its material. Several of the grammars have certain points in common while differing on others. What follows is an attempt to sketch out a brief comparison by grammar and then by scheme. Finally, the data are mapped out in a table for ease of comparison.
Comparison by Grammar
Burton
Burton divides his grammar into three major sections. It must be noted first of all that Burton has limited his discussion to the syntax of the moods and tenses of verbs and verbals. He has three basic sections to his grammar: (1) the tenses, (2) the moods, and (3) the use of negatives with verbs.43
Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
BDF divides into three major sections: (1) phonology (7–24), (2) accidence and word-formation (25–69), and (3) syntax (70–263).44
Robertson
After a lengthy introduction of 139 pages, Robertson deals with his material in two major sections: (1) accidence (141–376) and (2) syntax (377–1208).45
Dana and Mantey
Dana and Mantey organize their grammar under two main heading: (1) accidence and (2) syntax, which subdivides into (a) the noun and (b) the verb, and (3) clauses.46
Turner
After a brief introduction (nine pages), Turner takes a unique approach, dividing his discussion into two major sections: (1) building up the sentence: analytical (11–287) and (2) the sentence complete: synthetic syntax (289–350). Section one subdivides into (a) word material for sentence-building, (b) word-groups defining a noun or adjective, and (c) word material which defines a verb. Section two subdivides into (a) the ordinary simple sentence and (b) connection between sentences.47
Young
Young’s grammar has no explicit superstructure. The only divisions that he provides are his 18 chapters. These chapters are not grouped together into larger categories. The logical progression of the chapters seems to be from smaller to larger units of communication. He begins with nouns (1–6), discussing the cases (1–3), the article (4), pronouns and adjectives (5), and prepositional phrases (6). Chapters 7–11 take up verbs and verbals, dealing with the six tenses (7–8), voice and mood (9), participles (10), and infinitives (11). The rest of the book (12–18) is essentially devoted to the syntax of larger units of communication, clauses and paragraphs: conjunctions (12), adverbs and particles (13), sentence structure (14), special sentences and clauses (15), figurative language (16), discourse analysis (17), and finally diagramming (18).48
Wallace
After a thirty-page introduction, Wallace discusses the syntax of Greek grammar in two categories: (1) the syntax of words and phrases (31–655), which subdivides into the syntax of nouns and nominals (31–389) and the syntax of the verbs and verbals (390–655), and (2) the syntax of the clause (656–725).49
Comparison by Scheme
Breadth of Categories
The grammars differ in the breadth of material that they cover. BDF deals with phonology, morphology, and syntax. Robertson and Dana and Mantey cover both morphology and syntax. Turner, Young, and Wallace are concerned almost exclusively with syntax, while Burton is limited to the syntax of verbs and verbals.
Inductive and Deductive
Traditionally grammars have taken a deductive approach. Some have responded and taken a more inductive approach. Still others have attempted to retain the best of both worlds. Dana and Mantey is largely deductive.50
Grammatical and Exegetical
A true grammar gives little attention to exegesis and interpretation. This would largely be the case with Burton, BDF, Robertson, Dana and Mantey and Turner. Young and Wallace both attempt to do more in bridging the gap between these two disciplines.
Table 1: Structural Comparison by Section
Burton51
BDF
Robertson
D&M52
Turner53
Young54
Wallace
Intro.
1–5
1–6
1–139
1–15
1–9
1–7
1–30
Section 1
The Tenses (6–72)
Phonology (7–24)
Accidence (141–376)
Accidence (19–55)
Building up the Sentence: Analytical (11–287)
[Syntax of the Noun (9–104)]
Syntax of Words and Phrases (31–655)
Section 2
The Moods (73–177)
Accidence and Word-Formation (25–69)
Syntax (377–1208)
Syntax (59–303)
The Sentence Complete: Synthetic Syntax (289–350)
[Syntax of the Verb (105–77)]
Syntax of the Clause (656–725)
Section 3
The Use of Negatives with Verbs (178–186)
Syntax (70–263)
N/A
N/A
N/A
[Syntax of the Clause & Paragraph (179–277)]
N/A
Appendices & Indices
187–215
265–325
1209–1454
307–68
351–417
279–308
726–827
Table 2: Structural Comparison by Category
Burton
BDF
Robertson
D&M
Turner
Young
Wallace
Intro.
1–5
1–6
1–139
1–15
1–9
1–7
1–30
Phonology
N/A
Phonology (7–24)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Accidence
N/A
Accidence and Word-Formation (25–69)
Accidence (141–376)
Accidence (19–55)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Syntax
Syntax (6–186)
∙ The Tenses (6–72)
∙ The Moods (73–177)
∙ The Use of Negatives with Verbs (178–186)
Syntax (70–263)
Syntax (377–1208)
Syntax (59–303)
∙ The Noun (65–153)
∙ The Verb (154–267)
∙ The Clause (268–303)
Syntax (11–350)
∙ Building up the Sentence: Analytical (11–287)
∙ The Sentence Complete: Synthetic Syntax (289–350)
Syntax (9–277)
∙ [The Noun (9–104)]
∙ [The Verb (105–77)]
∙ [The Clause & Paragraph (179–277)]
Syntax (31–725)
∙ Words and Phrases (31–655)
· Nouns and Nominals (31–389)
· Verbs and Verbals (390–655)
∙ The Clause (656–725)
Appendices & Indices
187–215
265–325
1209–1454
307–68
351–417
279–308
726–827
Evaluation
By Category
Philippians 2
Analyzing the citations of Philippians 2 confirms a couple things. First, some grammars are more thorough than others. For example, Burton has 6 references, Young 8, BDF 20, Dana and Mantey 7, Turner 25, Wallace 56, Robertson 87. The numbers correspond, for the most part, with what would be expected given the size of each grammar. The only significant difference is with Dana and Mantey and BDF. But it must be remembered that BDF has much larger physical dimensions than Dana and Mantey.
Table 3: Philippians 2 by Verse
Robert.
Wallace
Turner
D&M
BDF
Young
Burton
2:1
4
3
1
2
2:2
1
3
1
1
2:3
5
2
2
1
2:4
2
2
1
2:5
2
2
2:6
6
13
3
2
2
2
1
2:7
1
4
1
1
1
2:8
3
4
1
2:9
3
1
1
2:10
1
3
2:11
3
2
2
1
2:12
5
3
1
1
2:13
5
5
1
2
2
2:14
1
2:15
7
1
1
2:16
1
1
1
2:17
3
3
1
1
2:18
3
1
1
1
1
2:19
2:20
3
1
1
1
2
2:21
2
2:22
2
2:23
4
3
1
2:24
1
1
2:25
3
2
1
2:26
3
2:27
3
1
1
2:28
5
2
3
1
1
2:29
2
1
2:30
4
2
2
Total:
87
56
25
7
20
8
6
Table 4: Philippians 2 Totals
Num. of Pages
Pages in New Testament Script. Index
% of Script. Index
Ref. to Phil. 2
% of Ref. to Phil. 2 w. Book
% of Ref. to Phil. 2 w. Index
Robertson
71 [86]55
4.88%
87
.060/pg
1.23/pg
Wallace
827
29
3.51%
56
.068/pg
1.93/pg
Turner
417
24 [35]
5.76%
25
.060/pg
1.04/pg
Dana/Mantey
368
14
3.8%
7
.019/pg
.5/pg
BDF
325
19 [24]
5.85%
20
.062/pg
1.05/pg
Young
308
12
3.90%
8
.026/pg
.67/pg
Burton
215
16 [17]
7.44%
6
.028/pg
.38/pg
Tense Uses
Burton
Since Burton’s grammar focuses on the tenses and moods of verbs and verbals, he dedicates a substantial portion of his book (40 pages) to the syntax of the tenses.56 He has organized the present tense in seven categories, imperfect in three, aorist in eight, future in five, perfect in four, and pluperfect in two.
Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
BDF has a 16-page discussion on the tenses.57 He has six present tenses uses, four imperfect uses,58 four aorist uses, and five perfect uses. There is no formal discussion of future and pluperfect uses.
Robertson
Robertson spends 90 pages discussing the syntax of the tenses.59 His organization is more challenging since he organizes not by tense but by aspect. He sees 13 present tense uses, 7 imperfect, 6 aorist, 5 future, 8 perfect, and 4 pluperfect.
Dana and Mantey
Dana and Mantey devote 33 pages to the syntax of the tenses.60 They divide the tense uses into two categories: regular uses and special uses. They give eight (three and five) uses of the present, six (three and three) uses of the imperfect, five uses of the future, six (three and three) uses of the aorist, four uses of the perfect, and two uses of the pluperfect.
Turner
Turner spends 31 pages dealing with the issue of tenses.61 He sees eight uses of the present, five or six uses of the imperfect, and six uses of the aorist. His discussion of the future, perfect, and pluperfect are not nearly as structured. It appears that he sees three uses of the future62 and possibly three uses of the perfect. He has only a very brief paragraph on the pluperfect.
Young
Young devotes 27 pages to the tenses.63 He questions the legitimacy of the word “tense,” since by definition it communicates time, preferring the word “form.”64 He sees nine uses of the present form, six uses of the imperfect, five uses of the future, seven uses of the aorist, six uses of the prefect, and four uses of the pluperfect.
Wallace
Wallace has a very thorough discussion of the tenses (93 pages).65 He divides the present tense in at least eleven categories, the imperfect into eight, the aorist into seven, the future into five, the perfect into seven, and the pluperfect into three.66
Table 5: Tense Uses
Pres.
Impf.
Fut.
Aor.
Perf.
PlPerf.
Pages
Robertson
13
7
5 [?]
6
8
4
90
Wallace
11
8
5
7
7
3
93
Turner
8
5 [6?]
3 [?]
6
3 [?]
0
31
Dana/Mantey
8
6
5
6
4
2
33
BDF
6
4 [6?]
0
4
5
0
16
Young
9
6
5
7
6
4
27
Burton
7
3
5
8
4
2
67
By Grammar
Burton
Burton’s work is over a century old and consequently some of what it says has been disproved or refined. The number of examples for certain grammatical phenomena is sometimes insufficient. But for a compact work of its size, much more cannot be expected. Overall, it is a helpful work and still has value.
Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
BDF is still a standard reference work. One of its major strengths is the comparisons that it makes with classical Greek. It will usually be too technical to be of much value for an intermediate student or the average pastor. But its value for the advanced student and professor will endure for decades to come.
Robertson
Robertson’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. Its comprehensiveness makes it valuable for anyone in pursuit of a thorough and detailed discussion. As a quick reference tool, one is not likely to make Robertson his first choice. The organization is at times cumbersome (e.g., tense uses). The layout is not as pleasing as more recent works. In spite of these things, Robertson will remain a standard reference work for students of the Greek New Testament.
Dana and Mantey
Dana and Mantey is a helpful and compact grammar. It is dated, but its combination of thoroughness and length make it a good tool to have. Its layout is not as appealing as Wallace’s grammar, but it still serves an important role for the student of New Testament Greek.
Turner
Turner’s critical-sounding language with which he often speaks of the Greek of the New Testament can easily be misunderstood, and for that reason it is probably not best. Some may think that he swings the pendulum to far back toward the view that New Testament Greek is its own unique language, but Turner is probably rather balanced in this regard. His organization makes it more challenging as a reference tool, but it does have its values as well. One of its strengths is how it compares the Greek of the New Testament with the LXX and the Hellenistic Greek. Turner’s focus on the peculiarities of New Testament Greek makes his work valuable and a necessity for every serious student.
Young
The main contribution of Young is that he “integrate[s] Greek scholarship with insights from linguistic theory,”67 better equipping the student to bridge the gap between grammar and exegesis. He tends to be a little weak on some of the finer points of grammar and does not deal with things in as much detail as some may like, usually giving only a couple of examples per use.
Wallace
Wallace’s grammar is very usable and well organized. The use of bold, italics, numbering, bullets, and indentation makes it very pleasing to the eye. A helpful table of contents begins each chapter, giving an excellent overview of what follows. Wallace also gives an ample number of examples for the grammatical phenomena under discussion. He also includes a list of other references for the student who needs even more examples. His exegesis is at times novel. It seems that he loves to overturn the tables of tradition. Often his insights are helpful and thought provoking, but the young reader should be cautioned to read with discernment. Overall, Wallace’s grammar is an excellent resource and will probably maintain its position of prominence for a while.
Conclusion
The serious student of the language of the New Testament needs to be familiar with each of these important works. Each makes its own contribution to New Testament Greek grammar, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. They differ in readability, thoroughness, difficulty, layout, and organization, but they all have value.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Brooks, James A. and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. 1979; reprint, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988.
Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. 1898; reprint, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1966.
Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: MacMillan, 1957.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.
Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 1963; reprint, New York: T&T Clark, 2003.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Notes
1. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), ix. See also William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), x. ↩
2. Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (1898; reprint, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1966). ↩
3. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). ↩
4. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934). ↩
5. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: MacMillan, 1957). ↩
6. Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (1963; reprint, New York: T&T Clark, 2003). ↩
7. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994). ↩
8. See fn. 1. ↩
9. De Witt is rendered three different ways: some have DeWitt as one word and others de Witt. The most common is De Witt, which has been followed throughout. ↩
10. He was Professor and Head of the Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature from 1892–1925, Director of the University Libraries from 1910–1925, Acting President in 1923, and President from 1923–1925. This information is available from the following webpage: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/spcl/centcat/pres/presch03_01.html, accessed 13 April 2005. ↩
11. See Burton, viii. ↩
12. It is now available in hardback from T&T Clark (1987), paperback from Wipf & Stock (2003), or electronically with BibleWorks 6.0 and Logos Scholar’s Silver Edition. ↩
13. For a more extensive treatment of its history see BDF, xi-x. ↩
14. It was published in Göttingen by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ↩
15. Some spell Debrunner as DeBrunner. The former seems to be the more common spelling and is followed throughout. ↩
16. BDF, iii. Dr. Funk was able to use the voluminous notes that Debrunner had prepared for producing an eleventh German edition of the grammar—a project which providence did not allow him to accomplish (xiii). However, Debrunner himself was able to contribute to this final English edition prior to his death by reading portions of the English translation and making recommendations (xiv). ↩
17. See Robertson, xv. ↩
18. It is still in print, and new copies are available on a very limited basis for $70–80. ↩
19. See Turner, v. Turner authored the 174-page volume four of the series, Style, which was released in 1976. ↩
20. Wallace, ix. ↩
21. In a personal correspondence with Dr. Wallace on December 17, 2004, he informed me that a new edition would not be coming out “for another 3–5 years.” ↩
22. Dr. Wallace also informed me that “there have been a couple dozen corrections made to the grammar in the last 8 years” (Ibid.). One such example occurs in footnote 61 on page 469 which reads, “In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is the second person imperative used after μή. If one wanted to express prohibition in the second person, the subjunctive was always the mood of choice.” This, however, is not accurate. The second person imperative occurs numerous times after μή. Wallace intended to say that the second person aorist imperative is never used after μή. This correction, along with the others, has been made in the newer blue copy of his book, as well as in the electronic copies available with BibleWorks, Logos, and Pradis. It seems that the green copy of his grammar contains most, if not all, of these errors. ↩
23. Certainly parts of Wallace’s grammar are beyond the second-year student. Wallace himself suggests that teachers should “have the intermediate students ignore all footnotes” since they “are designed for teachers and advanced students” (Wallace, xix). His text is designed to accommodate both levels of study. ↩
24. Robertson could be used on the intermediate level. Much of what he deals with is suitable for the purpose. The main problem is that his comprehensiveness may be too intimidating. ↩
25. Burton, v. ↩
26. Ibid., vi. ↩
27. Ibid. ↩
28. Ibid., xv. This is true, at least, in the most recent English edition. ↩
29. BDF, ix. ↩
30. Robertson, viii. ↩
31. Ibid. ↩
32. Ibid. ↩
33. D&M, iii. ↩
34. Ibid. ↩
35. Ibid. They probably had in mind the massive work of Robertson which they relied so heavily upon in their own work. ↩
36. Turner, 1. ↩
37. Ibid. ↩
38. Young, vii. ↩
39. Wallace, xviii. ↩
40. Wallace has written in such a way that the text can suit both intermediate and advanced Greek students. Material in small print and footnotes are mainly for the advanced student. Most of the rest of the material is suitable for the intermediate student. ↩
41. Ibid. ↩
42. Ibid. Wallace wanted it to be a useful tool for the pastor, for whom “the scripture index is designed especially.” ↩
43. See Burton, ix-xix. ↩
44. See BDF, v-viii. ↩
45. See Robertson, xxi-lxii. ↩
46. See Dana and Mantey, xv-xvi. ↩
47. See Turner, xi-xx. ↩
48. See Young, v. ↩
49. See Wallace, vii-viii. ↩
50. Dana and Mantey, iii. ↩
51. Burton’s work is limited in its scope and therefore does not compare well with the other more comprehensive grammars. ↩
52. Dana and Mantey rely heavily upon Robertson as is evident from the similarities in structure. ↩
53. It is not really accurate to compare Turner to the other grammars since Turner’s work really corresponds to the third part in the above table. Moulton’s Prolegomena would fall into the first row, Howard’s Accidence and Word Formation into the second, and Turner’s Syntax and Style into the third and forth. ↩
54. Although Young does not structure his material into larger sections, it seems that this is the best way to attempt to categorize them. ↩
55. The number in brackets includes reference to something other than New Testament Greek, namely LXX and non-biblical. ↩
56. Burton, 6–72 [especially 6–45]. ↩
57. BDF, 166–81. ↩
58. He has two others that are not really uses in the normal sense: “the imperfect with verbs of commanding, asking etc.” and “the interchange of ἔλεγεν $&ον% and εἶπεν $&αν, &ον%” (169–70). ↩
59. Robertson, 821–910. ↩
60. Dana and Mantey, 176–208. ↩
61. Turner, 59–89. ↩
62. Although, he essentially argues that the future tense “is the one tense which does not express Aktionsart, but simply states the time of action relative to the speaker” (86). ↩
63. Young, 105–31. ↩
64. Ibid., viii, 105. It should also be noted that Young is open to the verbal aspect view of Porter. ↩
65. Wallace, 494–586. ↩
66. Wallace has a nine-page analysis of the nontemporal view of tenses (504–12). He defends the traditional view that tense grammaticalizes time in the indicative mood. ↩
67. Young, x. ↩