Exegetical Gems from Biblical Greek and Hebrew (2 vols.)
Publisher:
, 2019
Logos Editions are fully connected to your library and Bible study tools.
Overview
This collection is an ideal supplemental text for a variety of Greek and Hebrew courses. It is perfect for students looking to apply the original languages they have worked so hard to learn as well as for past students who wish to review their Greek and Hebrew. It also includes examples and illustrations to help professors strengthen their lectures.
- Engages the abstract concepts of grammar with concrete examples
- Guides the reader through key interpretive questions in specific passages to arrive at exegetically informed answers
- Provides a tool to help students of New Testament Greek prosper and ultimately succeed in using Greek
Value if sold separately
||
Partially included
Partially includedValue if sold separately
Total value if sold separately:
Reviews
1 rating
Kelly Mann
10/4/2019
While I have both books, this is only a review of Merkle’s as I have not started the Hebrew one. The Good: 35 concise chapters with Scriptural examples to illustrate the point under discussion. I like that he draws on Runge/Levinshohn not just in the chapter on discourse but in at least one other chapter too. Also, many recent studies are referenced in the footnotes indicating he is keeping up with the latest scholarship on the subjects. In addition, he does not repeat the same error that Metzger did in using Colwell as proof to how John 1.1 should be rendered. He correctly notes in chapter 10 that, “the context must determine whether the predicate nominative is definite.” The Bad- well the questionable: At times, no doubt due to the concise manner in which the book is written, it comes across as dogmatic. For example, Merkle writes that “there are three main families of manuscripts.”- (chapter 2) It would have been better if he used scare quotes or had a footnote or something to alert the reader to the controversy that exists in dividing MSS into specific families with specific boundaries. In discussing the genitive case he says that in most instances it is easy to figure out a genitive. - (chapter 5) Such a comment gives the impression that ambiguous exceptions are few and far between which is not true at all. The genitive often allows for a great variety even if only a “few” examples are highlighted over and over again as being ambiguous. (righteousness of God; love of God). What does the revelation of Jesus mean as stated at Rev 1.1? From Jesus? Or about Jesus? Opinions vary, but these examples can be stated over and over again. The fact is, context often allows for different understandings and one can easily get lost in the different terms used in describing the types of genitives. Also, to add to the complexity is the fact that often these relationships involve abstract nouns or figure of speeches. In a very recent review published in “The Expository Times” 131(2) the reviewer highlights the weakness he found in chapter 23 on participles. Chapter 23 is entitled “Periphrastic Participles” and Merkle uses Mathew 18.18 as his example. The reviewer noted that the author did not engage “in a close study of similar periphrastic construction in wider koine Greek” thus not examining all the evidence but only a narrow sample and then picking a conclusion that was based on his own theological beliefs not on sound linguistical principles. The ugly: Chapter 3 has many errors that should not go without comment. Merkle clearly realizes that syntax/context is a key to John 1.1c. He states, "only the context determines whether the noun should be considered indefinite" but then he goes on to accuse another translation of "demonstrating its inconsistency" when they do the exact same thing (use context to come up with their rendering) but arrive at a very different theological conclusion. Most ironically, he does not allow the New World Translation (NWT) to use syntax even though they have publicly stated over and over this is why they have translated it differently than most. With little effort, this information could have been readily found online. Instead, Merkle relies on a faulty study in which Robert Countess makes up a rule that the NWT must not consider context/syntax but always translate nouns (theos) that are not articulate in the same way. This is pure non-sense! (Dan Wallace also makes this same grave error because of relying on the faulty “study” of Countess) The point that syntax matters in translating John 1.1 has been clearly made for decades within the NWT and online for some time. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060096 While the NWT can certainly be criticized, to make a straw man argument is not scholarly to say the least. His conclusion is that, "the Greek use of the predicate nominative is qualitative." This is the exact same conclusion that Jehovah's Witnesses make in regards to John 1.1! If this is correct, then adding "a" or "an" is the general way you would show that a noun is "qualitative." (eg. “she is an angel.” The exceptions that I can think of, would be when it is clear you are talking about a quality) To translate this clause as "God" can easily cause one to jump into the pan of Sabellianism, hiding the very distinction that the Greek makes and that is lacking in the traditional English rendering. 99.9% of the readers of John do think "God" is a noun of identity (as opposed to a qualitative noun) and do indeed equate Logos with God. Thus, if John 1.1 is "qualitative" then you would expect something similar or the same, as the NWT and not what the NIV, NASB, KJV, etc. has that reads as if this were a definite noun. Therefore, if this is a qualitative noun then why not show this in translation? In conclusion, context is king for all translations, even for the ones whose theology we might not agree with. So, while the scholarly world no longer uses Colwell for proof on John 1.1c, it appears that, sad to say, there are other errors that will continue for some time based on faulty chapters like this one.