Syntactical Classification

[GYDOF1729]

Would it be possible to have a Syntactical Classification Glossary?  For instance, in the NA 28 one were to right click on a word and drop down of sorts would recognize that as a Genitive and then one could click on a list of all the Genitives to choose from.  I know this is interpretive but I for one do not have all the different categories of Genitives memorized and would find it very beneficial to see a list of Genitives with a definition, or at least tagged to Wallace's Grammar or all the Grammars.  

[Nick Cole]

Thant's a great question. Did you ever get a reply?

[GYDOF1729]

2 hours ago, Nick Cole said:

Thant's a great question. Did you ever get a reply?

Nope.  No reply.  I thought this would be an amazing addition to the right-click option.  

[Donald Cobb]

The problem is that most of the categories in Wallace, et al., are purely heuristic. I.e., they have been invented by non-Greek-speaking grammarians as a way to make sense of the text they have before their eyes. This means 1) it's inherently subjective and can change from one grammarian to the next, especially when one gets to finer distinctions, and 2) there is a certain circularity in the method: one first has to figure out what the author is doing with, say, the genitive in question before attributing a label to it (classic example: ἡ πίστις Ἰησοῦ: does this mean "faith in Jesus"—thus an objective genitive—or "the faith[fulness] of Jesus—therefore a subjective genitive). 

 

The difficulty with this approach is that, generally speaking, it doesn't really get you any further in making sure you've understood the text than if you asked yourself, What is the author trying to say? Simply taking at ones word a label that's been slapped on a case is at best a crutch; at worst, if the wrong "label" is used, it can lead the reader away from the text into erroneous translations and interpretations.

 

It would be much more helpful, when confronted with a certain case or grammatical construction, to see how it's used elsewhere in the NT/LXX and in other documents from that basic period: Early Church Fathers, commercial papyri, Koinè Greek authors such as Epictetus, etc. 

[darrylmy]

Before I share my thoughts, full disclosure: I was a student of Dr. Wallace for his Advanced Greek course during his final semester before his retirement last year.

 

4 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

1) it's inherently subjective and can change from one grammarian to the next, especially when one gets to finer distinctions

 

Although views can vary between grammarians, Wallace, however, clearly defines his approach to safeguard as much as possible against subjectivity. He states that there must be a sufficient database of examples, with the same semantic situation, that adheres to structural priority, within a set synchronic range, to discover the most probable meaning given the context (Wallace, 1–10). He actually appeals to empirical evidence upon which to draw conclusions.

 

4 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

2) there is a certain circularity in the method: one first has to figure out what the author is doing with, say, the genitive in question before attributing a label to it

 

Wallace's Exegetical Syntax is really pointing to the exegetical options (some with a good deal of evidence and some that are debatable as he admits "when one gets to finer distinctions" as you say). He's gone a bit further down the road in his analysis than many of those who use his grammar. It's designed to help the user recognize the exegetical options that they might not have known existed otherwise.

 

4 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

The difficulty with this approach is that, generally speaking, it doesn't really get you any further in making sure you've understood the text than if you asked yourself, What is the author trying to say? Simply taking at ones word a label that's been slapped on a case is at best a crutch; at worst, if the wrong "label" is used, it can lead the reader away from the text into erroneous translations and interpretations.

 

I agree with this. Unfortunately, this is how most use Wallace's grammar. Most just look up the syntactical category that seems to fit; this is what we learned in intermediate Greek. However, the true purpose is to help the user learn to think exegetically so s/he can (not only see possible exegetical options, but also to) explore syntax for themselves beyond his grammar. This is what we did for his advanced Greek course. This is what he always intended as can been seen by the various citations of the work of his former students in the published edition of his grammar. It sounds like this is the place you are at, which is great! But I don't think that necessarily diminishes the value of his grammar for the majority of intermediate students (intermediate, in regards to exegetical syntactical research).

 

4 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

It would be much more helpful, when confronted with a certain case or grammatical construction, to see how it's used elsewhere in the NT/LXX and in other documents from that basic period: Early Church Fathers, commercial papyri, Koinè Greek authors such as Epictetus, etc. 

 

Again, I agree. Which goes back to Wallace's approach to Greek grammatical studies as described above.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the discussion! It's something we could consider looking into, but in the meantime, there's a couple of workaround options:

 

1. If you open the Syntax trees, if you rest your cursor a word, it should give you the syntax labels in Instant Details.

 

2. You could also add Wallace's grammar to the Info Pane "My Toolset", so if your passage is covered in his grammar, you can quickly zero in on it.

 

In the meantime, keep the discussion flowing here of the potential usefulness of such a feature and how we could implement it (right-click menu sounds interesting) so we can consider it.