Review of Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar
Daniel B[aird] Wallace is Professor of New Testament, and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, a work first published by Zondervan Corporation in 1996. His work has since become a standard work in the Intermediate Koine Greek field and has been translated into half a dozen languages. It is said two-thirds of Bible Colleges today that teach the subject use the textbook. Who is Daniel B. Wallace?
First, a few details of Wallace’s life. He was born in California, in June 5, 1952. He is an Evangelical (a Presbyterian) scholar, who received his education from Biola University (B.A., 1975), and from Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M., 1979; Ph.D., 1995). He further pursued his postdoctoral studies in other colleges throughout U.S.A., and Europe. He taught the subject at Dallas Theological Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary. He has also served as Senior Editor of the NET Bible project, to name a few of his accomplishments. In sum, he is well-educated. But, why is his work so popular?
Key features of his Grammar:
Comprehensive (827 pages)
Clarity of expression
Scores of charts, graphs, and tables
Expanded definitions - numerous examples - syntactical categories
Grammatical statistics listed at the beginning of major sections
Semantic situations are developed and analyzed
Candor in the Preface
Good Scripture & Subject Index
Cons:
“Individualism” - a personal mission?
Some odd conclusions
Tendentious in the exegetical department
Impression of dishonesty/lack of fairness in a few places
------------------------
It’s easy to see why this Grammar has become so popular. Wallace, as a Greek expert, may not be at the same level of A.T. Robertson, but the information he provides is far easier to find and digest than Robertson’s big Grammar, and surely more up-to-date with the latest findings. Good luck trying quickly to find an answer to your Greek problem in Robertson’s book.
Wallace’s Grammar has to be one of the most comprehensive grammars on the market. Granted, you may need a beginner level course to make the most use of this book. But, anyone, with some diligence, can profit from digging-in through it.
Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology & Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses), had this to say on his review of the book:
I have to laud and simultaneously criticize Daniel B. Wallace's book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996). If I have ever written an ambivalent book review, this is it. Wallace's grammar merits a five star rating in terms of what it teaches about biblical Greek. It is probably one of the best New Testament Greek grammars on the market. The author is to be commended for his scientific approach to Greek grammar and linguistics in general. For the most part, past decisions about what constitutes a subjective genitive or an objective gentive, an ablative of separation or a dative of reference in a particular Bible verse have been highly subjective. Wallace tries to improve the process and he should be praised for his efforts. A laudable aspect of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is Wallace's ability to implement recent works on aspect and Aktionsart. He also gives plenty of examples throughout his grammar that illustrate Greek voice, mood, and aspect. The author is generally level-headed in his approach and anyone reading this work cannot help but improve his or her proficiency in Greek. The professor's discussion on demonstrative and relative pronouns is excellent and the section concerning the Granville Sharp Rule is probably one of the most enlightening and lucid treatments of the subject, although I disagree with Wallace's conclusion on the famed rule. Overall, Wallace's work is a welcome addition to any scholar's library. The only drawback to this grammar is his failure to interact fully with the many possibilities of the New Testament Greek text.
C.F.D. Moule, Lady Margaret Professor Emeritus of Divinity, University of Cambridge, England, added:
Dr. Wallace, an exact scholar with an unrivaled command of the literature in his field, is also a humane teacher, catering to the student’s needs by his beautiful clarity and precision, topical illustrations, and witty asides. This book’s length and wealth of detail are offset by its simple structure, clear tables, and lucid summaries. It deserves acclaim from the learned as well as the student.
As good as his book is, it is not without faults. I mentioned in the “Cons” list of his apparent “individualism” – a perceived personal drive to be different from others who write on the subject. This of course can be beneficial at times, but not so much in other cases. Wallace is not short in redefining subjects and terminology in various places.
To give you a taste of his methodology, on the Greek article, many Grammars express it this way, or the like: “The basic function of the article is to make a noun definite.” William D. Mounce adds this one definition: “When the article is present, it is emphasizing identity.”(Biblical Greek – A Compact Guide, 13. Italics his.) And Black: “In general,the presence of the article [“the”] emphasizes particular identity,while the absence of the article emphasizes quality or characteristics.” (Learn To Read New Testament Greek, David A.Black. 30)
Wallace in turn defines it so: “At bottom, the article intrinsically has the ability to conceptualize...the article is able to turn just about any part of speech into a noun and, therefore, a concept...In terms of basic force, the article conceptualizes. In terms of predominant function, it identifies. The Greek article also serves a determining function at times-i.e., it definitizes...These three relationships (conceptualize, identity, definitize) can be envisioned as concentric circles: all articles that make definite also identify; all articles that identify also conceptualize.” (pp. 209-210)
Apparently, many readers are pleased with how Wallace rationalizes various subjects like the one above. Others find some of his explanations confusing, since he often uses different wording than traditional grammars.
Another trait of Wallace is his fondness of categories, illustrated by the next two reader experiences (goodreads.com):
Jesse Atkinson: Overall, a helpful book, but there are quite a few problems from which it suffers. Wallace does not do the best job of defining his terms at the beginning of the book, which can lead to some confusion further on. Also,he seems to enjoy multiplying categories that are, quite frankly, unnecessary. Also, there is on one or two occasions blatantly incorrect information concerning his (diachronic) view of the Greek language as it was used outside of the Koine period.
Jon: In many ways it is very helpful, which is why I gave it 4 stars. However, it has some strong weaknesses. I would prefer a verbal aspect theory approach to tenses, which this does not follow. It also has a tendency to create too many categories. For example (I'm guessing because the book is not in front of me at the moment), that he has something like 54 different uses of the genitive case. I think that is overkill.
Another reader (Alexander) observed the following:
Wallace has good insight on many topics and summarizes a lot of material well, but the book is marred by awkward formatting, some mystifying and unexplained terminology, and a few head-scratching decisions about how to classify certain elements of Greek grammar. Still, a very useful guide to the grammar of Koine Greek, with some helpful comparisons to classical Greek.
One ‘con’ I mentioned above of this work is that, in my view, the author sometimes arrives at odd conclusions. A case in point is taken from John 6:70. This text reads literally: “and out of you [plural] one devil is.” In this context Jesus has his twelve disciples in view, and foresees from their behavior that one of them will betray him (Judas). The Greek article is absent in the expression, nevertheless, Wallace feels justified in adding the article, like this: “and yet one of you is the devil.” Wallace himself acknowledges: “Although most translations render this last phrase as “one of you is a devil,” such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil.” (NET Bible) He further believes the word “devil” is a monadic noun, meaning unique, like “sun,” “Christ,” etc, nouns that don’t need the article to be definite.
He also cites Colwell’s rule for support, a rule he dismisses elsewhere as defective. I believe Wallace is wrong on this one, and most translators using an indefinite article here are in the correct. Wallace fails to see that an individual can be likened to a powerful one, indicated by the absence of the article. Keep in mind that, normally in Greek, a writer is free to use the article when he wants to make something stand out,or definite. Also, monadic nouns often carry the article anyways (80% of the time according to Dr. Plummer). So the absence of the article here seems intentional. Judas was not the devil, but was behaving like one, this, in imitation of the Devil, a behavior that didn’t go unnoticed by Jesus. The correct interpretation should be, one of you is a devil (slanderer).
Another subject of the book surrounds John 1:1, where Wallace spends quite a bit of effort in pointing out that Colwell’s rule is misapplied in the traditional sense, and concludes that theos’ in John 1:1c is qualitative in meaning, not definite. Wallace is correct in deflecting the traditional definite meaning given of theos’ in the verse. His boldness here deserves praise. He joins Barclay, Harner and Dixon in this matter. However, these scholars are reticent in acknowledging that a qualitative nuance can be equally rendered with an indefinite article. I suspect that these scholars, being trinitarian in the main, engage publicly in limiting the scope of meaning of anarthrous nouns on theological grounds. Other scholars have conceded that Greek anarthrous nouns are often rendered with an indefinite article in English. Arthur W.Slaten wrote: “That qualitative character which is in Greek denoted by the absence of the article is in English frequently expressed by employment of the indefinite article. In many instances English requires its presence, an anarthrous reading being inadequate or awkward.” (Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version, 5.)
Furthermore, a hint of conflict or dishonesty is displayed by Wallace by declaring that the meaning of John 1:1c should be “qualitative,” but then concludes that the preferred reading in the clause should be “and the Word was God.” This incompatible conclusion is wrong for the reasons he himself stated beforehand. In fact, “God” in capital letters is understood in our language as a definite term, not qualitatively. Scholars David B. Hart, Moffatt, and Robert Harvey didn’t make that mistake, by rendering more correctly, “and the Logos was god”; “the Logos was divine”; “and the Logos was divine (a divine being)” respectively.
Another argument (dishonest at that) advanced by Wallace occurred when he correctly did not hesitate to chide the many scholars who ‘misused Colwell’s rule by seeing the benefit of affirming the deity of Christ’ in John 1:1, but then makes a U-turn by using R.H. Countess’ argument against the NWT in evangelical fashion. The problem is that Countess had based his study on Colwell’s premise, a rule Wallace had already dismissed as invalid in the application of John 1:1. Not to mention, that Countess argumentation was flawed from the very start. Thus, Wallace used a debased and dysfunctional study to bolster his evangelical views. We expect more from a scholar of his caliber. This incident is useful to indicate that linking grammar with theology is not always helpful, since it can end up being misleading.
Candor:
Although Wallace showed some tendency to be “pushy” on the theological range, he also showed human candor by expressing the following warning in the Preface of his book:
“Some who teach intermediate Greek might want the students to ignore or skim over the exegetical discussions(immediately below many of the examples). Personally, I think this is the very feature that will motivate students. But you may disagree so violently with my exegesis that you don’t want your students to get too much exposure to it. (Footnote 22: “College courses that focus on translation will typically skim over the exegetical discussions.” --Preface,xix,§3.)
Another occasion of candor was manifested when discussing the subject of the Holy Spirit. He writes:
On Eph 1:13-14: ‘The reading ὅς [hos’], which is doubtful on text-critical grounds, is sometimes invoked as grammatical proof of the Spirit's personality ... Neither in Eph 1:14 nor in any other text [John 15:26; John 14:26; 16:13-14; Eph. 1:13-14 discussed] is there clear syntactical evidence for the personality of the Spirit. There are, of course, many lines of evidence that demonstrate this, but the attempt to use Greek grammar in such a manner is facile and often creates theological problems that are greater than the cure.’ (338)
Although the author fails to mention any ‘line of evidence that demonstrates the personality of the Spirit,’ he recognizes, unlike other individuals, the folly in trying to prove the personality of the Spirit on grammatical grounds.
Although I have pointed out a few flaws of this publication, there is far more positives than negatives in it. Do I recommend the book? Absolutely! The lengthy consideration of prepositions alone makes the book worthy to obtain.