How accurate is the exegetical guide?
Hello everyone, I was doing some work on a word in Matthew 28:19. The first Greek word is the participle poreuthentes and the exegetical guide says it is syntactically a contemporaneous participle with a citation of Wallace. However, when I looked at Wallace, he says it is an attendant circumstance participle and cites this very passage and goes into detail as to why. I am curious why it would say this and cite Wallace inaccurately for something Wallace says differently. By the way, Wallace speaks about this very text in his book on page 645. I have never found the parsing to be off, but he syntactical word analysis I am now wondering how many other words like this one are described incorrectly? Any thoughts? Here are some pictures...
Comments
-
The pop-up on the contemporaneous participle shows a definition of the syntactical category from the Lexham glossary. This definition cross-references to where Wallace discusses the concept of the contemporaneous participle (not whether it applies to this passage). It does not claim that Wallace agrees with their choice, and from what you have shown, as a matter of fact, he does not in this very passage. So, I don't think that this is an error, but it is a disagreement between Lexham and Wallace.
0 -
Note the citation for Wallace in the Exegetical Guide is a different resource than the one you are referring to above. I do not have the resource that is referenced so I cannot compare the two.
0 -
The definition is linked to the old edition of Wallace:
It did not discuss Mt 28:19. The new edition does though and so it shows under the "grammars" section.
0 -
Thank you Francis. So, basically the Lexham glossary is what is being shown after the parsing? The Lexham glossary is trying to describe the syntactical usage? It just seems to me it may not be very accurate. Like I said, I found only one word but I wonder how many may be untrustable. I know some of the syntactic usages can be more than one choice but this one does not allow for contemporaneous and Wallace explains why indepth.
"This definition cross-references to where Wallace discusses the concept of the contemporaneous participle (not whether it applies to this passage)." I wonder why they would include this if does not apply?
0 -
Rev. 14:6 said:
"This definition cross-references to where Wallace discusses the concept of the contemporaneous participle (not whether it applies to this passage)." I wonder why they would include this if does not apply?
The cross-reference to Wallace applies to the glossary entry for "contemporaneous participle" as a whole concept, independent of any passages it may (or may not, arguably) apply to.
The annotation of a "syntactic force" category to any given word comes from Lukaszewski, Albert L., and Mark Dubis. The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament. Apparently, Lukaszewski/Dubis and Wallace disagree on this particular instance (and BDF and Robertson may disagree further). Ask 10 scholars, and you'll get 49 different opinions. [:)]
If you find yourself disagreeing with Lukaszewski/Dubis more often than not, you can hide their resources (Tools | Program Settings).
0
