Most of us are familiar with Don Carson’s excellent book, Exegetical Fallacies, and most of us are aware of the common error called the “etymological fallacy.” But the question I am asking is can a word’s etymology ever be trusted to define a word?

Philippians 2:2 is a confusing sentence grammatically, although its meaning is clear. Fee comments that in “the apodosis there is an equally striking compounding of synonymous phrases of such nature that the ‘wayfaring person though a fool’ could not possibly miss the point.” Sentences like this make me miss Gordon, who just recently went home to be with his Lord.

Sometimes first year teachers simplify the dative and have you use the one keyword “to.” This works until “to” makes no sense. I am thinking that it is better from day one to keep five basic definitions of the dative in mind. It's not that hard.

People often say the Greek manuscripts behind the New Testament are so corrupt that we can’t trust them. Ehrman is famous for his line that here are more errors than words. The problem is that these numbers are irrelevant if you do not, at the same time, discuss significance.

Paul can sometimes make broad statements that are open to misunderstanding, especially when read out of context. In some of these cases, we see later scribes trying to qualify what he said so as to clarify -- in their minds -- what Paul means. Enter the wonderful world of textual criticism.

Sometimes translators have to make a decision; sometimes there is no ambiguous option. In 2 Cor 4:6, is the gospel glorious or is the gospel about the glory of Christ? It is one or the other, not both.

Paul ends his list of the fruits of the Spirit with the general, “against such things there is no law” (Gal 5:23). Most likely, it is meant to parallel the conclusion to the list of “the works of the flesh in v 21. “Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” But what exactly does v 23b mean?

Why do translations all say that Jesus gave up “his” spirit when the Greek behind “his” is the definite article, “the”? This is a good example of why knowing a little Greek may not always be helpful and why I wrote Greek for the Rest of Us.

The KJV gives us an unfortunate translation of the genitive in Galatians 2:7, which can be easily misunderstood as teaching that there are two different gospels. One gospel is for the Gentiles, while the second gospel is for the Jews. Speaking of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, he says, “They saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας) was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision (τῆς περιτομῆς) was unto Peter.” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is assumed from the previous phrase.)

Paul uses a grammatical device called “epexegetical” to explain what the “mystery” is. There are several ways of doing this, but in Ephesians 3:6 he uses an epexegetical infinitive to show that Jews and Gentiles alike are fellow heirs.