I read the entire book and was left with some food for thought. I felt the book followed a path from most interesting to less interesting and from most helpful to less helpful. I thought the first part - word study fallacies - was the best section. This section is also most germane to this Greek exegesis class. In my limited exposure to Greek, I have come across several of these fallacious arguments. One of my GGBTS professors went off on a tangent a few weeks ago and talked about dunamis meaning dynamite (page 34). And I can still remember a recent sermon about Our Lord's conversation with Peter and the distinction between agape and fileo (page 51). Of course, there is also our own classroom discussion of eimi in John 1:1 (page 59). This section was most enlightening to me for the reason that Carson outlines on page 64: "Perhaps the principal reason why word studies constitute a particularly rich source of exegetical fallacies is that many preachers and Bible teachers know Greek only well enough to use concordances, or perhaps a little more. There is little feel for Greek as a language". This is the danger with a little bit of knowledge. I am so prone to misuse it!

The second part was about Grammatical Fallacies. Most grammatical fallacies dealt with tenses, moods, voice, and the article. The part on articles explained in more detail the recently encountered Granville Sharp Rule and the Colwell Rule. Like most grammatical rules, these two carry many exceptions. Careless interpreters misuse these rules to misinterpret scripture. I did not see any discussion of the periphrastic construction. That would have been enlightening. I do take exception to Carson's comment that "entropy" occurred between classical Greek and NT Greek. Certainly there was change over time. Some complex things became simpler, but some simple things became more complex. My belief is that language neither evolves or devolves. Language always reflects perfectly the need of the people at the moment that it is spoken. If classical Greek were "perfected" Greek, then pre-Classical Greek must have been even more perfect. Perhaps it is better to say that Classical Greek was perfect for Homer and for the Athenian philosophers, and that NT Greek was perfect for commerce and for the spread of the Gospel. Let's stop the "entropy" nonsense.

I felt that the final sections on Logical Fallacies, Presupposition and Historical Fallacies, and Concluding Reflections were less germane to Greek exegesis. These fallacies may apply to any interpretation of any language. Logical, presupposition, and historical errors are often in the eye of the beholder. Does not Carson bring his own presupposition and historical perspective into his exegesis? Also, Carson seems to hop on his own hobby-horse and start riding. In criticizing one exegete he says "Quite apart from the fact that von Balthasar confuses God's providential ownership from his saving ownership, … (page 99)." Are we to take Carson's word that it is von Balthasar and not Carson who is confused? I believe that Carson comments appropriately on the validity of logical arguments, but he dives into theological murkiness when he ventures into truth statements (which are in any event outside the scope of his book).

Purpose:

I believe that Carson wrote this book out of frustration with the quality of Biblical interpretation that he is encountering. It is true that you can make the "Bible say anything you like" if you treat the Bible as a means for satisfying your own agenda. The Bible does indeed say "many things" depending upon interpretation, but does not say "anything that we wish it to say". Most exegetical fallacies appear to be based on one of two things: First is laziness or carelessness. Second is an exegete's attempt to make a point on a "pet scripture" or to paraphrase Star Trek "to make scripture go where no scripture has gone before." Avoiding the fallacies outlined in this book will help to keep our interpretation honest. We may actually find that portions of scripture says exactly what we DO NOT want it to say.

Strengths:

As mentioned above, I think that the best parts of this book are in parts one and two, Word Study Fallacies and Grammatical Fallacies. The fallacies in these parts are also the easiest to remedy. A conscientious person could read these parts over a few times and learn to be careful in avoiding these fallacies. The last sections are more troublesome, because thinking logically entails more of one's life than Greek exegesis. If one is a fuzzy thinker in everyday thought, how can one become logically focused when exegeting Greek? Also, everybody brings history and preconception into exegesis (even Carson). This is not something that we can avoid, but only admit to and manage.

Weaknesses:

I think that Carson should have been more up front with his own bias and preconception. His point-of-view bleeds through at certain times. I believe that we always need to take a step back and look at the "whole counsel of God". Intense scrutiny of a single verse or word is bad for our vision. I wish that Carson would have spent a little time on the liberty that believers enjoy in interpreting the Bible, maybe discussing the bounds of that liberty. We need to be our own critics. We need to find our own counter-examples to our own pet verses, freely present counter-examples, and then defend our own position. I would like to see Carson write a book called "Courageous Exegesis".