[B-Greek] Stanely Porter on Greek grammars

Alexander Hopkins alexali at surf.net.au
Sun Jan 18 21:49:50 EST 2004


Kenneth Litwak wrote regarding Stanley Porter's assessment of modern
grammars.

Like Carl, I would prefer it, Kenneth, if you used a different font, as
parts of your post were rendered gibberish on my system, too.

If Porter is indeed saying those things that Kenneth mentioned, it would
not surprise, but be an outworking of what he has said before.  I'll
just cite a few instances:

"Robertson, though occasionally arriving at perceptive formulations,
appears in many ways to be the least systematic thinker of the major NT
Greek grammarians (cf Dana/Mantey, 176-208, who follow Robertson very
closely)." (Verbal Aspect, 58)

Moule ('Idiom Book') "seems unable to evaluate the fundamentals of tense
definition, fails to conceive of the Greek verbal network as an
interconnected system, and thus treats each tense in isolation (and
often according to English translation)." (V.A. 59)

BDF is discussed on on pages 55-56 of V.A. with the summary, "Failure to
define terms clearly, as well as a surprising neglect of criticism of
the last thirty years, has rendered a major work unfortunately less than
optimally useful."

He concludes his first chapter, 'Research into Tense, Aktionsart and
Aspect' by writing:  "This survey, brief in its individual treatments
but long in its accumulated data, shows the history of research into the
nature of Greek verbal usage, the methodologies employed, the
unsatisfactory nature of most treatments, and the tremendous potential
for future work.  Thus Rydbeck's statement that 'there is a prevalent
but false assumption that everything in NT Greek scholarship has been
done already' ("What Happened," 427) is rightly vindicated.  Certain
progress has been made, but virtually all the major NT grammars adhere
firmly to the comparative-philological approach, a method out of touch
with current linguistic thought but, more than that, apparently with the
Greek language itself. Only a very few more recent works show signs of
incorporating recent semantic research into their discussions of verbal
usage." (V.A. 65)

This was published fifteen years ago.

When he later responded to Fanning's work, he wrote, "Fanning's
categories are the time-honored ones employed by such grammars as
Blass-Debrunner-Funk and Dana and Mantey, among others.  Why?  Is it
because these categories are sacrosanct, or fundamental in some
intrinisic sense?  No, ...   They are merely enshrined by time and
convention." (Studies in the GNT: theory and practice, p33; 1996)  A few
pages on, he discusses Dunn's  commentary on Romans ("selected not
because it is necessarily the worst offender" p35, fn 50 - which reminds
one of his list of "culprits" (V.A. p183, fn 2) who make errors
regarding the aorist), saying, "He reflects the kind of understanding of
Greek verbs found in elementary textbooks and the rationalist discussion
of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  ... Dunn never asks the
important question of how these categories work together, quite possibly
because the reference tools that he probably uses - such as
Blass-Debrunner-Funk - do not ask these questions.  What is perhaps more
disappointing to see, but not entirely surprising in the light of my
comments above, is that Fanning's treatment reads much like the
discussion of Aktionsart found in nineteenth-century research."
(Studies, 36)

(Perhaps Fanning is to be excused or pitied rather than condemned,
however, since one can hardly be held guilty for failing to do that
which one cannot do, and Porter writes of him, 'Fanning, it seems to me,
is incapable of shedding a time-based perspective on verbs'.  Studies,
32)

As for your comment, Ken, "I'm not seeking here to tell you to go burn
your volume by Turner on style, which Porter finds particularly poor
methodologically," this too is unsurprising.  He wrote in V.A. (60),
"Turner's exposition of usage is disappointing, possibly because he
relies on Aktionsart (see Horsley, Context, 49-69, for a thorough
critique of Turner's approach.)"  (The work of Horsley referred to here
is his PhD thesis, of 1985;  its conclusions are more easily accessible
through New Documents illustrating Early Christianity, vol 5, ch 3, 'The
Syntax Volume of Moulton's Grammar';  at least one list member credits
this with the opportunity to buy a copy of Moulton's Grammar which had
not been burnt because of Turner's volume, but was being discarded cheap
(http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-November/008405.html)!)

I for one am grateful for those scholars who preceded;  and progress
yielded by modern linguistics does not override the truth in Sir Isaac
Newton's words, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the
shoulders of giants."  This does not mean we must agree at all points
with those who went before, but it is no bad thing to learn from them
and to acknowledge their legacy.

As for Porter's work itself, I have found that it gives the most useful
distinction between Aktionsart and aspect that I have read, and so has
enriched my understanding;  but as for his verbal theory, I confess
myself as guilty as Fanning, being 'incapable of shedding a time-based
perspective on verbs.'  Or just possibly, it's not that Fanning (and
others) are incapable of divesting themselves of a view of the Greek
verb that is contrary to Porter's, but simply that they disagree.

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia

PS In a subsequent post, Kenneth added:

>     Rod Decker, Mari Olsen and a few other people are noted by Porter
for having done it right.  Those of course are not complete grammars,
and Porter does not really say what we are supposed to use instead,
though he does seem to think that anyone reading the Greek NT should
become knowledgeable in verbal aspect theory.

I would imagine that Ken McKay would be included among the 'few other
people' (is this so, Kenneth?);  Porter draws upon many of his journal
articles and his 'Greek Grammar for Students' in V.A., acknowledging
that he differentiates between Aktionsart and aspect (V.A. 49) .
Possibly of greater interest to list members is Zerwick's grammar,
'Biblical Greek illustrated by Examples', which is referred to now and
then on this list;  it is commended as "a long awaited effort in the
study of aspect and the NT Greek verb" (V.A. 64).





More information about the B-Greek mailing list