[B-Greek] Re: Stanley Porter on Greek Grammars
CWestf5155 at aol.com
CWestf5155 at aol.com
Mon Jan 19 22:59:04 EST 2004
Chet,
No, that's how I read it. I meant that I don't think that "desperate"
characterizes Rod's assessment of Porter.
I think that Stan can be harsh (some call it his "take no prisoners" mode).
I agree with him that Fanning's framework (or point of departure) isn't
primarily linguistics. On the other hand, Porter has been the source of a
prodigious amount of work on linguistics and the NT as well as other NT criticism.
I think that I would disagree with Rod that Porter is more of a linguist than
an NT scholar. He has been involved in a number of other
disciplines--rhetorical criticism and papyrii come first to mind.
I did see that you produced independent support for Porter's view, which
interested me. I'm also very interested in your experience with Halliday and
systemic linguistics.
Best regards,
Cindy Westfall
Adjunct Professor Denver Seminary
In a message dated 1/19/2004 7:41:04 PM Mountain Standard Time,
creider at uwo.ca writes:
I think you misread what I wrote. What I said (you can see it below)
was that Porter's assessment of Fanning was "desperate". It was not
Rod's evaluation that was desperate. His evaluation was very balanced
-- much better than mine would have been because I was annoyed with
Porter's tone (implying that Fanning didn't know any linguistics).
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list