[B-Greek] Re: Stanley Porter on Greek Grammars

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jan 20 19:31:30 EST 2004


When we taught together, Stan Porter and I sometimes had lively 
discussions over his view of aspect and related issues, so I know what 
Cindy Westfall is referring to. I also had some interesting discussions 
with Olsen over the issues, and I would concur with most that she did a 
better job of presenting the case for a linguistic approach to the NT. 
However, for what it is worth, I would have insisted back then that she, 
Stan, and others of the same bent needed to read much more Greek. I'm 
sure there is a good deal to be gained from the general linguistics 
approach taken by Stan and others (indeed, they have offered some useful 
terminology and categories for grammatical study), but it is no 
substitute for a thorough acquaintance with the language itself, and in 
my view some of the conclusions that have been maintained (e.g. the 
neutralization or voiding of the aorist augment)  prove that. Moreover, 
attempts to isolate NT Greek from Attic are counterproductive; it is 
much better to acknowledge connections and to compare and contrast where 
appropriate. But I'm probably saying too much already and risking 
offense to those of the other persuasion. To those who want to pursue 
the issue further I would recommend a 1996 work by Leslie Threatte, "The 
Grammar of Attic Inscriptions", particularly the second volume on 
morphology (published, unfortunately, by De Gruyter and consequently 
quite pricey). There one can see, quite literally in granite, that the 
language is not justifiably subject to the speculation posed  by 
generalist linguists on verbal aspect. I could say a lot more, but it 
probably would be appropriate to do so only off-list. Since I don't want 
to invite nasty replies, I should conclude by saying, quite honestly, 
that Stan Porter is one of the more brilliant people I have known, Marie 
Olsen seems to be equally brilliant (from the limited contact I have had 
with her), and I'm sure the other leaders of the linguistic approach are 
fine people as well. We can agree to disagree.

Don Wilkins

On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 07:59 PM, CWestf5155 at aol.com wrote:

> 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).
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list