[B-Greek] Wallace or Porter?

Elizabeth Kline kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Aug 28 12:10:06 EDT 2005


On Aug 27, 2005, at 10:53 AM, CWestf5155 at aol.com wrote:

> But much of what Ben observes below is a difference in theory.

I just read the first few pages on Participles from Porter (181ff)  
and Wallace (613ff). Porter uses the slot and filler metaphor which  
was used 40 years ago by E.V.N. Goetchius (Language of the NT,  
Scribners 1965). Porter blends slot and filler with functionalism  
(Halliday's brand of it, not Givon or Dik) to present participles in  
a manner which is intelligible with the field of contemporary  
linguistics.

Wallace on the other hand uses the language of presence. He keeps  
talking about the "nature" of the participle. The language of  
presence is conspicuously absent from the mainstream of contemporary  
linguistics. Wallace's book is saturated with modernist and pre- 
modern concepts which makes it difficult to take seriously unless the  
reader is committed to the same framework.

It would be an amusing exercise to read A.K.M. Adam's NT Greek Intro  
in light of this issue.

Switching gears: Dr. Buth made the astute observation that learning a  
metalanguage isn't the same as learning a language. While it doesn't  
seem possible to entirely eliminate metalanguage from the NT Greek  
classroom it does seem desirable to minimize it. Porter's  
functionalism imposes much less metalanguage on the student than  
Wallace's approach. Porter employes categories that cover much more  
territory and his categories are extensions of his general framework.  
Porter's treatment is more unified, shorter,  more economic and more  
elegant.

There is no comparison. Two books from two different worlds. Those  
who share Wallace's weltanschauung will find my criticisms  
unintelligible.

Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list