Its hard to write things during the summer when I’m between schools and working a crappy job.
But I’m trying.
I finished reading Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation (still on sale at WTS’s bookstore). Its not as crazy as some have claimed, though I understand what the rioting is about. Nonetheless, Enns has good things to say; things that need to be said. I’d say that its definitely worth taking to the time to visit Dr. Enns’ blog as well here.
James Spinti asked me if I had any thoughts about Stanley Porter’s thesis about the Greek verbal system in my criticisms of Caragounis’ criticisms of Porter. I still haven’t finished Porter’s book on verbal aspect and I have a million thoughts in general about things said in this debate. But for now, I’ll say that even with Porter’s claim that the Greek verbal system doesn’t express time (which I’m still unsure about), his thesis is significantly less revolutionary than he and others would like to think it is. In fact, his greatest contribution is not any of his opinions about the Greek language, but that he has brought linguistics back to Koine Greek studies in a central way. There have been others who have made small contributions over the past several decades (e.g. Louw, Nida, Barr, Funk, etc.), but Porter has made linguistic study and Greek partners in a way that we haven’t seen since Robertson. The grammarians of the past century were truly linguists. In fact, Moulton was probably more linguist than he was Greek grammarian.
Signing off for now…
PS – what would a contemporary description of Greek morphology look like? Would we still have principle parts? I doubt it. Something I’m thinkg about / working on…