So, I began reading Campbell’s book on Aspect (Zondervan) yesterday evening and ended up scribbling notes in it until my eyes grew too heavy around 2:15 AM or so. My review will probably end up being a clear blend of both positive and negative. Here are some frustrations:
- I continue to be frustrated by most people’s descriptions of the historical development of aspectual studies, though Campbell does much better than a number of others have.
- I also continue to be concerned about the fact that Campbell’s view of the perfect will triumph simply because he was the first to write a book marketed to a general audience. But I remind unconvinced.
- Finally, there are a number of terminology issues that need to be addressed within the book itself and also generally in Greek studies.
- The book excels in the practical for the most part.
- Campbell is fairer to the early 20th century scholars than Porter was (and generally provides what seems to be a more accurate interpretation of their work, if only in summary form).
- The exercises look very good (though he makes generalizations about the field of linguistics that I’m not comfortable with).
I’ve read half the book so far and I’ve there are scribbled notes on about a third of those pages.
This isn’t a review though. I have a feeling my review is going to have multiple parts – at least one for the specialist and another for the uninitiated.
(I doubt it was this kind of post that categorized me as “very conservative” by NT Wrong)