But there's a far simpler explanation of the data that does not need Porter's overwrought prominence model.
We have a history problem in New Testament grammar
How can there be any substantive discussion about language data or linguistic method if we cannot even agree on the history of research? New Testament Greek grammar is simply broken. And nobody seems interested in trying to fix it. So where do we go from here?
RBL Review of Porter (2015)
Last year I reviewed Porter's collection of essays: Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice (Amazon). SBL's Review of Biblical Literature has now also published a review of Porter's book by Héctor Martín. The author finds the book helpful and concludes: "Porter’s work is extremely useful from the point... Continue Reading →
Review supplement of Porter (2015) Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament
While working on editing the three parts of my review into a cohesive whole document to make available as a PDF, I realized that I had neglected to write anything at all on chapter 11. I have corrected this in the original post and also provide the added portion below. I wish it was more... Continue Reading →
Review Part II: Porter (2015) Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament
Porter, Stanley. 2015. Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. This review is a long time coming. I owe it to my readers for their generosity in helping my wife and I get to Cambridge for the Greek Verb Conference (The Greek Verb Revisited) in 2015. It's also a long... Continue Reading →
Review Part I: Porter (2015) Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament
Porter, Stanley. 2015. Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. This review is a long time coming. I owe it to my readers for their generosity in helping my wife and I get to Cambridge for the Greek Verb Conference (The Greek Verb Revisited) in 2015. Part II of this... Continue Reading →
