Dr. Stanley Porter's new commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: A brief description and some positive thoughts

Dr. Stanley E. Porter, of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, is well-known for his contributions to the study of New Testament Greek and biblical hermeneutics (among other topics). Although I don't always agree with him on Greek grammar and linguistics (though I have become somewhat more sympathetic to his views on Verbal Aspect Theory now than I was 15 years ago), I respect his immense contributions to our study of Scripture. Also, his commentary on Romans (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), is quite good, and I would consider it among my "top 5" recommendations for a well-rounded, English-speaking/reading, evangelical pastor's library (along with Moo, Longenecker, Barth, and Cranfield).

Since I co-teach the Pastoral Epistles in our small college with my father (who was for 30+ years a missionary to Japan), I was excited to hear of Porter's new commentary and made sure our library acquired it: The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023). The price is normally a bit hefty (at $70), but students and impulse-buyers should note that it is only $26.44 on Amazon right now [3:15pm on Wednesday, 11/27]; hurry before the sale ends!!!!!! 

Anyways, the reader should know that this rigorous, 800+ page commentary (not counting the bibliography) is focused specifically on the Greek text. You will find less of background matters here (e.g., Ephesus and Crete), but you will find intense discussions  of virtually every nuance of the Greek words and syntax. Indeed, the commentary's raison d'etre is summed up here by Porter:

"My major criticism against conventional commentary writing is that most of them offer little that is new in interpretation, to a large extent because they have departed from the major purpose of a commentary on an ancient text: to help in understanding the language of the text and thereby its situational context" (p. 1).

As noted above, this commentary is not the sort of commentary you turn to for extensive background information, nor is it the sort of commentary that rigorously discusses the various viewpoints on a particular topic (the very long and rigorous section on "saved through childbearing" was a bit disappointing in that regard). It is, however, the sort of commentary you turn to for an intense analysis of the actual Greek text of the Pastorals, and as such it will prove to be an extremely valuable addition to any library. 

I offer the following as a positive example of this (from page 219, discussing 1 Timothy 2:6, to which he devotes 10 paragraphs):

"The prefixed form ἀντίλυτρον in Paul must be considered with the preposition that is used int he adjunctive prepositional phrase. The Markan context [Mark 10:45] uses the simplex form along with ἀντί (in place of), the clear preposition of substitution; Paul uses the prefixed form indicating ransom in place of along with the preposition ὑπέρ (on behalf of). The first construction is clearly substitutionary, but the second may indicate nothing more than benefit. However, the latter preposition was often used in a substitutionary way in Greek texts contemporary with the NT, as evidenced in numerous documentary papyri (e.g., P.Tebt. 104.39–40; P.Hamb. 4.14–15), where a scribe would write 'on behalf of' (ὑπέρ) one who did not know how to write (S. Porter 1994: 176–77; cf. Radermacher 1925: 139; Robertson 1934: 630–32). There was benefit, to be sure, but there was also substitution of a literate person for someone illiterate. Thus, the general overall sense of both constructions is the same; both indicate substitution, although the Pauline text lacks the elegance of the Markan one" (p. 219).

The above paragraph shows Porter's thoroughness but also warns the reader to be prepared for some very technical terminology. Elsewhere, in what may have set some kind of record, Porter devotes 9 and a half pages to discussing 1 Timothy 2:12 (just that one verse!).

Two other points of appreciation. (1.) The introduction section of the commentary, spanning 88 pages, has one of the most rigorous defenses of Pauline authorship of the PE that you will ever see, including a brilliant discussion on the logical problems of assuming pseudonymity for the PE (specifically, pages 33–35). (2.) Pages 88–93 contain a very detailed overview (complete with comparisons of the Greek text) of "Early Church Attestation" of the PE.

Porter's commentary is not for the faint of heart, and he makes it very clear early on that he holds to both monosemy and verbal aspect theory, which will affect his interpretation to some degree (how much of a difference that makes in contrast to other commentaries remains to be seen). For those looking for a fresh perspective grounded solidly in the original language of the New Testament, however, the commentary has much to commend it.

Max and Moritz in Biblical Greek: A new, fun resource for Koine Greek students

I am pleased to announce the publication of a very unique resource for students of NT Greek (or Koine Greek in general): Max and Moritz in Biblical Greek, edited by Brent Niedergall and Joey McCollum, with Dave Massa and Steve Young contributing (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse; volume 3 in their Agros series for Greek pedagogy). As a testament to its quality, Greek scholar John A. L. Lee is thanked for providing "constructive feedback," and NT scholar William C. Varner and OT scholar Martin Rösel provide endorsements.

For those of you that don't know much of German culture, in the mid-1800s Wilhelm Busch wrote and illustrated Max and Moritz: Eine Bubengeschichte in sieben Streichen, which tells the story (in verse!) of two total hooligans who play the worst sorts of pranks on people before "getting their just deserts," so to speak, in a rather gruesome death. This book has gone on to become a staple of German culture, frequently referenced.




So, anyways, Niedergall and co. have done us all a favor by re-writing this story using only New Testament and Septuagint Greek words. The book is a "reader's edition," providing definitions for any words that do not occur at least 50x in the Greek New Testament.

In other words, if you have finished first-year Greek, you can probably read this. 

The book includes the original illustrations, which add to the (admittedly dark) humor. This is probably not the sort of book you will read to your child as a bed-time story (in Greek, English, or German!), but the book serves its purpose: a fun little exercise whereby you can experience a cultural classic of German literature (well, sort of) in biblical Greek!

The book can be ordered on Amazon or the publisher's website: here and here.

Here is a sample of the prose, for your pleasure (from the prank where the two evil boys pour gunpowder into their teacher's pipe while he's away at church): 
Καὶ ἅμα ἀναβαίνει Μωρηδ
καὶ λαμβάνει τὸ κέρας τοῦ μίγματος τοῦ νίτρου. καὶ ὁ κακοποιῶν ἐπίχει
εἰς τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ καπνίζοντος.
τότε λέγει αὐτῷ Μωχα, Σιγάτω καὶ σπεῦδε
ὅτι ἤδη πέπαυται ἡ λειτουργία τῶν ἁγίων.

Reflections on having taught "Reading and Syntax in the Prison Epistles"

This past Spring semester I had the privilege of teaching a graduate-level class, "Reading and Syntax of the Prison Epistles" (NT 531), for the first time at Baptist Theological Seminary (Menomonee Falls, WI). The prerequisite for the class was 5 semesters of Greek (including grad-level "Introduction to NT Exegesis").

For this class, I tried something different. Although my lectures covered all four books, each student was required to choose their own "track," the options being (1.) Ephesians, (2.) Philippians + Philemon, or (3.) Colossians + Philemon (the latter two options are about equal in length to the first five chapters of Ephesians). The "track" they choose to focus on determined:

1. The textbooks they would purchase

2. Their research paper (which culminated in a sermon outline and in-class presentation).

3. Their final exam (customized for each track)

4. Their article review (each student had to analyze an academic journal article by a scholar and present its pros and cons in class). 

For the required reading for Ephesians and Philippians, I had a general idea of what they should be interacting with, but for Colossians I initially had no clue. I am pleased to report, however, that David Pao's "Zondervan Exegetical Commentary" on Colossians is excellent, at the exegetical, theological, and practical level (I have noted in a previous post that this commentary even mentions the 1950 Wheaten Student Revival).

The required, main textbooks were:

1. For those on the Ephesians track: 

(a.) Harold Hoehner's stand-alone commentary (still the standard!) and 

(b.) Clinton Arnold's Zondervan Exegetical Commentary. 

2. For those on the Philippians track:

(a.) Gordon Fee's NICNT

(b.) The revised WBC by Hawthorne and Martin (2nd ed.; it was initially just Hawthorne's). I generally am not a fan of the WBC format or content (though Mounce on the Pastorals is one of the best), but I had heard good things about this particular commentary.

3. For Colossians (both of these commentaries also covered Philemon):

(a.) David Pao's Zondervan Exegetical Commentary

(b.) Douglas Moo's Pillar NT Commentary

In addition, there was plenty of supplemental reading required (to balance things out, I had the "Philippians" group read the "Philemon" section in N. T. Wright's small Tyndale commentary of  Colossians and Philemon).

Now, a couple random thoughts on the content of the class:

1. Gordon Fee's NICNT on Philippians remains, in my humble-but-opinionated-opinion, one of the greatest commentaries ever written. His treatment of Phil 2:1-11 is masterful.

2. Speaking of which, I had no idea until relatively recently just how significant the intertextuality of Phil 2:9-11 is, and the deeper sense it adds to Paul's message (here's a hint to get you started, dear reader: read Isaiah 45:23-24, preferably in the LXX if you are able to). Also, "All praise to Thee for Thou O King Divine" (Tucker) is a really, really cool song based off of this passage.

3. "Cosmic" is a key word when it comes to all the Prison Epistles. We should embrace it! The Jesus Christ of Paul's Prison Epistles does not wield authority only in the hearts of believers, or even on this earth, but over the entire Cosmos!

4. Gordon Fee's article "To What End Exegesis" is a great article to read to get started in this kind of class (all my students had to read it by the first day of class). It can be accessed here.

5. Markus Barth has some excellent material in his Anchor Bible commentary (all those on the Ephesians track had to read 50 pages from this). His discussion on Ephesians 5:25f is excellent. [Markus Barth is a much more profitable and edifying read than his father, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, though with that radical statement I become an outcast to mainstream theological scholarship :) ]

6. The Greek "Skubala" is not a vulgarity, though it can certainly be a word with "shock value." Josephus uses the word about how you'd expect as the equivalent of simply "manure" or "excrement" (e.g., War 5.571) not in contexts where it would make sense as a vulgarity. So Paul in Phil 3:8 is not being "edgy", though he is certainly being "shocking."

7. Philippians 3:11-16 is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult passages to exegete in all of the prison epistles, though Col 1:24 comes in a close second.

8.This was really my first exposure at any level to an in-depth study of Colossians. I've come to the conclusion that the heretics Paul was opposing in the Epistle to the Colossians is probably some kind of a syncretic Torah-centric mysticism with elements of pagan mythology added [more-or-less; it's complicated!].

9. I shall end with this great quote from Scot McKnight's new NICNT (an occasionally helpful commentary, but not one I would use as a textbook; Pao's is much better, imo, but McKnight has some great quotes):

For McKnight, Colossians is about "Vision for the cosmos with Christ at center." Amen!

Introducing a new class at BTS: "Using the Biblical Languages in Ministry" (with Logos!)

I am pleased to announce that on the week of Memorial Day, May 29th (though starting later in the day) through June 2nd, Baptist Theological Seminary (Menomonee Falls, WI) will be offering a new class, "Using Biblical Languages in Ministry," with myself and evangelist Bobby Bosler teaching.

Here is the official description:
"An overview of how a competent knowledge of the biblical languages can benefit both the study of the Scriptures and sermon preparation, especially when utilizing the tools that modern Bible software provides. Students will learn to use Logos Bible Software profitably while at the same time learning the basics of lexical semantics (and how to avoid exegetical fallacies), refreshing their knowledge of Greek syntax, and exploring the very basics of Hebrew grammar and syntax to enable them to utilize Logos with Old Testament texts."

The point of this class is to give pastors who haven't taken Greek exegesis or any Hebrew enough tools to utilize the biblical languages with Logos while avoiding exegetical, lexical, or syntactical fallacies. 

We will focus on basic lexical semantics (i.e., how words function), a super-basic, non-intimidating overview of Hebrew (for those that have never had Hebrew), hermeneutics-light, and, last but not least, how to use Logos (which will be required for the course, in addition to three modules: a Greek NT, a Hebrew OT, and the Rahlf's Septuagint). The work for this class will be very practical, "hands-on," and ministry oriented (especially focused on how Logos can be used for sermon prep, etc.)

Finally, I'm very excited about the textbooks for this class (in addition to Logos, which is sort of a "textbook" in of itself). 
1. First, we have a book by my very own doctoral advisor, David Alan Black, Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993).
2. Secondly, we have a gem I recently discovered, Michael Williams' The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015). This books is the perfect book for this type of class, and kudos to Dr. Williams for publishing something that I don't think anybody else has published yet.
3. Finally, we have D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996). Although there are parts of this book I disagree with, nonetheless this remains a classic, very valuable for ministry.

A Comparative Analysis of Four 1st Year Greek Textbooks

(please note: in the comments section I also address the views of all four textbooks on deponent verbs, thanks to a question by one of the readers)

I've completed four years of doctoral work at Southeastern (one more year, here's hoping!), and for three of those past four years I have had the privilege of grading for Dr. Maurice Robinson. Two years ago when he became ill (now fully recovered and teaching again, thankfully), I was asked to take over his beginning Greek class mid-semester (pray don't tell his physicians, but Dr. Robinson typed up and e-mailed in his last quiz for that class while lying on the hospital bed!)  I took over at the midterm exam (which, fortunately, had already been made up), and from that point I was on my own with only Dr. Robinson's notes to guide me, initially.

Yes, his notes. You see, Dr. Robinson prefers not to use a textbook for his beginning Greek class, providing his students with handouts that he personally creates. Naturally when you're a published scholar who specializes in Greek textual criticism, you can do whatever you want! I, however, soon realized I was in way over my head and began consulting textbooks (in addition to his Dr. Robinson's notes) like a madman. Overall, the class was a great learning experience, and the students were compassionate and sympathetic (it's not easy getting a new teacher halfway through class!)

At that point I already owned William Mounce's book as well as that of my own doctoral advisor, Dr. David Black. Once I started teaching, I quickly bought S. Baugh's textbook since some other profs at Southeastern preferred his work. Later, when I was able to attend the national ETS in Atlanta, I picked up the new textbook by Porter, Reed, and O'Donnell. Consequently, I'd like to give the reader some brief thoughts on each one. Some of what I say you can see for yourself by simply browsing the table of contents for each book online at Amazon. I do hope, however, that this comparison of the four will at least give you some food for thought, especially if you, the reader, will be teaching Greek in the future.

To begin with, however, I'd like to make clear that this is not a full-blown book review for each one. I'd simply like to compare the four and offer my thoughts. Secondly, I'll make my own biases clear at the start: naturally I'm going to gravitate toward my own adviser's work, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Mounce's book, since I cut my teeth on it in 1999. Conversely, I'm not very positively disposed towards Porter and co. since I have yet to be convinced of his views on verbal aspect theory (though I'm open to the possibility). Nevertheless I still think there is much in their book to commend it, and I'll try to leave aside my views on the Greek verb when discussing their work. In the end, I think Baugh's textbook is the only one that I am neutrally predisposed towards.

Finally, the reader should note that there are 3 areas I intend to focus on: order of material, views on the Greek verb, and any "extras" the book contains. After discussing these four textbooks, I'll briefly open that great can of worms known as "the Greek verb system.” What that in mind, let's begin with Mounce.

Please note: any words in the Greek font have been switched to English italics.

1.

William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; 2003). As of this post, costs $29.94 (US dollars) at Amazon (hardcover). Separate workbook available. Hereafter referred to as BBG.

Mounce states on p. x that his grammar tries to use the “best of both approaches” [inductive and deductive]: “It is deductive in how it initially teaches the material, but inductive in how if fine-tunes the learning process.” Mounce focuses on “learning Greek as a tool for ministry" and tries to reduce rote memorization (though, frankly, when we used Mounce in my first year of Greek there was still a lot of memorization; I'm not sure if BBG reduces it to the extent that Mounce had hoped).

           

It's worth noting that BBG is the only one of the four that comes with a CD-ROM. In my experience, this was helpful for those that enjoy using computers and would like to have a portable flash card program for their laptops, etc. It's worth noting, however, that there is plenty of free software that you can download these days, so don't let the CD-ROM be the deciding factor.

Each chapter in BBG ends with a summary of that chapter and a vocabulary list. Some chapters end with "advanced information" (e.g., the difference between relative time and absolute time).

           

BBG starts with a basic intro on the Greek language and tips for learning Greek, then the alphabet and punctuation. Before it gets into Greek grammar, BBG discusses English grammar: “. . . the first major obstacle many of you must overcome is your lack of knowledge of English Grammar. . . . We cannot teach about the Greek nominative case until you know what a case is” (p. 22). It then discusses the various parts of speech. BBG then goes into noun cases and the article (chapters 6-7), then onto prepositions and the eimi verbs (only the present active indicative, at the start), and then adjectives (chapter 9). From there, BBG offers the reader  or teacher two different "tracks": 1. You can follow the order of the chapters, which finishes nouns and pronouns before getting into verbs, or 2. you can jump into some of the verbs first (leaving chapters 10-14 for later). If you follow the natural order of the book, BBG hits 3rd declension nouns and pronouns before finally introducing verbs in chapter 15. From there, BBG tackles the present active verb, then contract verbs, then present middle/passive, then all the other indicative verbs. The last few chapters of the book (from 26-34) cover all the other moods and the mi-verbs. Mounce then provides a “Postscript: Where Do We Go From Here?” which discusses some areas for future study (though not very extensive and kind of limited to his own work and works by the same publisher).

Some thoughts on BBG (keep in mind, a lot of these are my subjective opinion; the same goes for my comments on all the other books): Overall, Mounce is very readable and often focuses on the differences between Greek and English, which is helpful in my opinion (although note p. 320—"There is nothing remotely like mi verbs in English . . .") I think Mounce offers a "down to earth" book that parallels my own experience in learning Greek; for example, on page 39 he speaks of "the fog," a very real phenomenon that almost every young Greek student experiences. Mounce's book has a lot of paradigm charts, which can be helpful, and also contains an "exegetical insight" for most chapters that discusses how the material in that chapter actually matters in ministry or preaching.  Also, I greatly prefer Mounce’s order of subject matter, though this may be a reflection of my own bias stemming from having used his textbook as a student.

           

On the downside, I'm not too content with how he deals with contract verbs; I think some of the other books do a better job on this. Also, despite his attempt to diminish rote memorization, I really think this book is focused on memorization. There are no special techniques that (in my opinion) assist the student in learning; you just have to put a lot of work into memorizing (at least, that was my experience).

           

Regarding the verb system, I think Mounce, like others, confuses aspect with aktionsart (see page 123). If there's one thing Porter has convinced me of, it's the need to see those two as different concepts. I am, however, more close to BGB's position on the verb system in general. Mounce is more traditional; he states, for example, that “The present tense indicates either a continuous or undefined action” (p. 123, though he unfortunately calls this “aspect”) and that the time is generally in the present. On page 194 states, “The aorist indicates an undefined action usually occurring in the past," which I would also agree with (though adherents to Verbal Aspect Theory [hereafter referred to as VAT] might question the whole “occurring in the past” part of it, at least as a general rule).

  

2.

David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2009). As of this post, costs 17.64 on Amazon (hardcover). Separate workbook available. Hereafter referred to as LTR.

LTR has 26 chapters, generally with vocab lists and review exercises at the end of each chapter. Chapter 1 provides basic info about the Greek language and alphabet and briefly discusses phonology and morphology (e.g., the difference between kappa and chi). Chapter 2 actually introduces the verb, and chapter 3 begins discussing the present and future active indicative. Chapters 4-5 jump to nouns, and from there on out we have the following order: adjectives, imperfect and aorist (act. ind.), prepositions, personal pronouns, perfect/pluperfect verbs (just the active ind.), more pronouns (demonstrative), the middle and passive indicative forms of various verbs (chapters 12-15), "review of the indicative mood" (ch. 16), more on nouns (3rd declension), more on adjectives, pronouns, and numbers, "contract and liquid verbs" (ch. 19), then the various other verb moods (chapters 20-21 and 23-24, though 22 actually discusses pronouns).  Chapter 25 focuses on mi-verbs, and chapter 26 closes it out with a discussion on "Reading Your Greek  New Testament" (a chapter on how reading the Greek NT can be of practical value with such things as sermon prep). Also, LTR has an epilogue that introduces the readers to what will be helpful for advanced studies (e.g., lexicons, textual criticism, etc.)

Some thoughts on LTR: LTR is, in my opinion, one of the most easily readable textbooks (Dr. Black is one of the more readable scholars, period). Furthermore, Black's book has better "extras" than any of the other textbooks, including but not limited to the following: a massive foldout chart of every single paradigm (check inside the back cover), a series of helpful appendixes (including "the Greek alphabet song" complete with music!), and chapter 26 and the appendix, both of which provide helpful, supplemental information for the Greek student. Also, it's worth stressing that LTR has review exercises at the end of most chapters, something Mounce does not have (though both BBG and LTR have separate workbooks that can be purchased).

On the other hand, I'm not totally crazy about the order of material; he zigzags back and forth between verbs, nouns, pronouns, etc. (I’m somewhat  curious, for example, why chapter 22, “Additional Pronouns,” sits right in the middle of a series of chapters on the non-indicative mood).  I'll confess this may be because I had Mounce for my first year of Greek, but I'm more partial to BBG's method of tackling the noun first, then the verb. Also, as with my comment on Mounce, I'm not totally comfortable on his use of the term "aspect" (see LTR, pp. 13-14, section 15 of that chapter). It's worth noting, however, that Black does stress "aspect" as having to do with the writer's perspective (see page 15, specifically the first two paragraphs of section 16), which brings him a bit closes to Porter here; I guess what I'm uncomfortable with in both Mounce and Black is that I would prefer to see the term "aktionsart" used rather than "aspect" whenever we're actually discussing the "type" of action that is taking place. However, let me stress that I do agree with Black's basic approach to the verb in contrast to that of Porter, especially his treatment of the "aoristic aspect" on p. 14.

Regarding the verb, Black states, “The essential signification of the Greek tense system is the kind of action—whether it is represented as on going, finished, or simply as an occurrence”; furthermore, “time of action” is a secondary function (page 15). On pages 13-14, Black sees 3 tenses (past, present, future) and 3 aspects (imperfective, perfective, and aoristic) in the Greek verb system.

3.

S. M. Baugh, A New Testament Greek Primer (2nd ed.; Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2009). As of this post, costs $24.51 on Amazon (paperback). No separate workbook available, to my knowledge (but exercises throughout). Hereafter referred to as NTGP.

NTGP consists of 30 chapters with vocabulary lists at the beginning and review exercises at the end (somewhat more varied than those in Black’s LTR; Baugh, for example, mixes in “matching” exercises with regular parsing and translation exercises). The unique purpose of the book, according to the preface, is “. . . to analyze the process of reading Greek for exegesis, breaking it down into constituent ‘sub-skills,’ and then to teach these skills” ( v). NTGP has a brief “introduction to language study” section (vi-vii), but almost nothing on Greek as a historical language like BBG and LTR have.

NTGP starts out with the alphabet and pronunciation (interestingly, Baugh compares ancient pronunciation with modern Greek pronunciation, which I felt was a neat touch), then deals with breathing marks, punctuation, etc. Chapters 2-3 deal with 1^st and 2^nd declension nouns with just a little bit on the article. Chapter 4 introduces the Greek verb (present active and deponent ind.). From there, Baugh deals with the imperfect tense, then contract verbs, then future, aorist, and 2^nd aorist indicative. Chapter 10 introduces adjectives (1^st and 2^nd declension), then he proceeds to discuss 3^rd declension nouns (NTGP has an entire chapter, ch. 12, on “Third Declension Noun Variations”). Chapter 13 deals with prepositions, then in chapter 14 Baugh switches back to verbs (perfect tense). From there, NTGP deals with “Middle and Passive Verbs” (ch. 15), switches to pronouns (chs. 16-17), and then back to verbs (ch. 18, “Liquid Verbs”). Chapter 19 begins his discussion of the other moods (participles in chapters 19-21), but after discussing the subjunctive mood in ch. 22, Baugh switches back to relative pronouns. Chapter 24 is something unique to NTGP, namely “Noun Variations” (discusses personal names, nouns with feminine forms that still keep a masculine gender, etc.) Next, NTGP deals with imperatives, infinitives, mi verbs (ch. 27-28), “Adjective Variations” (ch. 29; includes comparative and superlative), and closes out with

“Numbers and Optative Verbs” (ch. 30).

Some thoughts on NTGP: There are a few things NTGP does better than the others, I think. Of the four, it’s the only textbook with a glossary of English terms at the back. I’m not talking about a subject index (all four have that), I’m talking about an actual glossary with definitions of various terms. In my opinion, this is an immensely helpful tool that I wish the others had (too be fair, Porter/Reed/O’Donnell do have a section at the beginning of each chapter defining terms, but nothing like a full glossary). In addition, I like how Baugh deals with morphology. The review exercises are also, in my opinion, a strength of the book. Of the other 3, only Dr. Black’s LTR offers review exercises within the book itself (the other 3 textbooks, including Dr. Black’s, do offer supplementary workbooks that you can buy separately, however); nevertheless I kind of like Baugh’s diverse series of exercises slightly better. Also, I like Baugh’s discussion on the differences between middle, passive, and deponent.

On the other hand, I don’t feel Baugh’s book is as easy to follow as those of Mounce or Black, and I still remain a fan of the order of material in Mounce’s BBG over that of Baugh. Also, Baugh does not have a clear introduction to verbs (in general) that both Black and Mounce have. As such, I think it is more likely for a student to get confused regarding verbs following Baugh than he or she would in the others.

Regarding verb tenses, it’s a bit harder to understand Baugh’s views than it is the other three (see my comment above). In section 4.6, he states “A Greek verb in the present tense may communicate an action or state simply, as in progress, continued, repeated, or attempted depending on a number of factors including the verb’s inherent meaning and its context” (p. 18). I triple-checked my citation of Baugh here, and I’m forced to confess that this is one of the most difficult statements to understand on the Greek verb in any the four textbooks, especially if I were in the shoes of a beginner. Elsewhere things are a bit clearer (e.g., p. 22, section 5.4 on the imperfect verb— “The augment is normally a time indicator which expresses a past time event [i.e., I was loosing]”) but overall I much prefer the discussions by Black and Mounce. Nevertheless, I’m led by these statements to assume Baugh follows a more traditional view on tense and aktionsart similar to the views of Black and Mounce.

4. Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010). As of this point, costs 23.66 on Amazon (hardcover). Separate workbook available. Hereafter referred to as PRO.

And now for the controversial one! PRO (after the last initial of each authors) is the longest book of the bunch with 30 chapters and 466 pages. PRO is unique among the four textbooks in that if follows verbal aspect theory and, to its credit, logically implements that theory into practice (e.g., teaching the aorist tense before the present). The chapters in PRO start with a section defining new concepts and then give the chapter’s vocabulary words. At the beginning, PRO has a fairly extensive “Guide to Parsing” (pp. xvi-xx) to assist the student throughout. Unlike Black/LTR and Baugh/BBG, PRO does not discuss Greek as a historical language. The first chapter deals with basics, including the alphabet, accent marks, punctuation, etc. Like Baugh’s NTGP, PRO gives you  different ways to pronounce Greek, the Erasmian and the Modern (on pages xiii-xiv the authors encourage the teacher to pick one method and stick with  it).

Chapter 2 in PRO discusses second declension nouns as well as both 2^nd and 3^rd declension adjectives. Chapter 3 deals with articles and verbless clauses. Significantly, chapter 4 introduces both the verb in general and the first aorist specifically. Yes, PRO deals with the aorist before the present. From there, chapter 5 jumps back to nouns and relative pronouns, chapter 6 deals with second aorist active as well as imperfect active, and then it’s back to nouns and adjectives again. Chapter 8 finally introduces the present and future active while also dealing with some contract verbs. From there PRO deals with pronouns, then participles, then the middle voice, then the demonstrative pronoun and some prepositions. Chapter 13 is the passive voice (present  and imperfect) while chapter 14 covers the subjunctive mood. From there we go back to prepositions and pronouns, more contract verbs (plus adverbs and conjunctions), back to participles, then mi-verbs, then back to more adjectives and adverbs (e.g., comparatives and superlatives), then aorist and future passive. Chapter 21 goes back to mi-verbs (titheimi and ieimi), then we have the following in chapter  22: “Aorist Passive Subjunctive and  Participle; Future Passive Participle; Proper Nouns” (more  on this particular chapter  below). Next we have “Liquid Verbs” as well as more pronouns (ch. 23), imperative verbs, the perfect and pluperfect tense (ch. 25-27), “Periphrastic and Catenative Constructions” (ch. 28), “Conditional Statements; Numerals” (ch. 29), and, finally, the optative verb and a brief discussion of clauses.

Some thoughts on PRO: on the plus side, I like what Porter/Reed/O’Donnell do with the mi-verbs, being careful to distinguish two types of endings. Like the other books, PRO has useful appendixes with the paradigms clearly laid out. Unlike some of the others, PRO has a very helpful bibliography on pages 383-384 for intermediate and advanced work, and a very unbiased bibliography  at that (they includes, for example Wallace’s syntax despite the fact that Wallace strongly disagrees with Porter on VAT). In that bibliography, the authors also includes a list of the most helpful lexicons.  Furthermore, while I may disagree with their views on the Greek verb, I felt the authors did a good job of explaining their position (the “library” analogy on page 39 is very helpful; see below). Also, I like the fact that PRO tends to treat the infinitives at the same time as the present active indicative; it makes sense that the present infinitive form would be one of the first things to learn about a verb.

On the downside, the order of content in PRO absolutely drives me crazy! I realize this is probably very subjective, but bear with me please. First of all, there’s the issue of teaching the aorist tense before the present tense. Now, I can totally understand, in theory, why they would want to do that. What I don’t understand is how you can practically teach the aorist first when the present is morphologically simpler, unless your entire class consists of Mensa members! Speaking for myself, I’m not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and I honestly believe I would have been a lot more confused in 1^st year Greek if I had learned the aorist before the present.  Now if there are any “average Joes” (or “average Josephines”) out there who learned 1^st year Greek under this textbook and came out unscathed, then I might retract my statement.

Other chapters don’t make sense for other reasons. Chapter 22 (“Aorist passive Subjunctive and  Participle; Future Passive Participle; Proper Nouns”), for example, seems to lump a bunch of unrelated material together. Why treat aorist passive subjunctive in the same chapter as future passive participle (let alone proper nouns)? Isn’t this just inviting confusion? Similarly, since PRO already commits to introducing the aorist tense before the present, why does it then discuss the present passive before the aorist and future passive (chapters 13 and 20; please note that almost 100 pages separate these two chapters!) Wouldn’t it have been more consistent to treat the aorist passive first? In general, the order of material in PRO and much of the chapter content seems confusing to me (but, once again, this may be just my subjective opinion).

Regarding verbs, PRO emphasizes aspect as “the speaker’s or writer’s perspective on the action of the verb” (33). Also, on page 39, the authors state, “One way to think of how the aspects function in relation to each other is to think of a bookcase full of books, . . . The aorist tense-form is the background tense, or the entire bookcase, in which no particular book stands out. The present tense-form is the foreground tense, or the one shelf that becomes prominent. The perfect tense-form is the frontground tense, or the single book that commands significant attention” (40-41). PRO differs radically from the others, but they do offer a consistent system (whether or not it’s the correct system is up for debate).

My own personal, subjective ranking

If I were to start teaching a 1^st year Greek class tomorrow, I think I would gravitate towards Black’s Learn to Read New Testament Greek first, with Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek a close second. I feel Black is the most readable and has the most to offer as far as “extras” (that massive, fold-out, paradigm chart at the end is pretty sweet!) The fact that Black’s book contains its own exercises for each chapter also helps. Mounce comes in a close second because I like the order he tackles the various parts of the language. Baugh’s A New Testament Greek Primer is a decent alternative and has some strengths that the others do not have. Porter/Reed/O’Donnell’s Fundamentals of New Testament Greek also has some strengths that the other’s don’t have, and would probably remain the default choice for those attracted to VAT (though even if I’m convinced of that position, I’d still want to teach the present tense first!). Also, while price should never be the deciding factor, it’s worth noting that Black’s LTR currently costs the least on Amazon.

Of course, there’s a ton of other questions that could be asked, such as which one could be easily translated into a foreign language? (Speaking as a Japanese missionary kid, Black would be my first choice even to a greater degree than it would be my choice for teaching in English; once again, readability and ease-of-use is the key). Furthermore, I fully acknowledge that a successful Greek class (defined as “one where the student can finish without having his or her brain turned into mush”) probably depends on the teacher more than the textbook. With that in mind, I hope this little analysis has been helpful to some (and feel free to let me know of any alternative textbooks that should be considered).

And now a word on verbal aspect theory (VAT)

Before starting a class, every teacher should decide where they stand on the issue of the Greek verb. This, in my opinion, is the major controversy of the past 15 years on New Testament Greek. You, dear reader, if you are serious about teaching/studying Greek, owe it to yourself to read Stanley Porter’s Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, if you can afford it, or at least read the relevant chapters in his book Studies in the Greek New Testament. Porter has made a genuine contribution to our understanding of New Testament Greek. He is not without his critics (Daniel Wallace and Chrys Caragounis being the two that immediately spring to mind), but he has also garnered a large following among scholars (Rodney Decker being one of his most prolific supporters, in general).

 For general overviews on VAT, the following two articles are also highly recommended: Robert E. Picirilli, “The Meaning of Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where are We?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48.3 (Spring 2005): 533-555; and Andrew David Naselli, “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 12 (2007): 17-28.

For myself, I remain unconvinced of much of VAT, and one of the most influential articles in that regard is by Jody A. Barnard, “Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 19.37 (November 2006): 3-29. Barnard’s article, in my opinion, is one of the most scientific critiques of VAT (the article can be viewed for free online at http://www.bsw.org/Filologia-Neotestamentaria/Vol-19-2006/). My own research on the imperative mood in the Pastoral Epistles (accepted by and forthcoming in the same journal, though probably not for a couple more years!) has also led me to be critical of VAT (though, to be fair, once could follow VAT in the indicative mood while not necessarily following it in the imperative mood).

Having said that, I’m open to correction on the issue and I don’t think the debate over the Greek verb is that theologically significant (with the possible exception of the use of the verb “sinning” in 1 John). In fact, I think that, in general, pastors should shy away from making a key exegetical point based on the tense of a verb. At least, that is, until the dust has settled.

 

         

The Granville Sharp rule: A defense of Daniel Wallace in light of Stanley Porter's review

In 2009, Daniel Wallace was finally able to publish his dissertation of some years ago under the title Granville Sharp’s Canon and its Kin: Semantics and Significance (Studies in Biblical Greek 14; New York: Peter Lang, 2009). While this particular work was slow in coming, Wallace has made clear his views on the Granville Sharp rule in other articles as well as his excellent Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics.

In the latest volume of The Journal of the Evangelical Society 53:4 (December 2010), pp. 828-832, Stanley Porter has published a lengthy and mostly negative review. While I will be the first to acknowledge Porter’s brilliance as a linguistic, and while I also appreciate his overall moderate tone of critique, and while there is one area of Porter’s critique that I will agree with him on, nevertheless Porter has not himself adequately examined Granville Sharp’s Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament and thus makes two statements, central to his critique of Wallace, that are inaccurate. It is my sincere desire that my essay here is not overly critical of Porter (and Porter himself always keeps a moderate tone in his discussions, one that I hope to emulate); ultimately my rhetoric is driven more by a desire to defend Wallace against what I feel is an unfair review than any desire to criticize Porter.

Before we begin, the reader should note that this discussion assumes a basic knowledge of Wallace’s position. Furthermore, this discussion revolves around Granville Sharp’s Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament (3^rd ed.; London: 1803). This work is available for free from Google Books; as of today, the proper link is http://books.google.com/books?id=e1oXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=granville+sharp&hl=en&ei=gtdTYzZC8eCtge4naTiCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

In other words, the reader can easily verify for his or herself what Wallace, Porter, and I claim that Sharp is saying, Indeed, anyone who wishes to study out the issue is strongly encouraged to read Sharp’s work for themselves. Needless to say, any page numbers I refer to from Sharp’s work are the actual page numbers of the manuscript, not the pdf page numbers.

Also, the reader should note that we are concerned with Sharp’s rule #1 here, not necessarily with the other rules (though the other rules relate to the first rule; indeed, Sharp himself states, “the rules which follow are intended only to illustrate the particularity of the several sentences which fall under the first rule . . .” (Sharp, Remarks, 7).

To begin with, after citing Wallace’s articulation of Sharp’s rule, Porter claims that “Sharp does not address the question of plurals” (829, six lines from the top). This is inexplicable since a few lines down Porter discusses just how exactly Sharp does deal with plurals. Porter (829) cites Wallace who is citing Sharp (Sharp, Remarks, p. 6), where Sharp states “except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number, in which case there are many exceptions.” This statement by Sharp is still under the heading of “Rule I.” Porter (review, 829) argues that Wallace neglects to add the following comment by Sharp that “there are not wanting examples, even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly agreeable to this rule” (Sharp, 6). Yet in response to Porter, how does this disprove Wallace’s argument? How can it be any more clearer that Sharp does say that plural nouns are not part of the rule? Indeed: “except the nouns be proper names or in the plural number.” The fact that Sharp admits that some plural nouns act similar to the singular nouns here does not mean that the rule applies to plural nouns! (Porter himself omits one word of Sharp: “though”; in other words, what Sharp says is “though there are not wanting examples . . .” [Sharp, 6], which would seem to indicate that Sharp’s statement is almost an aside here). If I make the statement, “all land-based animals breathe air; there are no exceptions to this rule” and then follow this up with “however, some water-based animals (e.g. whales) also breathe air,” would it be legitimate to say that the rule is just as much about the former as it is about the latter (especially if the rule is a couple hundred words and the term “water-breathing” is only mentioned once?) Hardly! Indeed, in Sharp’s rule, the issue of plural nouns only occurs in one sentence (twice in two independent clauses in that sentence), and not a single one of his NT examples for his rule are plural constructions (Sharp, 4-5)

All Sharp is saying, as an aside, is that some plural nouns seem to follow the pattern. But the rule itself is strictly for singular personal nouns: this is apparent if we go back and read Sharp’s formulation of the rule on pages 3, which refers to “person” in the singular (“ . . . the latter always relates to the same person . . . i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person”) Simply because Sharp casually observed that there are quite a few examples of plural nouns in TSKS constructions that refer to the same group does not change the fact that his rule refers to singular nouns; I cannot think of anyway Sharp himself could have made this clear other than his own statement on p. 6, “except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number.” In the NT there are quite a few instances where plural nouns refer in a TSKS construction refer to different groups (e.g. Matthew 3:7), whereas with singular, personal nouns (not proper names), there are almost no exceptions (in fact, I believe in the NT no exceptions at all). The contrast between the two types of constructions (singular vs. plural) is striking, and both Wallace and Sharp have realized that.

More seriously, however, on page 829 of his review Porter makes the following statement: “Wallace further stresses that Sharp means that the substantives must have an ‘identical referent’ . . . however, that is not what the rule says. It is only when Sharp is discussing Christological significant examples that he uses such terms as ‘identity of person(s)’ (Sharp, Remarks 28, 30). Wallace seems to have a narrower view of the rule than did Sharp himself.”

In response to Porter, I urge the reader to consider the following statements by Sharp himself: 1. “When two personal nouns of the same case are connected by the copulative kai, if the former has the definitive article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person” (Sharp, Remarks xxxix, in the table of contents). 2. When the copulative kai . . . the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.” (Sharp, 3; this is the formulation of the rule proper). My own emphasis has been added in both cases. Now, please compare what Sharp says vs. what Porter says—“they both relate to the same person” and “always relates to the same person” vs. “[Wallace’s assertion that] the substantives must have an ‘identical referent’ . . . is not what the rule says.”

If Sharp states that both substantives refer to the same person (“both relate to the same person” is his exact statement), then does not that logically imply “an identical referent”? How can two words refer to the same person and yet not be said to have an identical referent? Thus we see that Wallace is correct and Porter has, unfortunately, misrepresented Sharp’s rule. The reader is advised not to take my word for it but to download their own free copy from Google Books and examine the evidence for themselves.

Thus, contra Porter, the following must be observed: 1. Sharp’s rule deals with plurals in that it  clearlyexcludes them and makes it clear that the rule is meant to apply to singular nouns, not plural nouns or proper names (even though, as an aside, Sharp mentions that some plural TSKS constructions do fit the pattern); and, more importantly, 2. Sharp’s rule is concerned with identical referents.

Another area that Porter is unfair to Wallace is when he accuses him of allowing Christological concerns to trump a proper understanding of Sharp’s rule (Porter, 831, last paragraph). Yet Sharp himself is the one who saw in “Rule #1” the means to prove the deity of Christ in Scripture. The reader is advised to note especially Sharp, Remarks, top of page 3 (last sentence before “Rule I”) and page 7 (before the heading “Rule II”). Although Sharp himself was concerned with the rule strictly in NT Greek and not Koine Greek in general, it is understandable why Sharp and Wallace would be excited about the rule; if it could be established that in TSKS constructions (article + substantive + kai+ substantive), when the construction is personal, singular, and not a proper name (which, as I have argued above, is obviously how Sharp qualified it; once again the reader is advised to read for themselves Sharp’s Remarks, pp. xxxix and 3-7), then the construction (at least in the NT) always refers to the same person (there are no exceptions to this in the New Testament, that I know of; this applies equally to theological and non-theological texts; in contrast, there are a significantly large number of plural and non-personal TSKS constructions  in the NT and in Koine that do not have the same referent). Since there are no exceptions in the NT, than naturally one could view this as a deliberate construction specifically used by a Greek writer or speaker to refer to the same person. Thus, when it applies to God [which is not a proper name] and Savior, where Jesus Christ is the referent of the latter, then one could naturally assume that He is also the referent of the former. This is strengthened if indeed the rule holds true in other Koine documents.

Obviously Porter himself believes in the deity of Christ or he would hardly be publishing in JETS! What Porter is objecting to (see Porter, pp. 831-832, the last paragraph of his review) is the way Wallace uses the Granville Sharp rule to attempt to prove Christ’s deity. What I am arguing here is that what Wallace is doing is being true to Sharp’s original observations, that Sharp himself thought that the rule could be used to prove Christ’s divinity simply because it was without exception in the NT (and Wallace and I would both add with very few exceptions in the vast scope of Koine literature).

Thus Sharp’s formulation of the rule, contra Porter, was not meant to be “a usable general principle . . . . that establishes that elements under a common article are related to each other, and in some circumstances are meant to be equated with each other” (Porter, 831-832, last sentence in the review). Once again, the reader should examine Sharp’s own words: in a TSKS construction with “two personal nouns of the same case . . . the latter always relates to the same person” [Sharp, Remarks, 3; emphasis added; notice the last two words: “same person”; this implies a singular, personal construction, not a plural or impersonal construction]. The reader will forgive my confusion if I wonder how we can go from Sharp’s statement to Porter’s significantly broader statement “elements under a common article are related to each other, and in some circumstance are meant to be equated with each other” (Porter, 832, last sentence).

I hope that at this point we have established what Sharp actually said. The question is, of course, was Sharp right? At this point we must argue out that no rule in any language is going to have perfect conformity within that language, and also that rules change overtime. Thus Porter is correct in taking Wallace to task for trying to hard to get rid certain exceptions to the rule (829-831). In a sense, Porter may be right that Wallace engages in “special pleading” (Porter, 829). Nevertheless, I ask the reader: if a particular construction acts a particular way in 99 percent of the time, do the 1 percent of exceptions invalidate any rule based on the 99 percent? In mathematics and science, no doubt, but I would argue not so in language.

For example, I can make the statement that in Japanese it is expected that an employee will address his boss with a certain type of verb ending (the honorific verb endings); thus a casual asou or souka (“is that so?”), when addressed to a superior, should take the honorific ending (asoudesuka or soudesuka?) The fact that exceptions exist to this rule (e.g. when one is drunk or when one is a foreigner learning still learning the language) does not invalidate that cultural and linguistic rule/principle/whatever you wish to call it!

Furthermore, I imagine that statistically the odds are too great that it is a coincidence that singular, personal TSKS constructions would act that way while plural and impersonal TSKS constructions are not even comparable in their behavior (in fact, my own unverified suspicion at this point is that TSKS constructions that are plural and/or impersonal most of the time do not have the same identity; at least from the LXX I can make a strong case for that, for now).

Ironically, Wallace’s dismissal of “translation Greek” (see Porter, 830, #(2)), deprives him of what I believe is a further prove of the general validity of Sharp’s rule #1. My own studies in the Septuagint have convinced me that Proverbs 24:21 is an anomaly—even the translators of the LXX treated TSKS constructions in the way that Sharp and Wallace outlined. The reader is advised to take the following singular, personal constructions—Ezra 7:21, Nehemiah 8:9, Isaiah 24:20, Tobit 1:22, I Esdras 8:8, 8:9, 9:39, 9:42, and 9:49, all referring to the same person—and contrast them with TSKS constructions that do not meet that criteria: (e.g. Exodus 9:3; Psalm 88 (89): 13; etc.). My research is fairly limited at this point, but everything I’ve seen indicate that even the translators of the LXX seemed to take the TSKS constructions in the same way that the NT and other documents in Koine Greek do. The odds are too high that the significant difference between singular and personal TSKS constructions and other TSKS constructions is coincidental.

While Wallace’s treatment of the topic is hardly perfect, and while I believe Porter is actually more moderate and gentler in the debate than Wallace is, nevertheless I believe Wallace has more accurately understood Sharp’s rule than Porter has, and that Sharp’s original articulation of the rule stands remarkably in Koine Greek. If Wallace’s thesis has any major fault, it lies in his attempt to argue away what may be valid exceptions to the rule, valid exceptions that are nevertheless a drop in the bucket of the vast amount of Koine TSKS constructions that were deliberately meant to indicate a single person under two headings or titles.