This is a book well worth reading if you teach Greek or if you are a relatively advanced Greek student:
Constantine R. Campbell. Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
Many modern grammars seem like they are stuck in the late 1800s or early 1900s, and Con Campbell skillfully explains how Greek grammar has advanced in the last hundred years or so. Topics he addresses include linguistic theories, lexical semantics and lexicography, deponency and the middle voice, verbal aspect and Aktionsart, and discourse analysis.
This is more advanced reading, but you should be able to follow most of it if you’ve had at least three semesters of Greek.
Update on 12/14/2015: Nick Ellis and Mike Aubrey reviewed Con’s book in Themelios, and Con responded.
This has been on my radar… Did you see Stanley Porter’s unfavorable review, however? Any opinion?
I value and respect Stan Porter’s work on the Greek of the NT, but I disagree with how he assesses Con Campbell’s book. I think the book is outstanding. (I think the same of Dan Wallace’s work. Porter regularly criticizes Wallace, but I highly value Wallace’s work.)
Andy,
Just curious what specifically you don’t agree with regarding Stan’s review? I’m open to discussion on the issues. Full disclosure: I think Stan is discerningly correct in his assessment of Campbell. I think Campbell has tried to do something that is necessary and appreciative, and hence it seems that those who are not really acquainted with Greek linguistics appreciate it, but I think there are some unfortunate misrepresentations in that book that many won’t catch, except for someone like Stan, who has devoted nearly three decades to Greek linguistics.
— Dave Yoon
Dave,
Have you now read the book? Last time we interacted, you had not yet read it. I am happy to receive constructive criticism, but Stan’s review is neither constructive nor accurate criticism. I would like to know where you think Porter has identified misrepresentations in the book, and I don’t mean absences of certain works/authors, of which I freely admit there are many (which is a deliberate choice to meet the aims of the book).
I had Stephen Levinsohn read over the manuscript for me (as well as Steve Runge), who offered great feedback especially on linguistic issues. While he doesn’t agree with all my conclusions, he regards the linguistic treatments as sound. No offence to Stan, but I take Levinsohn’s affirmation over Stan’s criticism any day.
Hi Dave,
As Con said, Levinsohn and I commented on his manuscript, though I mainly focused on the discourse grammar chapter. Con has proven to be a productive dialogue partner over the years. Despite lingering disagreements (which will likely remain), we’ve been able to give each other a fair hearing and have treated the other’s views with respect. We have placed a higher value on getting it right than on proving that our view is right. The same can be said for interactions with Wallace and Fanning.
I am looking forward to participating in the SBL panel on prepositions in Atlanta. Which value will the participants opt for, getting it right or showing that their view is right? If one chooses to pursue the former, you often get the latter as a natural consequence. But it necessitates productive dialogue with those with whom you disagree. I hope the panel will be characterized by this kind of productive interaction.
Con and Steve,
While I absolutely agree with the two of you on “getting things right,” I don’t see how any of your comments relate to my question to Andy.
Con, you know exactly what Stan’s critiques (so far) are, unless you haven’t read the blog post. I haven’t read your book cover to cover, but you’re misrepresenting me; I’ve read enough of it to be able to comment on aspects of it, as I have.
But basically all I’m hearing is, “Levinsohn and Runge approved of the book,” and “Con is a nice guy; so are Wallace and Fanning,” which may be true enough, but I’d actually like to discuss some of the content and material in the book, not just who endorsed or didn’t endorse it, and who’s nice to dialogue with. I think, as Stan does as well, that you bring up a lot of good issues, but we disagree on how SFL is (mis)represented, among other things. That’s ok to disagree with it and point it out, right? And I think a fair discussion is one that stays on the particular topic(s), not succumbing to ad hominem sorts of assertions.
–Dave
P.S. Stan’s part 2 (of 3) review is now up on our blog (www.domainthirtythree.com)
Dave,
I take your point that it is not about “who endorses the book.” But I referenced Levinsohn and Runge in response to your comment, “I think there are some unfortunate misrepresentations in that book that many won’t catch, except for someone like Stan, who has devoted nearly three decades to Greek linguistics.” That is an appeal to an expert rather than an appeal to substance, and my point is simply that other experts see it differently–thus Porter’s expert opinion is not conclusive. I disagree with Porter’s critique of my representation of SFL, and think it boils down to “he didn’t say everything” which is of course true, but not fair (if that makes sense). There are also some incorrect assertions (re the semantics/pragmatics thing, which I do NOT claim is from SFL).
Also, the warning about ad hominem is appropriate, except that we know that Stan can be overly harsh and unreasonable in his critiques (of many scholars, not just me). You may disagree, but this is a widely held view, which, sorry to say, does affect how we read his critique.