Stanley E. Porter. <i>New Testament Theology and the Greek Language: A Linguistic Reconceptualization</i>

Stanley E. Porter’s New Testament Theology and the Greek Language: A Linguistic Reconceptualization is a must-have work for scholars and students in the NT. The concern that linguistic studies and their respective jargon tend to impede theological interpretation is no secret, so studies that merge—or invite the consideration of merging these oft-disparate worlds—are and should be in demand. Porter’s integrative and invitational work is thus timely. But it is also persuasive and deserves a benevolent hearing, especially from readers who have found linguistic studies to be obstructions to theological implications at best and inimical to them at worst. Although this work is not a “New Testament theology” (henceforth “NTT”) per se, it demonstrates how principles from modern linguistics might be insightful for reconceptualizing NTT. As such, the premise on which this project stands or falls is that NTT is a “form of linguistic exercise” (p. 5), a “linguistic discipline” (p. 195), or a “textually oriented discipline” (p. 287), something to which this review will return in its concluding evaluation. In other words, “a sound [NTT] will be based upon sound linguistics” (pp. 150–51; cf. his “goal” on p. 159 to provide a linguistic reconceptualization). The bulk of the book consists of a general introduction followed by three parts and a summary conclusion that explores the potential of Porter’s reconceptualization in NT studies outside of NTT; sadly, there is no subject index, which would be an ideal inclusion in a text that brings so much information together.Part I, “The Origins of New Testament Theology and Greek Linguistics,” correlates the histories of NTT and Greek linguistics, finding shared patterns between them, thus establishing the foundation for the book’s aim to reconceptualize NTT from a linguistic perspective. Chapter 1 explores the history of language and linguistics, highlighting the two major periods before the onset of modern linguistic studies: the rationalist period (1650–1800), characterized by the logical deduction of language’s nature on the basis of a presupposed rational structure and the comparative-historical period (1800–1916), which prioritized the diachronic relationships among languages. The period of modern linguistics began in 1916 with Ferdinand Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (p. 23). However, at this stage, writings in NTT and NT language still depended mainly on principles from the comparative-historical period. Indeed, Porter argues that the rationalist and comparative-historical principles dominated in biblical studies in 1822–1885 and 1885–1961, respectively, accentuating that NT works move slowly apropos of adopting secular viewpoints regarding language. Chapter 2 surveys the history of NTT vis-à-vis rationalism and comparative historicism. The problem with rationalist NTT, traceable to J. P. Gabler, is the use of dogmatic categories extrinsic to the NT itself (although, is the concept of “ecclesiology,” for instance, really an imposition upon the NT?). Comparative historicism, seen in the history-of-religion school and the salvation-historical movement, the latter of which remains notably prevalent in NT scholarship and NTT, fails to account for the synchronic elements of modern linguistics in its diachronic emphases.Part II, “The Present State of New Testament Theology and Greek Linguistics,” builds on the past-historical basis of Part I (particularly concerning rationalism and comparative historicism) by moving to present considerations. Chapter 3 defines modern linguistics and poststructuralism before identifying NT Greek grammars (around twelve in English) and NT theologies (only four) that are at least somewhat reflective of modern linguistics, following the poignant and well-known criticisms of the Biblical Theology movement by James Barr. Here, Porter outlines clear concepts from structuralism—especially regarding sign, system, synchrony, and social convention—that might benefit NTT (pp. 79–83) and remain sound parameters for modern linguistics despite the poststructuralist response from Derrida and Foucault. Chapter 4 looks at two models for doing NTT, the Biblical Theology movement, and the TIS (Theological Interpretation of Scripture) movement, and it finds them inadequate on account of their shared failure to be linguistically sound. Porter sustains the text’s aim in this chapter but errs somewhat in associating TIS so closely with the Biblical Theology movement (p. 131). Yes, the two might share linguistic presuppositions at times, but the former has much more to do with Hans-Georg Gadamer and philosophical hermeneutics than Oscar Cullmann—as Porter’s main interlocutor himself, Francis Watson, seems to admit in his back-and-forth with James Barr on which Porter concentrates (Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 18, 26).Part III, “The Possible Futures of New Testament Theology,” executes its title valiantly. Chapter 5 accentuates the self-contradictory limits/foundations of so-called non-foundationalism in postmodern NTT, with attention to Dale B. Martin’s Biblical Truths: The Meaning of Scripture in the Twenty-First Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). Thus, NTT, while not unaffected by postmodern linguistics or paradigms, deserves a stronger foundation. The final three chapters (6–8) form the heart of Porter’s proposed linguistic approach to NTT. Chapter 6 relays the basis of this proposal by presenting a legitimate lacuna in the literature and enumerating six elements of linguistics that should inform NTT: its empirical orientation, descriptive task, theoretical basis, system orientation, attention to form and function, and focus on relating the functions of language to social contexts. Chapter 7 then builds on this foundation by offering a linguistic model for NTT that includes three essential components, namely, synchrony over diachrony, linguistic register, and intertextuality. Lastly, chapter 8 demonstrates how such a linguistic approach to NTT sheds light on the issue of the Son of Man. Porter instantiates his proposal by emphasizing that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου functions (semantics) to restrict “son” to humanness (i.e., “the human son”) but is used (register-based discourse semantics) in various co-texts and registers to indicate a broader range of activity. He thereby provides a beneficial model with careful distinctions for performing linguistically based NTT; one might, for instance, explore the relative prominence of theological emphases in various synchronic registers across the NT to illumine what might be the best “center” of NTT.In the end, NT theologians and proponents of TIS will probably not be prepared to say with Porter that NTT is, above all, a linguistic discipline. However, they cannot dispute his rarer and softer claim, one much more defensible, that NTT “is at least in part a linguistic exercise” (p. 7). As such, anyone engaging in biblical theology, NTT, or TIS—and I would include Greek instructors, seminarians, and pastors here—should engage with this text to draw on Porter’s immense insight. At the same time, Porter’s linguistic vision of NTT opens doors (or keeps them open) for a kind of “theological interpretation” that does not require faith, a model reader, the creeds, or a Christian worldview (things typical of the TIS movement). In my judgment, this phenomenon is good. God’s people can be open to correction by reevaluating what precisely it is that Scripture says in light of advances in modern linguistics and those skilled in the discipline of NTT. Nevertheless, it also demands that believers who conceptualize NTT in terms of contemporary linguistics are not exhausting “theological interpretation” and, therefore, need to spend time further considering the roles of God, the Spirit-filled reader, and the language of historical authors as the intermediate means by which the active vox divina is encountered in the Bible.