Though related, Koine Greek and New Testament (NT) theology are rarely brought into dialogue with each other. Uniquely qualified to address this tendency, internationally respected Greek linguist and NT scholar Stanley E. Porter offers a sustained juxtaposition of these subjects in New Testament Theology and the Greek Language: A Linguistic Reconceptualization. As shared in the book’s preface and introduction, Porter’s goal in this volume is not to offer a linguistically sound NT theology or to prescribe what such a theology entails in detail, but to critique the discipline linguistically and to “show how some of the principles of modern linguistics offer useful and constructive insights for refashioning and reconceiving” it (p. x). After introducing the project, Porter proceeds with three temporally oriented main parts: “The Origins of New Testament Theology and Greek Linguistics,” “The Present State of New Testament Theology and Greek Linguistics,” and “The Possible Futures of New Testament Theology.” In this review, I will examine each of these parts and their contents before assessing the book as a whole.

Part 1, on the history of Greek studies and NT theology, consists of two chapters. In the first, Porter recounts the story of linguistics from the Enlightenment to the inception of the modern era, especially as it relates to NT Greek. Two main periods are analyzed: (1) the rationalist period (ca. 1650–1800) and (2) the comparative-historical period (ca. 1800–1916). The first of these, Porter says, was characterized by deductive thought, logical consistency, and idealist organization, even if extraneously applied. Accordingly, some languages “were thought to be better and worse formed, thought and language were inseparable and linked in a direct relationship, tense-forms indicated reality grounded in time, and more complex forms were developed from simpler ones” (p. 15). The period was chiefly represented by philosophers, such as Étienne Bonnot de Condillac (1714–80), and its principles were espoused by NT Greek grammarians, including Georg Benedikt Winer (1789–1858), well into the comparative-historical period and beyond. In fact, Porter identifies rationalist tendencies in a surprising number of twentieth- and twenty-first-century Greek grammars, including those by William Mounce, Daniel Wallace, and Andreas Köstenberger.

The second period discussed in Porter’s opening chapter is the comparative-historical period, an era that emphasized relationships between languages, the significance of linguistic origins, and diachronic analysis, or the study of linguistic changes over time. Outside the guild of biblical studies, it was exemplified by linguists such as Karl Brugmann (1849–1919), who introduced Aktionsart to the study of the Greek verbal system, and among NT scholars, its ideals were championed by the likes of Friedrich Blass (1834–1907), James Hope Moulton (1863–1917), and A. T. Robertson (1863–1934), authors of virtually the only three Greek reference grammars in existence to this day. As with rationalism, Porter detects a perpetuation of comparative historicism in Greek study up to the present time, not only in a continued reliance on these grammars but also in an ongoing stress on diachrony among certain scholars.

In his second chapter, Porter canvasses the history of NT theology using the same chronological-paradigmatic framework employed in the previous chapter. Hence, he portrays NT theology as arising out of the Enlightenment and thus the rationalist period, especially from Johann Philipp Gabler’s famous 1787 lecture at the University of Altdorf, which made key extrinsic distinctions between religion and theology, biblical and dogmatic theology, and various authors of the NT. Rationalist propensities were upheld, says Porter, in the theology of W. M. L. de Wette (1780–1849), among others, and they have perdured to this day—as seen, for instance, in the NT theological works of Donald Guthrie, James Dunn, and Thomas Schreiner. According to Porter, all of these works impose thematic and even dogmatic categories on the NT, “rather than being shaped more organically by the evidence” (p. 49).

The comparative-historical era of NT theology, though, originated with the work of F. C. Baur (1792–1860), who viewed theology as a developmental description of the NT and a contrast of its texts with other ancient writings. It was epitomized by William Wrede (1859–1906), who perceived a deep fracture between Jesus and Paul in Christian origins, and its values have outlasted its demise in two divergent traditions: the history-of-religion school and the salvation-historical movement. In Porter’s view, the former movement’s legacy has been “relatively short and unimpressive” (p. 60), whereas the latter has been so generative that it is “firmly entrenched” in the discipline and even “continues to thrive” (p. 65). Indeed, Porter associates most late-twentieth- and early-twenty-first-century NT theologies with this latter tradition, including those by Ben Witherington III, G. K. Beale, and Craig Blomberg.

Part 2 then takes up the modern period of linguistics, Greek studies, and NT theology. Thus, chapter 3 explores the origins and development of structuralism, rooted in the Prague School of Linguistics, North American descriptivism, and especially Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913). Porter outlines seven basic Saussurean concepts and three other main structuralist ideas:

1. the arbitrary relationship between signs, or words, and what they signify;
2. the distinction between langue, or a language’s sign system, and parole, its use;
3. a preference for synchrony, the study of a language at a given moment, over diachrony;
4. the notion that meaning implies linguistic difference and choice;
5. a view of languages as systems rather than as collections of isolated components;
6. the difference between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations;
7. an understanding of languages as social phenomena;
8. the differentiation between marked and unmarked instantiations of linguistic elements;
9. the difference between linguistic forms and their functions in discourse; and
10. the distinction between syntax and semantics.

However, Porter also notes the rise of poststructuralism in the work of Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Michel Foucault (1926–84), and Julia Kristeva. This is a movement, now largely rejected in linguistic circles, that has viewed language as playful, processual, dialogical, intertextual, and “culturally embedded and unstable” (p. 87).

In chapter 3, Porter further points out that even though modern linguistics began in 1916 (with the posthumous publication of Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale), modern biblical linguistics began in 1961 with the release of James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language. Porter notes that while some NT scholars have since advanced Barr’s work, their number is disappointingly small. Thus, at the introductory level, he identifies only eight Greek grammars that employ a modern linguistic framework, including Rodney Decker’s, Frederick Long’s, and his own Fundamentals of New Testament Greek. At the intermediate level, he numbers seven such grammars, including Dave Mathewson and Elodie Emig’s and his own Idioms of the Greek New Testament. And at the advanced or reference level, he finds no such grammars—a discovery he describes as “a major lacuna in New Testament studies” (p. 97). Finally, he identifies only four NT theologies that draw upon modern linguistics in various yet limited ways: G. B. Caird’s, Georg Strecker’s, Philip Esler’s, and Udo Schnelle’s.

Chapter 4 then widens the scope of Porter’s exploration by probing the Biblical Theology (BT) and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) movements. In the first instance, he discusses BT’s primary characteristics, including its distinction between Hebraic and Greek mentalities and its concentration on individual words. This paves the way for Barr’s critiques of the movement, which focus on the various lexical fallacies it committed and on its failure to realize that theology is usually expressed not in individual words but “at the level of the grouping of words or the sentence” (p. 117). Interestingly, TIS, with Francis Watson at the helm, has sought to challenge these critiques, but it has been fruitless so far, for reasons discussed on pages 121–30 of Porter’s book. In the author’s words, Barr’s “criticisms remain as major arguments against both movements” (p. 130).

Having explored the past and present of Greek linguistics and NT theology in parts 1 and 2, Porter anticipates the future of NT theology in part 3, a future he thinks is already upon us in a sense. Accordingly, in chapter 5, he examines a recent postmodern, poststructuralist, and nonfoundationalist work related to NT theology—namely, Dale Martin’s Biblical Truths: The Meaning of Scripture in the Twenty-First Century (Yale University Press, 2017). But since Martin denies that meaning exists in the text and that true statements are true in all contexts, Porter suggests that we should seek a way forward elsewhere. Ironically enough, that “elsewhere” is Barr, who, writing as early as the 1960s, set a high linguistic norm for NT scholars of all stripes. Following Barr, then, Porter concludes that while NT theology can develop in a variety of ways, “the best way . . . would be to return to making [it] a text-based and hence linguistically based sub-discipline of New Testament studies” (p. 156).

Noting that most NT theologians have largely ignored Barr, Porter lays the foundation of a linguistically informed approach to their discipline in chapter 6. Accordingly, a discussion of what modern linguistics is and is not looms large. Positively, modern linguistics is (1) empirical, based on concrete language data; (2) descriptive, not prescriptive or comparative; (3) theoretical, founded on theories to establish what qualifies as evidence; (4) systemic, viewing languages as sets of subsystems; (5) formal and functional, concerned with both linguistic forms and their functions to varying degrees; and (6) social and contextual, cognizant that language is used primarily to achieve communicative goals. Conversely, modern linguistics is not “related to the ability to speak, write, or use many languages” (p. 187), “studying the history of a language” (p. 188), “studying the etymologies of words” (p. 190), “traditional grammar” (p. 191), or “the ability to translate” (p. 192). Nor is it “to be equated with other, similar disciplines,” such as literary criticism or translation studies (p. 194).

Building on this linguistic foundation, chapter 7 then introduces six linguistic theories or methods currently used in NT studies. Three main types are featured: (1) those that focus on form and syntax, including Chomskyan formalism and construction grammar; (2) those that emphasize function and discourse, including cognitive functionalism and systemic functional linguistics; and (3) those that fit in between, including cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Not surprisingly, Porter finds systemic functional linguistics to be the most useful of these theories, but he nonetheless permits multiple approaches to NT theology, simply encouraging practitioners to “self-consciously adopt a linguistic approach so that the discipline might be reconceptualized” (p. 212). As part of that reconceptualization, Porter champions three fundamental elements of a linguistically responsible theology in the guild: (1) the priority of synchrony over diachrony; (2) the linguistic concept of register, or situationally influenced language variation; and (3) the redefinition of intertextuality along synchronic, Kristevan lines—as “the constant dialogue and interplay of texts” rather than as the biblical authors’ “actual citations of and allusions to specific texts” (pp. 237–38).

Chapter 8 then applies these and other linguistic phenomena to a significant topic in NT theology—namely, that of the Son of Man. As Porter shows, most work published so far on the corresponding Greek phrase (i.e., ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) has viewed it as unusual, explored its various backgrounds, and assumed that a sense of definiteness can be detected in its initial article. But in contrast, based on an analysis of the word group’s lexicogrammar, Porter demonstrates that the phrase is “completely idiomatic within the Greek language” and that “the initial article, rather than performing an extra-textual referential function of definiteness, serves a function internal to the phrase as a specifier” (p. 269). Semantically, he defines the phrase as the “concretized entity ‘son,’ restricted to being human,” and he translates it as “human son” or “one of human descent” (p. 270). He finds that while its lexicogrammatical meaning is consistent throughout the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John (which he views as two different registers), its discourse meaning varies depending on context, in some cases involving a sense of earthly activity, in others a sense of death and resurrection, and in still others a sense of apocalyptic return (or a combination of these). This primarily synchronic and systemic analysis “brings to the fore insights that have either been downplayed, heretofore not been recognized, or not been sufficiently introduced into the discussion” (p. 278).

Finally, Porter concludes his book by summarizing it, much as I have done in this review, and by highlighting the potential of his proposal for other areas of NT study. Those areas include Greek language works, exegesis, commentary writing, and intertextual studies.

Upon reflection, a detailed reading of Porter’s book can generate both concern and critique, on the one hand, and appreciation and admiration, on the other. I can think of at least the following three critiques. First, Porter’s application of three periods or movements (i.e., rationalism, comparative historicism, and “modernism”) to the past two and a half centuries of both Greek linguistics and NT theology seems too convenient to be historically unproblematic (even if it is andragogically helpful). In short, such an identification appears to minimize other influential movements, such as romanticism, pietism, and dialectical theology. Second, Porter’s linguistic reconceptualization of NT theology, even if it does account for the social nature of language, seems more monocultural (i.e., Western) in nature than cross-cultural. The concern has an analog in the study of affective phenomena in the Bible, in which scholars have cautioned against the monocultural assumptions of mainstream psychology and philosophy and have encouraged more culturally sensitive approaches to the foreign text. And third, Porter’s inclusion of certain theological movements and theologies in his analysis—not least TIS and Martin’s Biblical Truths—lies somewhat in tension with his focus on NT theology. For that matter, his inclusion of certain NT theologies itself is slightly at odds with his definition of a NT theology. For instance, he defines such a theology as “a volume with that or a similar title by a single author” (p. 38), but he includes Caird’s theology, which was posthumously completed by one of his students (i.e., Lincoln Hurst). Thus, as Porter himself admits, “Caird’s theology is an instance of intertextuality in which the name of Caird is placed upon what is in fact a multivocal and even heteroglossic expression of theology” (p. 99n96).

The items of appreciation that I have borne in mind are much weightier than the preceding critiques. First and foremost, Porter offers not only a generally fair, well-researched, and penetrating critique of NT theology, but also a significant proposal for the discipline, neither of which practitioners can afford to ignore. Put differently, it identifies major lacuna in both NT theology and Greek studies, and it encourages and equips scholars to fill them. Second, Porter’s book provides a pedagogically useful framework for thinking about Greek study and NT theology, even if that framework is overgeneralized. Third, Porter offers a helpful discussion of linguistic register, one that has clarified the concept for this reviewer, despite having read about the concept at length elsewhere. Fourth, Porter’s work has spawned several potential research ideas—for instance, the application of register analysis, particularly the register-based distinction between Gentile- and Jewish-directed proclamation, to the current debate about the gospel in the NT. Other ideas include applying Porter’s linguistic approach to OT theology and biblical theology and even attempting to reconceive NT theology (and OT and biblical theology, for that matter) along other lines of modern inquiry, such as cross-cultural psychology. And fifth, the gravity of Porter’s work is occasionally (and delightfully) balanced by his wit and humor, such as when he states that “the book of Hebrews is not written in Hebrew” (p. 194n116), that “there was apparently no love lost between Watson and Barr” (p. 121n28), and that “I do not use the word ‘attacks’ as hyperbole” (referring to Barr’s critique of BT, p. 115).

At the beginning of his book, Porter says that he “will leave [his] readers to determine whether [he has] been successful in raising questions of importance for New Testament theology, New Testament studies, or any other part of our discipline of biblical studies” (p. ix). I, for one, would contend that he has succeeded in that endeavor—not only for NT theology and Greek studies but also for OT theology and whole-Bible biblical theology. I would just add that he has gone a long way in answering his own questions and generating several others in the process.

Brandon C. Benziger MDiv, ThM
PhD Student, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
September 2025