As some of you know, my PhD was in comp/hist linguistics; I transitioned to religious studies post-PhD. When I entered into NT stud., I became interested in the work being done on Greek ling—especially verbal aspect—by certain NT scholars.

Tbh, I still find it unusual. (1/8)

First, it's interesting why Gk ling receives so much attn in some corners. It's clear that for many, probing these issues is a natural extension of the conservative historical-grammatical method/project in bibl. studies.

But I find something else interesting/unusual... (2/8)

It's unusual to me how scholars will make far-reaching claims about on what Gk "aspect" is and isn't, and what certain Gk forms (e.g., augment, reduplication) do or do not encode, while considering Gk evidence alone.

That evidence does not exist in a vacuum. (3/8)

It should go without saying: the Gk impf, aorist, perf (etc.) are inherited from Proto-Indo-Euro. (PIE), and the forms we associate with them appear in other languages (e.g., Sanskrit, Avestan, Armenian). Any discussion of verbal aspect has to take in this comparative data. (4/8)

But, forgive me, I don't see robust comparative and diachronic work being done by many scholars. Often, their CVs indicate no training in these other languages

What I see are attempts to come up w/ elegant, consistent or comprehensive descriptions of Gk aspects/tenses. (5/8)

But nothing says we should expect consistency.

These are inherited forms, thousands of years removed from their origins.

It's hard to make sense of the jumble that was the PIE aor. (root, augm., sigmatic, them., redupl...). Why should one expect more coherence from Gk? (6/8)

Simply put, I've found many examples of "Gk Language and Linguistics" research underdeveloped and colored by a certain set of assumptions.... and that's been disappointing to me. (7/8)

I don't mean to indict all scholars working in this subfield. Nor do I mean to dismiss all work being done.

But I do mean to challenge the centers, confessional traditions, and scholars who take this project seriously to consider—minimally—the training their students receive.