Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell 6 The history of numerical language studies of the Greek of the New Testament does not follow the same path of development, but the results are not significantly different in many ways. In the study of the Greek of the New Testament, and biblical studies in general, it is evident, as many have recently pointed out, that most of the grammatical reference tools are «pre-linguistic» and thus have been unaffected by the major develop- ments within modern linguistics, several of which have been traced above 12. These tools are instead shaped by both traditional grammar, which traces its way back to the ancient Greek grammarians, and nine- teenth-century comparative philology 13. Roberston’s gigantic, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, is perhaps the most comprehensive example of the application of comparative phi- lology to New Testament grammar 14. Roberston attempts a detailed clas- sification of features of the Greek of the New Testament, listing numerous examples, but without specific numerical figures in the main body of his grammar. For example, discussing the use of the, so-called, declarative oti, he states, «the verbs that use declarative o{ti in the N. T. are very { numerous» 15. The grammar is full of statements such as «in general», «usually», «the most frequent use of X», and so on. A number of charts, compiled by a Mr H. Scott, were appended to the third edition, but these are essentially tables that simply chronicle instances 16. The same situation holds true for most of the other standard grammars, including Moulton 17, Blass–Debrunner 18, and Turner 19. As desirable as it might be to have more complete and precise information, it is probably better to have none than have inaccurate information. Turner includes a number of charts in 12 See, for example, D.D. Schmidt, Hellenistic Greek Grammar and Noam Chomsky: Nominalizing Transformations (SBLDS, 62; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), esp. pp. 3-13; S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG, 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), pp. 50-65; cf. idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (SBG, 6; New York: Peter Lang, 1996), pp. 39-48. 13 See S.E. Porter and J.T. Reed, «Greek Grammar Since BDF: A Retrospective and Prospective Analysis», FN 4 (1991), pp. 143-64; cf. S.E. Porter, «Studying Ancient Languages from a Modern Linguistic Perspective: Essential Terms and Terminology», FN 2 (1989), pp. 147-72. 14 A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 4th edn, 1934). 15 Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 1034. 16 Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 1385-1431. 17 J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. I. Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd edn, 1908); idem and W.F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. II. Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929). 18 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. R.W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961); F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17th edn, 1990). 19 N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. III. Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963).