Where has all the grammar gone?

One of the long, all-afternoon sessions at ETS was a section devoted to reviews of several recent exegetical commentaries on the Gospels: Stein on Mark, France on Matthew, and Turner on Matthew. (Also Witherington on Matthew, but I hesitate to class that as a “major exeg. comm.”)

Part way through the afternoon it registered that all the reviews to that point (and the trend continued) said nothing about the author’s handling of the Greek text. That strikes me as odd given that France’s work in in the NIGNTC NICNT series, and that Stein and Turner are both in BECNT. One would expect that a concern in evaluating *exegetical* commentaries is how the basics of exegesis were handled. Yet all the attention focused on narrative or redaction issues/criticism and on NT theology. Now those are certainly significant issues, but nothing on grammar (and text crit)?

This is not a criticism of the commentaries or the commentators, but of the reviewers. One reviewer marveled at the enormous bibliography in France’s work, but excoriated him for not interacting with the works listed (only 2 in detail, he said). Interestingly, there was an audible “gasp” by those sitting around me at this “revelation.” Yet the reviewer observed that France’s discussion of the text was “eminently satisfying”! I.e., France pays more attention to actual exegesis that to quoting everybody else—not a bad thing in my opinion (though I’m not advocating ignoring the work of others)—but there was still no discussion of the author’s handling of the grammar.

(Oh yes, there was one mention of a grammar point: one reviewer mentioned καί vs. δέ as a passing illustration of what was NOT important in understanding Matthew!)

[Excursus: There do need to be some commentaries who interact with everybody and everything, but I don't think that's a necessity for every exegetical commentary. As a classic example, read Gundry on Mark. It's an amazing piece of work. The smaller print Notes sections touch just about everything. I'm very glad Gundry did that, but why does everyone need to follow that model?]

I observed a similar attitude toward grammar in a recent review of a homiletical commentary on Mark on RBL site. Here grammar is not just ignored, but is actually denigrated.

the plethora of Greek terms from the original translation of Mark often appearing in biblical commentaries do not clog the pages of this volume

That is a terrible way to phrase it! Granted, this isn’t an exegetical commentary, but “clogging” is badly skewed. I shudder when I read that as I sometimes do when I hear seminary chapel speakers speak of “enduring Greek” (& Hebrew), etc. It reflects a total lack of appreciation for the original text. I’ve no complain with “homiletical commentaries” per se (though I wonder how valuable they really are and whether they improve preaching or simply create more “quickie” sermons that sound very much like everyone else reading the same comm.), but it’s no place to slam grammar. A reviewer might well point out that the role of a particular work is not intended to be that of grammar or exegesis, but I protest strongly to terminology such as “clogging.”

But then you need to consider the source of these opinions! You’re reading someone who is writing a grammatical handbook on Mark and who may also tackle an exegetical commentary after that. At least you know that anything I write at least attempts to focus attention on the text as closely as I can. Should I take the plunge and venture a commentary, it will have a much more grammatical flavor than many others. It will surely not read like Gundry’s (very helpful) Notes sections! And certainly not like those whose summun bonum is literary analysis or rhetorical criticism. That likely means that should such a commentary ever be completed and be reviewed at ETS, it will probably fare poorly! But maybe it will be of some help to those trying to grapple with the text as it was written rather than with various “readings” of it.

[Excursus 2: One of the commentators reviewed at ETS replied to his reviewer that he intended to provide one legitimate reading of Matthew's text, but not to the exclusion of other legitimate readings because Matthew is a "rich, multi-valent text." There is insufficient postmodernism in my head to attempt that---which probably tells you more of what to expect! ]

Addenda (a few scattered notes from the same session, FWIW…)

If you get skewered by a reviewer, blame the format of the commentary series or the series editor who left the best stuff “on the cutting room floor.”

An articulate speaker can “cover a multitude of sins” without dealing with the specifics/details of questions raised by a reviewer, whereas a less impressive scholar cannot get away with such impressive sounding evasions. A rich melodious voice also helps, especially if you can use snappy “sound bytes” and creative neologisms.