RDecker wrote:My comments are in no way intended to disparage Smyth's work! Far from it. Unfortunately, it is not well enough known in biblical studies.
Oh, definitely not. In fact, I think Smyth would say the same. As far as I know, he never intended the grammar to be treated on the same level as the great German reference grammars for Classical Greek, yet it has none the less received such status. And this is both because of the high quality of his work and also the sheer lack of competitors.
RDecker wrote:But it does need supplementation and adaptation to the koine stage of the language. I am aware that since the mid-20th C. when the last edition of Smyth was published that there has not been a work of equivalent depth for koine. We have done better in lexicography than grammar with Bauer/Danker deserving most of that credit. In the 19th and early 20th C. things were relatively more balanced with Winer, Moulton, and Robertson providing major works for koine that were the equal of the classical works.
Moulton had bigger dreams that were on par with those of Robert Funk, but they never came into fruition. In his introductory grammar he envisions a time where (you may want to skip the rest of this sentence, Carl) students start with Koine and move to Classical later. And there are numerous statements in volume 2 of the larger grammar where he makes passing comments about how such a given point will receive more extensive treatment in his volume on syntax and you're left wishing that he had not died at sea during WWI.
RDecker wrote:The last 50 years have, in my opinion (for what that's worth!) taken a decidedly more pragmatic turn on one hand and a highly specialized focus on the other, but no one has produced anything like Robertson or Smyth. We have first year materials aplenty (and more in the pipeline) and some intermediate grammars, but most of them have been focused on the practitioner and then only in NT studies. The best of those is Wallace, but his work is, as the subtitle implies, an "exegetical syntax," not a grammar per se. Very useful for the student and pastor who is doing exegesis (even if you do disagree with him often), but not in the class of Smyth. The LXX and the wider field of koine/Hellenistic Greek has seen nothing in terms of substantive grammars so far as I know. We have a great many specialized monographs on narrow slices of the grammatical pie. Perhaps we need to wait until more such slices are worked out before we have a "Renaissance scholar" who can put it all together.
I've already started. I hope to have a basic draft of done in the next year that's comparable in size and scope to Rijksbaron's syntax of the verb, which will then provide a framework for building an actual reference grammar.
RDecker wrote:That a team was thought necessary 10 or 15 years ago to attempt to revise/rewrite BDF tells you something. But the Schmidt/Fanning/Wallace/Palmer team never got it off the ground. Part of the reason for that, I think, was Schmidt's death, and I think he was the coordinator of that effort. I've never heard that it's been revived, though I think there was at least one attempt to do so. It's not a few year project, even for a team. It wouldn't surprise me if a good team could spend 10 years on it and for a single, capable scholar it would be the rest of his life once he had the training and experience to begin. (They would probably be 40 or 50 by that time.) There are a few living scholars who could do it if they had the desire and the financial backing to devote 20+ years, but I don't know of anyone who's ready to make that sort of financial commitment to such a project, and the scholars I'd include probably don't have the desire to spend that much time on it anyway! And some of them can't assume that they will still have 20+ active years; not everyone is productive well into their 80s. Some of them have done some significant grammatical work, but have since turned to other interests. (That, I think, is what happened to Funk; he would have made a far more substantive contribution had he focused on his grammar rather than the Jesus Seminar.)
The "other interests" issue is, perhaps, the biggest problem, I think. I'm still eagerly anticipating D. A. Carson's syntactic concordance. Even today, most scholars writing on grammar that I've talked to want don't want to be pigeon holed as "the linguist/grammarian." I like to think that because I'm doing grammar as a profession that I'll won't end up like that. We'll see in 20 years if any grammar has come to fruition. Now, whether anyone would be interested in own a 700 page grammar written by a guy without a Ph.D. is an entirely other question.