Perhaps this will be a little controversial, but when a commentary is commentating on greek grammar, I personally think its fairly safe to say, the greek should not need to be transliterated. I argue this position, because, if a person can't read the greek letters, they are unlikely to be able to engage properly in the debate that is occurring around around this particular greek word in a commentary that is dedicated to the discussion of the greek usage of a word.
I wonder, are my thoughts on this matter controversial here?
PS: I am not saying that someone who can't read greek letters should not buy this commentary series. It is excellent. However someone who reads greek will get a lot more out of it.
I think you are right in this context after all the series is entitled the "New International Greek Testament Commentary". Therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that this commentary would be aimed at the Greek reader and therefore not transliterate the text.
The Pillar commentary, on the other hand, when it engages with the Greek does choose to transliterate the text so I think it may be a bit of "horses for courses" and what the publisher decides would best suit the needs of the commentaries audience. (I don't have my hard copy of baker accessible to me at the moment to compare).
Here is the forward from the Longenecker volume on Romans that I recently added to my library
"Although there have been many series of commentaries on the English text of the New Testament in recent years, very few attempts have been made to cater particularly to the needs of students of the Greek text. The present initiative to fill this gap by the publication of the New International Greek Testament Commentary is very largely due to the vision of W. Ward Gasque, who was one of the original editors of the series. At a time when the study of Greek is being curtailed in many schools of theology, we hope that the NIGTC will demonstrate the continuing value of studying the Greek New Testament and will be an impetus in the revival of such study.
The volumes of the NIGTC are for students who want something less technical than a full-scale critical commentary. At the same time, the commentaries are intended to interact with modern scholarship and to make their own scholarly contribution to the study of the New Testament. The wealth of detailed study of the New Testament in articles and monographs continues without interruption, and the series is meant to harvest the results of this research in an easily accessible form. The commentaries include, therefore, extensive bibliographies and attempt to treat all important problems of history, exegesis, and interpretation that arise from the New Testament text.
One of the gains of recent scholarship has been the recognition of the primarily theological character of the books of the New Testament. The volumes of the NIGTC attempt to provide a theological understanding of the text, based on historical-critical-linguistic exegesis. It is not their primary aim to apply and expound the text for modern readers, although it is hoped that the exegesis will give some indication of the way in which the text should be expounded.
Within the limits set by the use of the English language, the series aims to be international in character, though the contributors have been chosen not primarily in order to achieve a spread between different countries but above all because of their specialized qualifications for their particular tasks.
The supreme aim of this series is to serve those who are engaged in the [Rom., p. x] ministry of the Word of God and thus to glorify God’s name. Our prayer is that it may be found helpful in this task.
I. HOWARD MARSHALL
DONALD A. HAGNER"
Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC-13. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.
How useful would this series be to those who are conservative and Reformed? I know we're not on these forums to debate theology – not my purpose for asking this question. But I know there are others like us here and would appreciate a perspective from one who is like-minded theologically.
I haven't come across anything that has caused me to discount NIGTC's worth.