Jump to content

Modern lexicons


WhiteWings

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for a good Hebrew and Greek lexicon as a first addition to my Basic package.
Some lexicons seem to be very good and used in the scholary world. But the last revision sometimes is quite old

Big Kittel is high on my list but is published in 1964
Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon Complete 9th Edition, published in 1940.

Since those publishing dates, new manuscripts were discovered, leading to new translation insights.
So... I'm looking for high quality Greek/Hebrew lexicons that are up-to-date and unabridged.

Any advise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The academic standards are BDAG and HALOT. If you want a theological lexicon, then the Zondervan NIDTTE is more  recent and updated than "Big Kittel". I also recommend you consider Louw Nida.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The academic standards are BDAG and HALOT. If you want a theological lexicon, then the Zondervan NIDTTE is more  recent and updated than "Big Kittel". I also recommend you consider Louw Nida.

I would push you to skip HALOT and go for the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. It covers all Hebrew outside of the biblical corpus as well. It is in the process of revision to add new inscriptional evidence (which means Accordance will not see the revised version for a while). It is probably the best Hebrew Lexicon out there currently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestions so far. Keep them coming :rolleyes: Much appreciated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BDAG is the standard for Greek. It also covers inscriptions and Classical Greek. I don't know of many other Greek Lexicons that are comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am waiting for Cambridge coming out next year.

 

Thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The academic standards are BDAG and HALOT.

 

 

I would push you to skip HALOT and go for the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. It covers all Hebrew outside of the biblical corpus as well. It is in the process of revision to add new inscriptional evidence (which means Accordance will not see the revised version for a while). It is probably the best Hebrew Lexicon out there currently.

 

Hi,

 

In the spirit of a friendly rejoinder, and as I've said before, anyone considering buying DCH or its concise version should read Anderson’s scathing criticisms of it at https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/abr/43_50_clines.pdf. I’ve been checking DCH definitions over the past three years, and Anderson’s criticisms hold true for the entire set. DCH has its place, but given its methodological inconsistency, it has to be used with extreme caution. Practically this doesn’t matter for the most common words, but often does for the ones that occur once or a few times.

 

Another fairly common criticism of DCH is that it doesn't offer much new information, i.e., you can easily find word stats and simple grammatical information elsewhere.

 

Also, how would beginners evaluate "new words," i.e., those that don't occur in BDB, 1906? One practical way for non-specialists is to check HALOT to see if a gloss/definition has "gained the approval of the mainstream of scholarly opinion." I spoke a bit about this at https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/16739-two-entries-for-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%92-in-dch/?hl=halot .

 

Finally, I've read HALOT, CDCH, BDB, Holladay's CHALOT, and Even-Shosan cover to cover over the years, and have developed my own glosses based on them and other research. Based on that, and reading articles in my field, it seems to me that HALOT is still the standard in English circles, in conjunction with KAHAL (Konzise und aktualisierte Ausgabe des Hebräischen und Aramäischen Lexikons zum Alten Testament) for those who read German.

 

DCH has its uses. I use it myself. But, I wouldn't recommend C/DCH as the first Hebrew lexicon for reading the HB. I know there will be a few on this forum who disagree with this assessment, and I know why. But I especially do not agree with the simple assessments that HALOT uses a classical etymological gloss approach, and DCH uses a modern linguistic one. Anderson's article helps get below the surface to show that simply isn't the case. Matt, I think that you especially would find that article interesting.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

Edited: the link to the article

 

Edited by Michel Gilbert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

In the spirit of a friendly rejoinder, and as I've said before, anyone considering buying DCH or its concise version should read Anderson’s scathing criticisms of it at https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/abr/43_50_clines.pdf. I’ve been checking DCH definitions over the past three years, and Anderson’s criticisms hold true for the entire set. DCH has its place, but given its methodological inconsistency, it has to be used with extreme caution. Practically this doesn’t matter for the most common words, but often does for the ones that occur once or a few times.

 

Another fairly common criticism of DCH is that it doesn't offer much new information, i.e., you can easily find word stats and simple grammatical information elsewhere.

 

Also, how would beginners evaluate "new words," i.e., those that don't occur in BDB, 1906? One practical way for non-specialists is to check HALOT to see if a gloss/definition has "gained the approval of the mainstream of scholarly opinion." I spoke a bit about this at https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/16739-two-entries-for-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%92-in-dch/?hl=halot .

 

Finally, I've read HALOT, CDCH, BDB, Holladay's CHALOT, and Even-Shosan cover to cover over the years, and have developed my own glosses based on them and other research. Based on that, and reading articles in my field, it seems to me that HALOT is still the standard in English circles, in conjunction with KAHAL (Konzise und aktualisierte Ausgabe des Hebräischen und Aramäischen Lexikons zum Alten Testament) for those who read German.

 

DCH has its uses. I use it myself. But, I wouldn't recommend C/DCH as the first Hebrew lexicon for reading the HB. I know there will be a few on this forum who disagree with this assessment, and I know why. But I especially do not agree with the simple assessments that HALOT uses a classical etymological gloss approach, and DCH uses a modern linguistic one. Anderson's article helps get below the surface to show that simply isn't the case. Matt, I think that you especially would find that article interesting.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

Edited: the link to the article

 

I actually find myself in the linguistic stream. Many studies have shown that even dead languages operate on set rules, the same as modern languages. That is not really a topic for debate here. I push for DCH as the best lexicon because like BDAG, it incorporates material found outside the HB. This helps to further define glosses. While a gloss may be operating one way semantically in the HB, it may have other uses that illuminate meanings in biblical texts from outside the HB corpus. I am a fan of Anderson (although I do not agree with everything he says). HALOT is a great resource, I usually go to it first for glosses, but in true studies of etymology and historical study, DCH is the way to go in my opinion. It really depends on what you need the tools for honestly. I come from a diachronic approach as opposed to a distributional one and any tool that helps me trace historical syntax/orthographic/semantic information is of primary interest to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I've been down this road and Michel won. His experience persuaded me to pay more attention to HALOT and especially Holliday. What I found most persuasive was Michel's thorough checking of glosses across the whole (or most) of the Hebrew Bible. I've read a lot of Hebrew, but I think he has read a lot more and he's done so with attention to the to which lexicon is most helpful. 

 

All this to say, I hear you too Matt, but you might want to give Michel another listen. 

Edited by Brian W. Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again you are both in the same place, really. You are both saying HALOT first. Anyway, I just wanted to share my experience of being persuaded by Michel about Hebrew lexica. That's all.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Brian. In the end, in this post and on this Forum, it comes down to whether there are valid reasons to recommend C/DCH over C/HALOT, and Anderson (a linguist) showed that DCH does not follow a pure modern linguistic method, which is the reason often given to choose C/DCH (for reading the HB). In fact, it borrows extensively from the classical one that it criticizes and claims to correct. I could add hundreds of examples to Anderson's. Likewise, classical lexicographers studied clauses and sentences, and the larger literary and cultural/historical contexts, to come up with their glosses. The actual differences are much more nuanced, and the overlaps extensive.

Regards,

Michel
 

Edit: And yes, I've done the whole HB now. I may offer my glosses one day, in a decade or so, after I test them all against Robert's syntax. The whole point has been to read all the clauses fluently.

And, some of what I said is for others, in case they are interested too. I know that you know that Anderson is a linguist.

Edited by Michel Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Brian. In the end, in this post and on this Forum, it comes down to whether there are valid reasons to recommend C/DCH over C/HALOT, and Anderson (a linguist) showed that DCH does not follow a pure modern linguistic method, which is the reason often given to choose C/DCH (for reading the HB). In fact, it borrows extensively from the classical one that it criticizes and claims to correct. I could add hundreds of examples to Anderson's. Likewise, classical lexicographers studied clauses and sentences, and the larger literary and cultural/historical contexts, to come up with their glosses. The actual differences are much more nuanced, and the overlaps extensive.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

That certainly makes sense, yet the body of material that DCH and Dr Clines covers is more expansive than HALOT. Especially with the new revisions (Volume one: Aleph published Jun 2018 adds a TON of new inscriptions and material). In my field of study, I am concerned with texts outside the HB and how the language is shaped there. I am familiar with Anderson's methods and conclusions. If I am reading the HB for my own use, I will typically go to HALOT, yet if I am looking at historical development, I will look at DCH and a few other works that are not lexicons (Blau's Phonology and Morphology volume, Reymond's new volume on Orthography, and some other linguists works that are being published in article form). Again, it really depends on what you need to do. Also, would love to se Shoshan in Accordance. That would be amazing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also a thought on Big Kittel- You can get the print version for around $100.00 on some sites, but if you want ease of reference and to save some space on your bookshelf, it is a good resource, but again it focuses mainly on theological words. BDAG will cover all words

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Greek... Yes, BDAG is still the primary one, but The Exegetical Dictionary of the NT (available in Accordance) is probably more helpful for my seminary students.

For something cheaper that is a reliable compromise, I have encouraged Accordance to acquire Danker's 2009 Concise Greek-English Lexicon since it is based on BDAG. I have my student purchase the Hebrew and Greek Discoverer package, and the best lexicons that come with it are the NT Word Study Dictionary and Louw-Nida. BDAG, EDNT, or Danker's Concise would all be steps up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also a thought on Big Kittel- You can get the print version for around $100.00 on some sites, but if you want ease of reference and to save some space on your bookshelf, it is a good resource, but again it focuses mainly on theological words. BDAG will cover all words

My education is far from anything theological or language related. So I follow the discussion from the sideline. But still very grateful it's discussed.

Anyway I do have some views and that's why I quoted the above.

 

Theological works certainly have their value, but I don't fully trust them because of my fear doctrine is injected. I want facts and form my own doctrine.

I should know better than mentioning this because it likely makes this thread go way off-topic....

G928 βασανίζω basanizo. Look that up in one of the many lexicons and dictionaries. It always gives a meaning of torment/torture (as a primary meaning). And indeed that's the a correct meaning. But then I found this entry in TDNT

 

 

1. The βάσανος originally belongs to the calling of the inspector of coins. It is linked with the Heb. root בחן (“to test”) and the Egyptian bḫn; (“basalt”). According to K. Sethe.1 bhn is the word which underlies the Heb. בחן2 and the Gk. βάσανος. βάσανος is generally accepted to be a loan word. βασανίτης is most closely related to it. Βασανίτου λίθου ὄρος is the mountain of the bḫn stone. R. Herzog thinks that he may deduce from the etymological development that the ars spectandi, the testing of gold and silver as media of exchange by the proving stone, was first developed by the Babylonians, then came to the Aramaeans and Hebrews by way of Lydia (Λυδίαλίθος [bacchyl. Fr., 14, 1, Blass]; βάσανος, Bacchyl., 8, 58), and from them to the Gks. In non-biblical Gk. βάσανος is a commercial expression, or is used in relation to government. It then acquires the meaning of the checking of calculations, which develops naturally out of the basic sense of βάσανος, βασανίζειν (P. Oxy., 58, 25 [288 AD]). In the spiritual sphere it has the figur., sense, which is closely related to the original concrete meaning, of a means of testing (Anth. Pal., VII, 54: ἀνδρῶν κρινομένων ἐν βασάνῳ σοφίης).
 

 

The word then undergoes a change in meaning. The original sense fades into the background. βάσανος now comes to denote “torture” or “the rack,” espec. used with slaves (P. Lille, I, 29, 22; Ditt. Syll.3, 356, 12). βάσανος occurs in the sense of “torment” in Theocr. Idyll., 13, p. 13, 5, Meineke; Thom. Mag., p. 94, 4, Ritschl; Demetr. Eloc., 201, 4. An inscription from Cyprus (Salamis), BCH, 51 (1927), 148, 18, contains the malediction: ἐν βασάνοις ἀπόλοιτο. Vet. Val., IV, 13, p. 182, 19, Kroll has a reference to torments of soul (ψυχικὰς βασάνους).5

 

So as an amateur I'm wondering why does any theological book even mention the meaning of that word after 288AD. Scripture was finished long before that, and those who wrote it used words with a meaning of their time, and not centuries later.

I know there is some debate when the last letter of the Bible was penned down, but lets say it was 100AD. Then in my opinion a theological lexicon should not list a single definition after 100AD. That's for Greek. For Hebrew even earlier.

 

That brings me to my ideal dictionary/lexicon.

I have an Oxford English dictionary that shows quotes and dates of a word being used in the past.

I would love such type of dictionary for the Bible. When was the word first used? How and when did the word change its meaning over time?

I can for example imagine that a certain word for Moses had 5 meanings, for Jesus that word had 7 meanings but only 3 were the same as those of Moses. The word may even have changed its primary meaning. For me that's important to know.

 

Finances are always the limitting factor. If they weren't I would already have gotten every lexicon mentioned in this thread. In fact I would just have bought everything found in the Accordance store. But that's not what my bankaccount looks like :-)

 

End of rambling...

Edited by WhiteWings
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WhiteWings,

I'll comment on all of this. It is true a large part of users would spend more if they had much more, on Accordance. Yet, as I'm going to make a point different to what I begin this sentence with, most people in general don't have the fortitude to say no to beggars. For the vast majority of people regardless, with increasing wealth more people will be splitting their income and/or savings and/or interest income with them, except perhaps after some fairly mature age in life (late middle-age as well as at the point when having aged so much that almost no-one You knew or were related to anymore is alive anymore). In a way what You are saying about buying the whole catalogue is true. If I would have discovered Accordance a decade earlier I would probably have bought All-In-All on a payment plan, because I would have thought that as I would have at the point of it being offered been firmly choosing it as only platform ... - That is IF it would have been like that - … I would have wanted to do everything with it. As it were - without even having a computer altogether and library computers having extremely limited time to use them and not always even having a debit card, I stood helpless to find out about Accordance's existence until it was too late. Still I COULD have pulled the emergency break, and even at one point I was offered to do a full swap of platforms (but I had at the point a significant investment in $ terms with the competitor, not in terms of how good my library was so it would have been purely to support that pastor basically gifting him value, he hade made a fast and hard rule for the trade that we swop $ for $ value OR entire accounts, he was switching away from Accordance) if I would have.
I don't mean to talk about "if I would have".
At the point I'm at, I'm able to recommend every book, not every platform, in fact I almost never recommend a platform other than Accordance, that I have ever bought - each, as I've bought that selectively. It cost me and I can still not do everything under Accordance, not because of availability issues but because how things went down for me historically. When I contemplated this a few Years ago I realized I want to go the History of Ideas route. For that, sheer bulk in library, under Bible Study Softwares, doesn't remedy fingertip availability because most book and most publishers have never made it or even haven't wanted to make it, under any Bible Study Software licensing. So even with buying a whole catalogue, a library would not be balanced because there are several decades for which the best availability consists of printed matter.
The process of choosing, and the activity level/presence of recommending books everywhere a thread rises (usually outside of these forums really), weighs down by the amount of effort it takes, the timeslot I have for actually myself using software. Whether I would use the software more if I would have say one thousand more books under my Accordance account, boils down familiarity with books, not with the UI, the knowledge of the latter is at a certain point the prerequisite, but to even open a book - having it is not all it takes - nor is the sophistication - what I need to be is my own librarian really. And that is what I'm coming at: With the processes I've gone through I'm ready at the next available timeslot this ongoing Month, to write many dozens of solid book reviews in a matter of short amount of time. From there it is forward. That is the point from whereafter the dividends are opportune, the growing self-esteem provided by my output at that point will set me on track.
So to answer You: One could think one would buy thousands more books if just having that kind of finances. Truer is it doesn't go like that. But with all that said, I allow linguistics under Accordance cost upwards $7,200 in itself - which I will pay, and which is more dependant on if everything it takes will be released (e-texts from publishers and if it is worthwhile tagging- and keying -wise), on top of the rather small amount of resources I already have compared to active users. And that is not a of money. I will squeeze up a part during 2019 - the Year I have to pay A LOT to the state (upwards $4,500).

 

In order to go on with commenting, and this is easier: See my Facebook, and You don't need to scroll down a lot. There it says things. βασανίζω on Earth? Well no, I don't think everyone, I do believe in (not full) measures of justice. I still believe in Purgatory in the afterlife. See a particular post there on my wall, it will be obvious what I mean and it is all relevant for answering this see the word "r..." and how much I say it costs, as a requirement by authorities? Not for me, may the first be last and last first. Unselfishness FIRST, then if I succeed with the campaign I MIGHT thank myself by considering I deserve myself to get engaged - in this life, with a human, on a sharing passions and (the) future of a possibility of birthing an actual heir. I dare not remind my friends, I still value friendship to the degree I don't want to rid myself of hard-earned friends, so I think most of them have missed the post and/or would not afford to give €10 each.
Lk 12:58b CSB17: Then he won't drag you before the judge, the judge hand you over to the bailiff, and the bailiff throw you into prison.
I'm talking about a country that has been on the news that there are sanctions against the country for now. Whatever is given through me is humanitarian direct aid since it actually reaches despite of the sanctions.

 

 

And I think You are right. But life is both temporal, fleeting and eternal at the same time, which aware intellectuals this time in history must be aware of. There will be punishment, at least regret - at some point regret of negligence during life will strike. In the unawareness of what follows in our trails, what the destiny of our belongings consists of, how matters lead to produce or not and deals or regrets or costs for the environment, and the those who passed through our lives memorize us, it will all be like it was for Yehsuah:
Lk 22:44 Being in anguish, he prayed more fervently, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground
14:23f CSB17: Then the master told the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and make them come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, not one of those people who were invited will enjoy my banquet.
vs 28: "For which of you, wanting to build a tower, doesn't first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
33b: every one of you who des not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.
-->
It doesn't say destroy. Sometimes only we can curate ourselves. And we must leave a legacy, it is preferred we leave an inheritance, if not we should care for the future generations in a general manner.
16:15c For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God's sight
vs 16: "urgently" Or everyone is forcing his way into it:

My education is far from anything theological or language related. So I follow the discussion from the sideline. But still very grateful it's discussed.

Anyway I do have some views and that's why I quoted the above.

 

Theological works certainly have their value, but I don't fully trust them because of my fear doctrine is injected. I want facts and form my own doctrine.

I should know better than mentioning this because it likely makes this thread go way off-topic....

G928 βασανίζω basanizo. Look that up in one of the many lexicons and dictionaries. It always gives a meaning of torment/torture (as a primary meaning). And indeed that's the a correct meaning. But then I found this entry in TDNT

 

 

So as an amateur I'm wondering why does any theological book even mention the meaning of that word after 288AD. Scripture was finished long before that, and those who wrote it used words with a meaning of their time, and not centuries later.

I know there is some debate when the last letter of the Bible was penned down, but lets say it was 100AD. Then in my opinion a theological lexicon should not list a single definition after 100AD. That's for Greek. For Hebrew even earlier.

 

That brings me to my ideal dictionary/lexicon.

I have an Oxford English dictionary that shows quotes and dates of a word being used in the past.

I would love such type of dictionary for the Bible. When was the word first used? How and when did the word change its meaning over time?

I can for example imagine that a certain word for Moses had 5 meanings, for Jesus that word had 7 meanings but only 3 were the same as those of Moses. The word may even have changed its primary meaning. For me that's important to know.

 

Finances are always the limitting factor. If they weren't I would already have gotten every lexicon mentioned in this thread. In fact I would just have bought everything found in the Accordance store. But that's not what my bankaccount looks like :-)

 

End of rambling…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good observation there White Wings about later usage of a word potentially influencing a wrong understanding of earlier usage (i.e. by reading back into the older usage a more modern understanding). Our modern usage of the word dynamite is read back by some into the Greek word dynamis  (see below). 

 

"To try to build up an entire theology based on a single word and its use is a doubtful enterprise; to preach ‘reverse etymology’, where the meaning of a word is affirmed to be something like later developments of that word or its cognates (such as the assertion that dynamis, ‘power’, properly calls to mind ‘dynamite’—which had not been invented when the NT writers penned their books) is anachronistic at best, ridiculous at worst."

 

 

Carson, D. A. Approaching the Bible. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A Carson, R. T France, J. A. Motyer, and Gordon J. Wenham. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

 

However, that being said certain individual words clearly have an intended theological meaning. For example, the NT uses the following words for their theological meaning such as salvation, grace, sanctification, and holiness. And when words that seem not to be theological (i.e. horn) are linked with other words like salvation such as "horn of salvation" Luke 1:69 they to become theological in meaning.

 

While a lexicon can be designed as simple as giving a gloss or basic definition of word's meaning, sometimes in a particular field of inquiry much more is required. In a theological inquiry, a theological lexicon is required to look a) at the word's usage around the time of writing, B) it's usage by the author (which may be different or a reinterpretation of its usage) and c) how that word has been used and potential been viewed by subsequent persons.

 

Systematic theology generally borrows from both the study of a theological topic as unpacked by scripture (generally referred to as Biblical Theology) and how it has been understood and explained by those since (what some may refer to as Historical Theology). In the study of koine greek and theology, the early church fathers add a further dimension of inquiry due to their close proximity to the original NT texts in time, their general use and understanding of the language, and the fact that they were the first to try and systematise the teaching of the NT into creedal or doctrinal statements.

 

Textual interpretation flows not only out of an understanding of the meanings of words but also their place in phrases, sentences, paragraphs and even the whole of the documents that they occur in. A good theological lexicon will provide facts and interpretation but should make clear the difference. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I think NIDNTTE and NIDOTTE would be the best additions for you to get based on what you have said so far.

Edited by Michael Hunt
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good observation there White Wings about later usage of a word potentially influencing a wrong understanding of earlier usage (i.e. by reading back into the older usage a more modern understanding). Our modern usage of the word dynamite is read back by some into the Greek word dynamis  (see below). 

 

"To try to build up an entire theology based on a single word and its use is a doubtful enterprise; to preach ‘reverse etymology’, where the meaning of a word is affirmed to be something like later developments of that word or its cognates (such as the assertion that dynamis, ‘power’, properly calls to mind ‘dynamite’—which had not been invented when the NT writers penned their books) is anachronistic at best, ridiculous at worst."

 

 

Carson, D. A. Approaching the Bible. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A Carson, R. T France, J. A. Motyer, and Gordon J. Wenham. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

 

However, that being said certain individual words clearly have an intended theological meaning. For example, the NT uses the following words for their theological meaning such as salvation, grace, sanctification, and holiness. And when words that seem not to be theological (i.e. horn) are linked with other words like salvation such as "horn of salvation" Luke 1:69 they to become theological in meaning.

 

While a lexicon can be designed as simple as giving a gloss or basic definition of word's meaning, sometimes in a particular field of inquiry much more is required. In a theological inquiry, a theological lexicon is required to look a) at the word's usage around the time of writing, B) it's usage by the author (which may be different or a reinterpretation of its usage) and c) how that word has been used and potential been viewed by subsequent persons.

 

Systematic theology generally borrows from both the study of a theological topic as unpacked by scripture (generally referred to as Biblical Theology) and how it has been understood and explained by those since (what some may refer to as Historical Theology). In the study of koine greek and theology, the early church fathers add a further dimension of inquiry due to their close proximity to the original NT texts in time, their general use and understanding of the language, and the fact that they were the first to try and systematise the teaching of the NT into creedal or doctrinal statements.

 

Textual interpretation flows not only out of an understanding of the meanings of words but also their place in phrases, sentences, paragraphs and even the whole of the documents that they occur in. A good theological lexicon will provide facts and interpretation but should make clear the difference. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I think NIDNTTE and NIDOTTE would be the best additions for you to get based on what you have said so far.

I would actually argue BDAG would be the best. It is focused on lexeme's not theological agenda. It also takes care to show its use in Greek sources outside of the NT. I would also argue that most if not all of the early Gospels were first composed in Syriac or Aramaic (TYA will enjoy this) and that much of the western Church was influenced by the writings of the Eastern Church but that is a different conversation. I bring it up here because instead of thinking fully in terms of Greek language, we have to remember the dialectical variations that the underlying Greek text is Semitic in nature. Much of the vocabulary is based on what could be translations of Semitic sources. I feel BDAG does an OK job looking at this but for a deeper study, learn Syriac and read the Peshitta. Just MHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must commend You all right now for that You are really focused! I compare You in my mind with those who (which is common to be led astray to start out with when looking at what some people arise as questions) only look at textual variants (in the NT where they notice) between Byzantic and Alexandrian "families of texts" - or only a very little more sophisticatedly. They seem to forget that what they touch by that is only one language in only one dialect (because I would think the majority of the variants are way too short to data-analyse or manually track to very specific dialects and underlying language of lost manuscripts or ancient oral readings of Scripture). Matt, You are are really at it tracking back in time!

 

How do You like Your lexicons? I've got for example an Thomas Aquinas special dictionary just for reading him.  :)

There's a party here? You are having a party, always. I came here to work.  ;) 

Go vote also at (liking a post/comment is enough too, according to Helen, in all clear Requests): https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/24365-the-encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics-brill/?do=findComment&comment=122927 https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/24365-the-encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics-brill/?p=122888

Not wanting to detract from this and really appreciate all questions raised, am mainly just following this discussion - I'm not going to comment back on all comments back whether directed to me or You others, but...:

… Matt if I may ask a question which is personal to me? Do You think I should have BOTH BDAG and BAGD myself specifically for use in tandem? Having BAGD both under Bible Study Software and in print (mylar protective cover on top of the dust-jacket), but having a spare license for BDAG.
Under Accordance I already have BDAG though (and NIDNTTE which I bought for the introductory price when it was newly produced - and Accordance was first!!).

Appreciate! Perhaps a small question but rarely answered since (for) must users (think) it is an availability discussion and even budget matter when the topic is brought up about needing both or not. The thing is I like BAGD A LOT because it's dope to manage with it under the other Bible Study Software platform and receive compliments from other users about what all things I have and repeatedly hear sales persons offer me the BDAG (not going to buy it off the Storefront).
The spare BDAG license can otherwise be put under the spare account which I have reserved for when I either find a co-author or a girlfriend because the person needs to then get the spare unused account as a gift. It's unused, paid in full only by me, just curated, (part second-hand with one base-package third up from very lowest):

I would actually argue BDAG would be the best. It is focused on lexeme's not theological agenda. It also takes care to show its use in Greek sources outside of the NT. I would also argue that most if not all of the early Gospels were first composed in Syriac or Aramaic (TYA will enjoy this) and that much of the western Church was influenced by the writings of the Eastern Church but that is a different conversation. I bring it up here because instead of thinking fully in terms of Greek language, we have to remember the dialectical variations that the underlying Greek text is Semitic in nature. Much of the vocabulary is based on what could be translations of Semitic sources. I feel BDAG does an OK job looking at this but for a deeper study, learn Syriac and read the Peshitta. Just MHO

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must commend You all right now for that You are really focused! I compare You in my mind with those who (which is common to be led astray to start out with when looking at what some people arise as questions) only look at textual variants (in the NT where they notice) between Byzantic and Alexandrian "families of texts" - or only a very little more sophisticatedly. They seem to forget that what they touch by that is only one language in only one dialect (because I would think the majority of the variants are way too short to data-analyse or manually track to very specific dialects and underlying language of lost manuscripts or ancient oral readings of Scripture). Matt, You are are really at it tracking back in time!

 

How do You like Your lexicons? I've got for example an Thomas Aquinas special dictionary just for reading him.  :)

There's a party here? You are having a party, always. I came here to work.  ;) 

 

Go vote also at (liking a post/comment is enough too, according to Helen, in all clear Requests): https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/24365-the-encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics-brill/?do=findComment&comment=122927 https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/24365-the-encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics-brill/?p=122888

 

Not wanting to detract from this and really appreciate all questions raised, am mainly just following this discussion - I'm not going to comment back on all comments back whether directed to me or You others, but...:

… Matt if I may ask a question which is personal to me? Do You think I should have BOTH BDAG and BAGD myself specifically for use in tandem? Having BAGD both under Bible Study Software and in print (mylar protective cover on top of the dust-jacket), but having a spare license for BDAG.

Under Accordance I already have BDAG though (and NIDNTTE which I bought for the introductory price when it was newly produced - and Accordance was first!!).

Appreciate! Perhaps a small question but rarely answered since (for) must users (think) it is an availability discussion and even budget matter when the topic is brought up about needing both or not. The thing is I like BAGD A LOT because it's dope to manage with it under the other Bible Study Software platform and receive compliments from other users about what all things I have and repeatedly hear sales persons offer me the BDAG (not going to buy it off the Storefront).

The spare BDAG license can otherwise be put under the spare account which I have reserved for when I either find a co-author or a girlfriend because the person needs to then get the spare unused account as a gift. It's unused, paid in full only by me, just curated, (part second-hand with one base-package third up from very lowest):

I would say both are good for various reasons. A paired down version for quick reference and a larger version for fuller study. If you are doing translation, then quick glosses are needed. If you are doing lexical/semantic work, you need more material to work from. Until more lexicons are published or larger semantic categories are explored, the more sources you pull from the better!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Textual interpretation flows not only out of an understanding of the meanings of words but also their place in phrases, sentences, paragraphs and even the whole of the documents that they occur in. A good theological lexicon will provide facts and interpretation but should make clear the difference. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I think NIDNTTE and NIDOTTE would be the best additions for you to get based on what you have said so far.

I fully agree understanding Scripture takes much more than understanding a certain word.

 

Sure context is of great importance, but in the end context is formed by words that have a certain meaning. If many words are understood incorrectly that could make the context impossible to understand or lead to false doctrine. Especially if that word is a keyword of the verse or context.

Your example of dynamite explains that very well. Or imagine a that we understood mouse as a computer mouse instead of a rodent.

Maybe it's just me, but I would have big trouble if Jesus suddenly starts talking about dynamite and computer mice.

 

That are just foolish examples nobody likely falls for, but I can imagine that sometimes things are not that easy to spot. And that is were false doctrine can creep in.

 

While I think interpretation belongs in commentary and not in a lexicon, I have no big issues with it. I can even see some advantages in it.

All I want is a lexicon which in all honesty points out when a certain new meaning came into existance. (I doubt such a lexicon exists)

Then it's up to the student what to do with that information.

 

Putting theological in a lexicon's title for me is like adding: "We will try to ram down doctrine down your throat".

Theology always has some doctrinal bias. If I want that I go to church and listen to a sermon. If I go back home and study the sermon I want something as unbiased as possible. For that reason I want to buy all lexicons suggested in this thread. Because of finacial reasons I keep reading to decide which one I'll buy first. That likely will be the one that's on discount first... :D

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't 100% recall but I believe I bought BDAG (certainly I had it in print first) first, then later LSJ and Louw and Nida. I use all three still. If I am reading the Septuagint I use Muraoka as well, though this is not in Accordance.

I would like to have Brill's Ancient Greek and their Etymology but those are very pricey works and I would have trouble justifying the cost.

The new Cambridge Greek Lexicon is due out next year they say, after some 20 years in development. It promises to be very interesting and thus very tempting as an addition.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One resource that I would like to see is the other BDAG i.e. Brill DAG. It is the most recent entry into the scholarly Greek lexicons.

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Brill-Dictionary-Ancient-Greek-Set/dp/9004298118/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1544544594&sr=8-2&keywords=brill+dictionary+of+ancient+greek

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One resource that I would like to see is the other BDAG i.e. Brill DAG. It is the most recent entry into the scholarly Greek lexicons.

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Brill-Dictionary-Ancient-Greek-Set/dp/9004298118/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1544544594&sr=8-2&keywords=brill+dictionary+of+ancient+greek

 

Yes I'm just right now in the library with this in the back (but unfortunately not the deluxe version).

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...