Hi everyone,
I know how to search by Louu-Nida sense and Bible Sense Lexicon sense. Is there a way to search by the sense as identified by BDAG?
Thanks
The closest that you can come to search BDAG for senses is most likely the verses that are referenced for a meaning.
Thank you MJ for highlighting the differences across the 3 resources and what they are trying to achieve. My usage of "sense" is probably inapproriate. The common element is that each resource is trying to assign a meaning to the lemma given the context in the Bible.
I could manually collect all the verses given in BDAG for that lemma. I was wondering if there is a way to extract them by doing some sort of search? If not, this is a great idea for a book for Faithlife!
I could manually collect all the verses given in BDAG for that lemma. I was wondering if there is a way to extract them by doing some sort of search?
Be forewarned: there are cases where what you end up with in the Passage List will not be completely accurate with what was in BDAG. This is because BDAG uses its own set of abbreviations for resources, both the canonical books and non-canonical resources. So, as a couple of examples with my test case for Χριστός I discovered that Ephesians 4 and Ephesians 3 were included as part of the resulting passage list. That because BDAG has Ep. 4, 3; entered at one point. For BDAG Ep. is a reference to pseudonymous letters, not Ephesians. At another point BDAG has Hb 3:6; 9:11;. In the passage list I see Habakkuk 3:6 (and of course not Habakkuk 9:11). That's because for BDAG Hb is a reference to Hebrews but the import into the passage list interprets that abbreviation as Habakkuk. USER BEWARE!
My usage of "sense" is probably inapproriate.
standard terminology as I was taught for an english dictionary:
So this is how I use the terms in my answers.
1Cor10 31">I could manually collect all the verses given in BDAG for that lemma. I was wondering if there is a way to extract them by doing some sort of search? Click on the lemma in BDAG to select it. Use Ctrl+P (Windows) or Cmd+P (Mac) to bring up Print/Export. Click on "Use these sections:" on the left side of the Print/Export panel that comes up. (The selected lemma should already be checked.) Click on "Copy to clipboard" on the right side of the Print/Export panel. Open a new Passage List from Documents. Click on Add in the upper left of the Passage List menu and select "... clipboard". Update the title of the Passage List to something useful. You have your list of passages that use the lemma and you can return to it from your documents any time you want to.
1Cor10 31">I could manually collect all the verses given in BDAG for that lemma. I was wondering if there is a way to extract them by doing some sort of search?
Oh my God, this is awesome. What a saving in time for me!
It looks like this template that you've drawn out can also be used for any passage, not just BDAG. For example, I could cut-paste a paragraph from a commentary into a clip board and then to the passage list and get all the references in that paragraph, it seems. So this is double learning for me.
Thank you so very much.
Thank you for the heads up on these tips too. You are right that the abbreviations of BDAG are not always the usual way Bible verses are referenced. In addition to the problems you have highlighted, I can add a couple of things I learned from my 1-example experience.
1. BDAG uses Hb for Hebrew in my situation (it seems to be using Hb for Habakkuk also it seems from your experience) whereas Logos recognizes Hb as Habakkuk instead of Hebrews (I guess that is the worldwide standard). BDAG showed Hb 12:1, but since there are not 12 chapters in Habakkuk, it doesn't even recognize Hb 12:1 and no verses was included for Hb 12:1
2. BDAG uses Js for James, which is not recognized by Logos, so none of the James references got picked up
Bottom line: it makes sense to go through to make sure the passage list picks up the right list of verses.
This tells me that Logos can create a resource that correctly lists all the verses within each lemma. I will buy that resource. It can enable searches etc.
THANK YOU.
1Cor10 31"> My usage of "sense" is probably inapproriate. standard terminology as I was taught for an english dictionary: purple box - lemma note the number to distinguish them green box - meaning of lemma gold box - sense of lemma So this is how I use the terms in my answers.
1Cor10 31"> My usage of "sense" is probably inapproriate.
I haven't looked at grammar since high school - nearly 40 years!
I see that you have taken this example from Concise Oxford English Dictionary. So I went and read the Introduction. The following is what I see:
ENTRY STRUCTURE: CORE SENSE AND SUBSENSES
Within each part of speech the first definition given is the core sense. This represents the typical, central, or ‘core’ meaning of the word in modern standard English. The core meaning is not necessarily the oldest meaning, nor is it always the most frequent meaning, because figurative and extended senses are sometimes the most frequent. It is the meaning accepted by native speakers as the one which is most established as literal and central.Each word has at least one core sense, which acts as a gateway to other, related subsenses. The relationship between core sense and subsense is indicated in the dictionary entry by the placing of the subsenses immediately after the core sense, introduced by a solid arrow symbol. Many entries have more than one core sense. Each new core sense is introduced by a bold sense number, and each may have its own related subsense or subsenses.
Based on above, if I understood it right, it seems that the first sense given for a lemma is the "meaning" of the word. But you've denoted meaning by the green box, and this box covers all the senses. I'm trying to reconcile what seem to be differences between your presentation and the dictionary presentation. How would you characterize the meaning of the 1st Tribune?
Both the dictionary and you are different from the way I've used meaning and sense. Let's say I see the word "tribune" in my reading and want to know the meaning. I go the dictionary to find the meaning. In the example you've posted, I would say that there are totally 4 senses for "tribune" Which of the 4 senses is the right meaning depends on the context in which I read the word "tribune"? In my world, there is just one meaning for a given word in a given context.
How would you characterize the meaning of the 1st Tribune?
The core meaning/the likely gloss. I would also distinguish for some words the historical meaning, the etymological meaning and the technical meaning.
In my world, there is just one meaning for a given word in a given context.
But not in mine. The ChatGPT description of two books among many in several languages that are extreme violations of this assumption. Everyday language doesn't reach this extreme but exhibits the same principle.
The work you're referring to is the "Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki". Specifically, the first sarga (chapter) of the Bālakāṇḍa (the first book) contains a set of verses that can be read in two ways: In the regular sequential manner, which tells the story of the sage Vālmīki encountering the sage Nārada and asking him about the perfect individual in the world. When the first half of each śloka (verse) is read sequentially, followed by the second half of each śloka, it tells the story of the Rāmāyaṇa in brief. This ingenious construction not only showcases the poetic and literary genius of the ancient sages but also the intricate design that is often seen in Sanskrit literature. ----- Yes, you're thinking of the "Swāminī Vilāsa," a work by the Sanskrit scholar and poet Jagannātha Panditarāja. In the "Swāminī Vilāsa," there's a remarkable verse that can be interpreted in two different ways depending on how the words are divided and parsed. One reading results in a eulogy praising the king, while another reading, with a different division of the words, results in the opposite, a criticism of the king. It's a remarkable piece of linguistic artistry that showcases the depth, versatility, and richness of the Sanskrit language and the ingenuity of its poets The work you're referring to is the "Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki". Specifically, the first sarga (chapter) of the Bālakāṇḍa (the first book) contains a set of verses that can be read in two ways: In the regular sequential manner, which tells the story of the sage Vālmīki encountering the sage Nārada and asking him about the perfect individual in the world. When the first half of each śloka (verse) is read sequentially, followed by the second half of each śloka, it tells the story of the Rāmāyaṇa in brief. This ingenious construction not only showcases the poetic and literary genius of the ancient sages but also the intricate design that is often seen in Sanskrit literature. Isn't there another one that depends upon the division of words?In the "Swāminī Vilāsa," there's a remarkable verse that can be interpreted in two different ways depending on how the words are divided and parsed. One reading results in a eulogy praising the king, while another reading, with a different division of the words, results in the opposite, a criticism of the king. It's a remarkable piece of linguistic artistry that showcases the depth, versatility, and richness of the Sanskrit language and the ingenuity of its poets.
The work you're referring to is the "Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki". Specifically, the first sarga (chapter) of the Bālakāṇḍa (the first book) contains a set of verses that can be read in two ways:
This ingenious construction not only showcases the poetic and literary genius of the ancient sages but also the intricate design that is often seen in Sanskrit literature.
Yes, you're thinking of the "Swāminī Vilāsa," a work by the Sanskrit scholar and poet Jagannātha Panditarāja.
In the "Swāminī Vilāsa," there's a remarkable verse that can be interpreted in two different ways depending on how the words are divided and parsed. One reading results in a eulogy praising the king, while another reading, with a different division of the words, results in the opposite, a criticism of the king.
It's a remarkable piece of linguistic artistry that showcases the depth, versatility, and richness of the Sanskrit language and the ingenuity of its poets
It's a remarkable piece of linguistic artistry that showcases the depth, versatility, and richness of the Sanskrit language and the ingenuity of its poets.
However, you are probably more interested in a simple Hebrew Biblical example:
[quote]
Another example of a word being given multiple meanings comes from the story of the binding of Isaac, known in Hebrew as the "Akedah" (Genesis 22:1-19).
In Genesis 22:2, God commands Abraham:
"Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you."
The Hebrew word "וְהַעֲלֵהוּ" (v'ha'aleihu) is commonly translated as "and offer him." However, the root of the word, ע-ל-ה (a-l-h), means "to go up" or "to ascend." This word choice has been the subject of numerous interpretations:
Literal Interpretation: "Offer him" as a sacrifice. This is the straightforward meaning, wherein Abraham is asked to offer Isaac as a burnt offering.
Symbolic Interpretation: "Bring him up." This interpretation suggests that God's command was not necessarily for Isaac to be sacrificed, but rather for him to be brought up to the mountain, closer to the divine. The act itself was a spiritual ascent, a journey towards increased faith and commitment. Isaac, by this reading, was never intended to be killed, but the journey and the act of being willing were the essential components of the command.
This duality in interpretation showcases the depth of the biblical text and the Jewish tradition of turning it over and over to derive new meanings and insights.
Or New Testament Greek:
The Greek New Testament has instances where words can carry multiple meanings, which have been significant for theological interpretations and discussions. One such instance involves the word "λόγος" (logos) in the Gospel of John.
John 1:1 states:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Here, the term "Word" translates the Greek "λόγος" (logos). The term "logos" is rich and multifaceted in ancient Greek philosophy and rhetoric. Some possible meanings and interpretations include:
Word or Speech: In a basic sense, "logos" can mean a word someone says, or speech in general. In the context of John, it refers to Jesus as God's divine expression or utterance.
Reason or Rationality: In Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Heraclitus and later the Stoics, "logos" referred to the rational principle that governs and organizes the universe. It can denote the reason or order inherent in the cosmos.
Given these multiple meanings, John's use of "λόγος" can be seen as an attempt to bridge Jewish and Hellenistic ideas. For Jewish readers familiar with Hebrew scripture, the "Word of the Lord" was a known concept, representing God's action and revelation in the world. For Hellenistic readers, introducing Jesus as the "logos" would echo familiar philosophical concepts of cosmic reason and order.
This dual (or even multiple) resonance of "λόγος" has made it a central term for theological reflection and has contributed to various interpretations of the nature and role of Jesus in Christian thought.
1Cor10 31">How would you characterize the meaning of the 1st Tribune? The core meaning/the likely gloss. I would also distinguish for some words the historical meaning, the etymological meaning and the technical meaning.
1Cor10 31">How would you characterize the meaning of the 1st Tribune?
Thank you.
1Cor10 31">In my world, there is just one meaning for a given word in a given context. But not in mine. The ChatGPT description of two books among many in several languages that are extreme violations of this assumption. Everyday language doesn't reach this extreme but exhibits the same principle.
1Cor10 31">In my world, there is just one meaning for a given word in a given context.
I'm sorry I don't agree that ChatGPT can serve as the arbiter. As far as I can see and understand, AI is neither artificial nor intelligent. I agree with what theoretical physicist Michio Kak said here: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/13/business/ai-quantum-computer-kaku/index.html. "It takes snippets of what’s on the web created by a human, splices them together and passes it off as if it created these things,” he said. “And people are saying, ‘Oh my God, it’s a human, it’s humanlike.’”
I'm sorry you've not been able to convince me to change my prior that there can only be one meaning for a given word given the context. This is true not just of the Bible, but of any literature. Unless the author is purposely using a double entendre. The author is sabotaging his own work by not carefully choosing words and order of words if he is purposely allowing for multiple meanings. The reader will end up getting confused and not be able to walk away with the message the author wants to get across.
I'm sorry I don't agree that ChatGPT can serve as the arbiter.
Er..ah.. I simply used AI to generate a description of two works that I knew were texts at the extreme edge of multiple meanings used simultaneously as it would have taken me some time to figure out how to explain them to people unfamiliar with Sanskrit. It did well enough in describing them that I let it describe the Biblical examples that came to mind. However, you are free to hold to your position -- I know the arguments for it and personally disagree on both linguistic and theological grounds but understand why for coherence in beliefs many hold your position. But for the same reasons my Catholic beliefs lean towards the Eastern rites, they also lean towards the Jewish side. This is one example.
