I have The Concise New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis and I have some questions. 1. How does it differ from the full version of the NIDNTTE? 2. Do I need both versions?
here is an example from the full NIDNTTE on a typical word. You may compare to the same word in the Concise version.
αἰδώς G133 (aidōs), modesty, reverence, respect;
ἀναίδεια G357 (anaideia), shamelessness, impudence
Concepts: Glory; Shame
GL The noun αἰδώς is related to the common class. Gk. vb. αἰδέομαι (alt. form αἴδομαι), which has a broad range of meaning (“to be ashamed, stand in awe of, respect, feel regard for, have compassion on”). Various other derivatives exist, such as αἴδεσις (“respect”), αἰδήμων (“bashful, modest”), and αἰδοῖος (“venerable, shamefaced,” but τὰ αἰδοῖα, “genitals” [cf. Lat. pudenda]). The opp. idea of “lack of respect, shamelessness” is expressed with ἀναίδεια and its derivatives (e.g., Epict. 2.9.11). The etym. of this word group is debated, but the sense “respect or regard for” seems to link all its uses. Now insofar as αἰδώς indicates regard for what others think or feel, the word may mean “esteem, reverence” (from fear of hurting or offending them) as well as “shame” (from fear that they think poorly of one; cf. φόβος ἀδοξίας, Aristot. Nic. eth. 1128b); insofar as it indicates regard for one’s own conscience, it may mean “sense of honor, self-respect.” The term may be applied to fundamental human institutions, as when we read that Zeus, concerned that men would destroy each other, instructed Hermes to bring to them “respect and right” (αἰδῶ τε καὶ δίκην) for the purpose of establishing order and friendly ties among cities (Plato Prot. 322c). Such weaker meanings as “moderation” and “modesty” are also attested from fairly early times (Hdt. 1.8.3; Soph. Aj. 345). The word group played an important role in Stoicism; indeed, Epict. uses the terms almost 60x, and a review of all these passages is instructive (e.g., αἰδήμων is often in close conjunction with πιστός G4412 [“faithful, honorable”], 1.4.20; 1.28.23; 2.2.4; et al.).
JL The concepts of awe, reverence, and respect are expressed in the LXX primarily and effectively through the term φόβος G5832 (and derivatives), whereas αἰσχύνη G158 takes care of the meaning “shame.” Thus it is not totally surprising that the noun αἰδώς occurs only in 3 Maccabees (3 Macc 1:19; 4:5). The vb. αἰδέομαι is found once in Proverbs, in the expression “to have respect for persons” (i.e., to show partiality, Prov. 24:23); it occurs also a few times in the Apoc., with both meanings “to respect” (2 Macc 4:34; 4 Macc. 5:7) and “to be ashamed” (Jdt 9:3; 4 Macc 12:11, 13). In sharp contrast, αἰδώς and αἰδέομαι are used by Jos. some 45x and 25x respectively, while Philo uses them c. 70x and 30x.
NT In the NT, αἰδέομαι and αἰδήμων are not found at all, while the only certain occurrence of αἰδώς is in 1 Tim 2:9, which instructs women “to dress modestly [κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς], with decency and propriety [μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης].” The language here reflects the background of Stoic ethics (Epict. describes the true philosopher as one who is “adorned on all sides with self-respect [αἰδοῖ πανταχοῦ κεκοσμημένον],” 4.8.33), but the content is distinctively Christian, and of course the emphasis falls not simply on moderation in dress but rather on the “good deeds” that are reckoned to be the true adornment of a believing woman (2:10; cf. M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, The Pastoral Epistles [1972], 45ff.). Moreover, in Heb 12:28, which enjoins worshiping God μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους, “with reverence and awe,” many mss. have αἰδοῦς instead of δέους (for this meaning of αἰδώς, see above, GL). Finally, the antonym ἀναίδεια occurs in the parable of the importune neighbor, whose “shamelessness”—i.e., his willingness to set aside expected social behavior—is compared by Jesus to boldness in prayer (Luke 11:8, though the interpretation of this verse is disputed; cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols. [1994–96], 2:1059–60).
The question arises why αἰδώς and its cognates play such a minor role in the LXX and the NT. Bultmann’s answer is that these terms “came increasingly to describe the ἕξις [habit, practice] of the individual and therefore his attitude towards himself, his disposition of soul,” whereas the essence of the Christian is that of someone in relationship to God and neighbor (TDNT 1:169, 171). To be sure, the Stoics’ similar use of other terms, such as πιστός, did not prevent the NT writers from appropriating them, so perhaps this explanation is not completely adequate by itself. No doubt the almost complete absence of αἰδώς in the LXX must have been an additional factor. But it remains true that insofar as the sense “self-respect” became prominently associated with this term, the NT vocabulary would not have had great need for it. The Christian’s standard of behavior is dominated rather by the requirements of love (see ἀγαπάω G26).
For the sense “awe, reverence,” see σέβομαι G4936 and φόβος G5832; for “shame, respect,” αἰσχύνη G158; for “moderation, self-control,” ἐγκράτεια G1602.
Bibliography
TDNT 1:169–71; Spicq 1:41–44; Trench 66–72. R. Schultz, ΑΙΔΩΣ (1910); C. E. Freiherr von Erffa, ΑΙΔΩΣ und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit (1937); J. C. Riedinger, “Les deux αἰδώς chez Homère,” RevPhil 54 (1980): 62–79; D. B. Lombard, “Aspects of αἰδώς in Euripides,” Acta classica 28 (1985): 5–12.
How does it differ from the full version of the NIDNTTE?
Based on your thread, I decided to go ahead and get NIDOTTE/NIDNTTE on sale. It's a curious resource (being nice ... the indexing/display is frustrating ... bouncing between the OL and Strongs ... settle down there, boy). I don't have the Concise, but the big-boy allows you to jump quickly to a lemma's discussion section (in the TOC).
Overall, I view both as an addon to TDOT/TDNT and similar.
The difference is content! More information on the full version vs condensed and sometimes reworded content on the abridged version. I have both and find them useful.
DAL
Thanks everyone. Can someone post the entry on the Greek words λόγος and ἐξηγήσατο from the NIDNTTE?
No.
The article appears to run from page 127 to page 171 (vol 3).
Far too much content for the word λόγος to copy and paste to be considered "Fair Use".
And that is just the first word (Logos).
ἐξηγήσατο runs from page 212 to 216 (vol 2). Even that is a bit too much of a stretch to be considered 'Fair Use' as well.
This is what the introduction of the concise version says about the work:
The present volume serves as a condensed, one-volume edition of Moisés Silva’s five-volume New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, published in 2014 by Zondervan (henceforth NIDNTTE). The goal of this present volume is to make the riches of NIDNTTE accessible to a wider audience. The current volume retains approximately 55 to 60% of NIDNTTE. It differs only in the size of the articles—all the articles and features of NIDNTTE have otherwise been fully retained.1
So, what has been cut to condense the material to the size found in the present volume?
First, the bibliographies have been deleted, save for the references to the relevant material in other standard reference works, including TDNT, EDNT, Spicq, TDOT, and NIDOTTE (with occasional references to others). These references are found immediately at the end of the article.
Second, the Greco-Roman sections (labeled “GL” in the essays) are trimmed down, keeping only the most significant or relevant information. Etymological discussions were normally found here, and these have been largely removed.
Third, most discussions of the relevant terms and concepts in the literature of rabbinic Judaism have been cut. These works were written after the New Testament period (many of them centuries later), though of course many of the traditions found in these works originate much earlier than the time of composition, including the traditions found in the Mishnah (written ca. AD 200). The challenge is to know what does in fact originate from the first-century context or earlier and thus serves as relevant information for understanding the New Testament. Scholars do not doubt that the Mishnah contains material that dates to the time of Jesus and even before. The question is which material. Therefore, due to the difficult issues that surround the use of this material to understand the New Testament, the decision has been made to remove most of it.
Fourth, extended discussion of the various interpretations that scholars offer for a difficult or significant passage have been trimmed. The reader is urged to consult an academic commentary for a fuller account of the interpretive options in such cases (e.g., the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series).
Fifth, discussions of the use of a word in gnostic or New Testament apocryphal literature, as well as the writings of the church fathers, are normally deleted, as all these writings date later than the New Testament documents and are therefore of less value in determining the meaning of a word in the first-century context than, say, the writings of Philo and Josephus, to which references are largely retained.
Sixth, discussions of scholarly debate concerning authorship of a biblical book, putative sources (e.g., JEDP), or the authenticity or inauthenticity of a logion or pericope have been mostly eliminated except when necessary for the argument at hand. Similarly, text-critical discussions have been retained only when necessary to substantiate a significant exegetical or theological point.
Seventh, NIDNTTE often and liberally provided the reading of the biblical text for the convenience of the reader. Many of these have been deleted for economy. Yet the references have been retained so that readers can easily look up the verses for themselves should they desire to do so.
