Who assigns the appropriate Louw-Nida number in Logos? Why use LN if you have BDAG?
Who are these people who have determined the appropriate LN number given the context? In these posts (https://community.logos.com/forums/p/202862/1179760.aspx#1179760 and https://community.logos.com/forums/p/203213/1182683.aspx#1182683, we don't get an answer.
A related but separate question, but first an observation. With my limited word studies, I've noticed lots of overlap of LN with BDAG (yeah, BDAG doesn't have a numbering system, but the categories and the verses in each category matches LN many a times perfectly). Should the choice of what to use - LN vs BDAG - then depend on the quality of the authors behind the 2 works? I've read raving reviews of BDAG on the Forums, something like everybody uses BDAG. The question then is: why and when use LN when you have BDAG?
Thank you
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
Comments
-
1Cor10 31 said:
Who assigns the Louw-Nida (LN) numbers to a given lemma in Logos.
I think it is easier to understand if you recognize that Louw-Nida assigned LN numbers to lemmas. Logos interlinears are linked to lemmas. Your question is rather for lemmas with multiple meanings, who assigned the LN of the appropriate sense of a lemma?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I use them both as supplements to each other. I think you would benefit from Vern S. Poythress, “Greek Lexicography and ESV Translation: Comparing Bauer’s and Louw-Nida’s Lexicons” (PDF), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44/2 (2001) 285-96. BDAG functions more like a dictionary, which is probably what one will need when they first start out as a language learner, but Louw Nida is used more for translations because it offers a variety of possibilities if you are looking for a Greek term to match what you are translating from English. BDAG is excellent for determining the meaning of a specific word. Louw Nida will help you find out how that word fits into the overall message of the text. When you know what other words the author could have used and then consider why he chose this specific word, you can gain a better understanding of what he is attempting to say. The biggest practical issue with Louw Nida is its small corpus. Because it only includes NT vocabulary, we do not have access to all of the semantic linkages found in Koine Greek. Synonyms, antonyms, and other related words not found in the New Testament are not discussed. This also makes the lexicon significantly less useful for studying the Septuagint and other early Christian and Jewish texts. Lexicography is perhaps more of an art than a science, and whether or not a word should be considered multilayered with multiple distinct senses, or if it has fewer senses but contextual subsenses within them, or whether those subsenses are only pragmatically distinct but not semantically distinct, are all judgment calls on the part of the lexicon editor, and we will disagree with them on occasion. Breaking up a word's senses or subsenses may result in you not seeing those other lexical entries if Louw and Nida believed they were conceptually unrelated. So it's ideal to utilize it alongside a traditional lexicon, such as BDAG, so you do not rely only on their judgment calls.
0 -
1Cor10 31 said:
Danny mentions "Logos has done the hard work for us of determining which of the possible meanings of λόγος (logos) is being used in our specific context. New Testament scholars and lexicographers have combed through the entire New Testament for our benefit and given the range of possible meanings for λόγος (logos) and determined that 33.100 is the best option here."
Sigh. Where's George, for goodness sakes.
I only rarely use it. Nor the Lexham Sense Lexicon. They attempt the answer from a theology.1Cor10 31 said:I've read raving reviews of BDAG on the Forums, something like everybody uses BDAG.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Where's George, for goodness sakes.
We do need a new resident curmudgeon to rail against interlinears and lists that interpret the obvious for us. Wouldn't it be nice to have Logos tag the ambiguities, inconsistencies, contradictions, interpretative anomalies, cross-references to related texts (apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, gnostic) ... and other fun stuff to keep you up at night puzzling it all out.
I've spent the day trying to tease out which linguistic theorists are utilized in my commentaries etc. -- that should cause a night or two of lost sleep.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
[A]
[^o)] George reminded me of Silent Sam too.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
It does not answer the original question, but there is an alternative. The United Bible Societies has created a freely available Bible dictionary, where the LN code is assigned to every use of every word, and also gives various options when interpretations might differ. Differently from BDAG, it is exhaustive (ie BDAG does not list or categorize every appearance of every word). The original data is at https://github.com/ubsicap/ubs-open-license/tree/main/dictionaries/greek , and it is converted to a Personal Book for Logos at https://community.logos.com/forums/t/219974.aspx .
Richard Wilson
0 -
Hi Richard
UBS Lexicon has different lemmas for LN 91.13 than those used in GNT's:
SBLGNT/NA28 ἴδε, ἰδού,ἄγω
UBS Lexicon ἄγω
ὁράω ==>
Alternate Lemma: ἴδε
Alternate Lemma: ἰδούThe alternate lemmas are not headwords in UBS, but ὁράω is not even used with 91.13 in the GNT's (see LN and DBL Greek lexicons).
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
1Cor10 31">Who assigns the Louw-Nida (LN) numbers to a given lemma in Logos.
I think it is easier to understand if you recognize that Louw-Nida assigned LN numbers to lemmas. Logos interlinears are linked to lemmas. Your question is rather for lemmas with multiple meanings, who assigned the LN of the appropriate sense of a lemma?
Volume 2 of the Louw-Nida Lexicon is where that assignment is made.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
1Cor10 31 said:
The question then is: why and when use LN when you have BDAG?
I refer to both realizing that each is a work of men more brilliant than I am, yet also frail in their understanding (they are not inspired).
I use BDAG to help figure out particular usage of a lemma that has various meanings (I ran to the store, I went for a run, My refrigerator is running).
I use LN to help figure out semantic domain - what words were available to the human author and why might he have chosen one instead of another (like, love, affection, favor, passion, solidarity, etc.)
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
0
