http://www.logos.com/product/8512/a-critical-lexicon-and-concordance-to-the-english-and-greek-new-testament[8-|]
More "Let's pretend"—Let's pretend we know the original languages even though we don't. It's better to rely on a trusted commentary.
It's better to rely on a trusted commentary.
My opinion: Go for it!
If we listened to all the conditions that the learned scholars wrote, we would get nowhere!
Because according to them, you have to be able to sight-read the Greek New Testament and do all kinds of linguistic trickery to get to the real meaning of the "paragraphs, chapters, and books." But that is not all. No, you have to be an expert in Second Temple Judaism and have a good grasp of 1st century Greek and Roman literature, Classical literature, and Aramaic Targums....otherwise you will not understand the full context of all of the quotes and allusions in the New Testament.
Since each scholar only concentrates on a tiny little area in his field, alas, it shall be impossible for anyone to understand the scriptures.It enough to turn any Protestant into a Roman Catholic. At least with the Pope, you can't go wrong.(I've been tempted to do this myself in the past, really).
Or, we can accept the reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture. I think word meanings can still be helpful on this level. I'll go for this level and order the lexicon! [:)]
Thanks Kendall good response.
I understand where George is coming from " A little knowledge can be dangerous".
We should be humble and know the limitations of our knowlege.
If we had to be world class experts in ancients languages before we purchase anything in Logos, then Logos would go bust.
Yes a Greek English Diglot is beter than a reverse interlinear in sense of learning New Testament Greek.
Not everyone has the time, money or opportunity to learn the Biblical languages like George, so we have to make do with shortcuts like a lexicon.
We use these resource to comfirm what George say is true! We use them in a humble spirit and yes consult the better commentaries that are accessable to us Layman.
Buy George no Buy Lexicon.
It is easy to criticize George and short-circuit real learning. Analytical lexicons and interlinears do not assist in the proper interpretation of Scripture. They actually hinder the process. If you are willing to settle for someone else doing your thinking, why pretend to study the original language? Just buy a good commentary and be done with it.
Analytical lexicons and interlinears do not assist in the proper interpretation of Scripture.
They actually hinder the process.
My opinion: Go for it! If we listened to all the conditions that the learned scholars wrote, we would get nowhere! Because according to them, you have to be able to sight-read the Greek New Testament and do all kinds of linguistic trickery to get to the real meaning of the "paragraphs, chapters, and books." But that is not all. No, you have to be an expert in Second Temple Judaism and have a good grasp of 1st century Greek and Roman literature, Classical literature, and Aramaic Targums....otherwise you will not understand the full context of all of the quotes and allusions in the New Testament. Since each scholar only concentrates on a tiny little area in his field, alas, it shall be impossible for anyone to understand the scriptures.It enough to turn any Protestant into a Roman Catholic. At least with the Pope, you can't go wrong.(I've been tempted to do this myself in the past, really). Or, we can accept the reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture. I think word meanings can still be helpful on this level. I'll go for this level and order the lexicon!
Or, we can accept the reformation doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture. I think word meanings can still be helpful on this level. I'll go for this level and order the lexicon!
So you think it's "all or nothing" in the opinion of some? Hardly. Some take a lexicon and pick one of the glosses from what is listed since they would like to understand the passage in that sense rather than looking to see whether it was used elsewhere in similar passages with that particular sense. Some think that they understand a word if they can determine where it comes from, i.e., what did it originally mean. Words mean different things in different contexts as well as different things in different times. Lewis Carroll's words put into Humpty-Dumptey's mouth are very true
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"
That is why taking a listing of glosses for a word and essentially throwing a dart to pick the meaning you wish to assign it is dangerous. Equally dangerous is to think that a word always has some defined relation to what it originally meant (good luck determining that!). A word conveys a certain concept in the passage in which it is used, not in what some person 300-1,000 years previously may have meant by it. This doesn't take the ability to sight-read fluently or to hold a conversation in the language. It does, however, entail understanding the principles of language and how to determine what is meant when a word is used in some defined way.
George, now that you have explained more fully I can say that I agree with you. I was just concerned that sometimes scholars such as yourself unload too much on the layman who does not have the resources to do it right.
Perhaps there is a resource that you could point the layman to which would greatly assist in not making the mistakes that you mentioned. Maybe something that doesn't require several years in seminary. That's all I am saying. And I do mean it in humility, as P A said. I want to encourage people, but not start a disagreement.
Thanks for understanding. [:)]
Well, reading the Logos writeup, this resource has the great advantage of throwing a dart and seeing which manuscript/textform you hit. Since we've no idea where the KJV got its text, this will really be helpful.
I'm already making a dartboard in the kitchen! And it won't even have those young whipper-snappers NA27/UBS4. We should be using what is time-tested.
So you think it's "all or nothing" in the opinion of some? Hardly. Some take a lexicon and pick one of the glosses from what is listed since they would like to understand the passage in that sense rather than looking to see whether it was used elsewhere in similar passages with that particular sense. Some think that they understand a word if they can determine where it comes from, i.e., what did it originally mean. Words mean different things in different contexts as well as different things in different times. Lewis Carroll's words put into Humpty-Dumptey's mouth are very true "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'" That is why taking a listing of glosses for a word and essentially throwing a dart to pick the meaning you wish to assign it is dangerous. Equally dangerous is to think that a word always has some defined relation to what it originally meant (good luck determining that!). A word conveys a certain concept in the passage in which it is used, not in what some person 300-1,000 years previously may have meant by it. This doesn't take the ability to sight-read fluently or to hold a conversation in the language. It does, however, entail understanding the principles of language and how to determine what is meant when a word is used in some defined way.
A good response, George. Context* is king ... even for those who are able to 'sight-read' the original languages. Biblical meaning (which is the goal) entails much more than the mere lexical. To think that a lexical-grammatical 'answer' (even if it does happen to be correct) delivers the true meaning of a passage is as falacious as believing that a purely inductive study will necessarily get you there. Lexicology is only the first step.
But that is NOT to say that this isn't a valuable resource ... just be aware of George's caveat.
*[and presuppositions]
We should be using what is time-tested.
You mean things like Vaticanus, Siniaiticus, Alexandrinus and the Oxyrhynchus papyri? That's basically what NA27 uses.
George, now that you have explained more fully I can say that I agree with you. I was just concerned that sometimes scholars such as yourself unload too much on the layman who does not have the resources to do it right. Perhaps there is a resource that you could point the layman to which would greatly assist in not making the mistakes that you mentioned. Maybe something that doesn't require several years in seminary. That's all I am saying. And I do mean it in humility, as P A said. I want to encourage people, but not start a disagreement. Thanks for understanding.
Thanks for understanding.
Etymological study can be interesting, but it isn't something you want to rely on to determine what a word means in any particular passage (unless it is a recently coined term such as "malapropism"). Similarly, the use in one particular context doesn't apply to a completely different one. How to determine? That's why one must rely on those who are familiar with the field if they themselves are not. One would not go to a carpenter to diagnose his illness. I won't mention specific individuals who would be helpful in determining what a passage means since I would doubtless skip many, but I would say that, if a particular author doesn't pay attention to what a word means to contemporaries of an author he is attempting to understand or if he relies on etymology too heavily, he is to be avoided.
Let me provide a couple of examples of how historical context matters.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
1 Cor 10.25The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873.
I don't think Paul was talking about buying meat in my (somewhat disorganized) place. At the time this translation was made "shambles" referred to a meat market.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2 Thess 2.7The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873.
We generally understand "let" as to allow whereas here, the passage clearly means "to restrain." The language has changed considerably over time.
P.S.: This is another reason in addition to advancing knowledge of languages, history, etc why old works are frequently to be avoided. What the author of older works intended when he wrote may be different from what you understand.
Well, I was just amused by being able with 1 resource to overcome our curiousity with the KJV . But I'm slowing becoming suspicious of the NA27/UBS4 train of thought too. Mainly from going through the syriac sinai palympset, too many of Metzger's rationales ring hollow.
A 37 second example of the misuse of word definitions:
[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTKmMuAs7Sc:550:0]
Fortunately, this has not been my experience. But the "learned scholars" do remind me to be honest about my limitations which I think is the crux of George's concerns.
I think I may not have been clear enough in my initial post. I am not arguing against scholarship, although it did sound like that. Some of my own favorite books have been D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, and Moises Silva's Biblical Words and their meaning.
Some of what I said was tongue in cheek. It doesn't come through on the page though. I am sorry about that. In the future I will be more careful about how I say things so as not to be misconstrued.
My own point was about the limitations in our own judgement of context in determining the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and books. The layman has no recourse but to use aides created by scholars. Personally, I use BDAG as I am reading along in the Greek, taking into account the context in as far as my limited mind (much more limited than many of you) can.
Anyway, thanks for everybody correcting me! I appreciate it...I have learned a lesson. [:)]
George - A question:
Am I understanding you correctly that it's not that something wrong with lexicons and interlinears it's that some people misuse them.
Look I understand we are not "all" greek/ herew scholars and rely upon the works of others
but thats why we use "tools" likw http://www.logos.com/product/24063/exegetical-summaries-series-upgrade" it would also be great if we had the semantic and structial analysis series offered by them as well. We have good commentery series to chose from and other tools - use them.
George - A question: Am I understanding you correctly that it's not that something wrong with lexicons and interlinears it's that some people misuse them.
Pretty much though I don't care for some lexicons which only provide glosses from which one must pick willy-nilly.
I use BDAG as I am reading along in the Greek, taking into account the context in as far as my limited mind (much more limited than many of you) can.
I'm glad to hear that. You might consider in the process of using BDAG using the Cited by tool to locate if/where the passage you are considering is cited. If it happens to be under the word you are considering, it will help to pin down what Danker thought its use was.
Some of what I said was tongue in cheek.
We really need a smilie depicting that [8-|]
It doesn't come through on the page though
That happens to all of us at times, even George has been misunderstood—if you can believe that [:D]
even George has been misunderstood—if you can believe that
Moi? [:^)]
George
What are your thoughts on Mounces expository dictionary?
Thanks
P A
George What are your thoughts on Mounces expository dictionary? Thanks P A
You should use BDAG—no exceptions.
Precisely. While many might think that they must learn the Hebrew, Greek and even Aramaic to understand the Bible, they miss the entire point. The fact many do not learn these languages, makes them more in danger of falling into that trap; therefore, they pick up these tools, and use them, "willy nilly" as you said, making more problems than if they just lived and learned the English version, and left it at that. Sadly, all too often, these tools are an unnatural means to an even more unnatural end. I mean, WHO uses dictionaries to translate and read an entire document? When it comes to the Bible, it's best to understand the original languages on your own. If this is not feasible, then, at the very least, people should trust the translations they have, and get the surface down pat, and not worry about "the deeper meaning". Afterall, is God more concerned about us loving him and people, or, how deeply we rooted out the meaning of Daniel's ten toes, and why ten is so "important in the bible" compared to five? Tools are nice; but, never a substitute for gaining real knowledge.
George, would you put HALOT in this same league for OT? Would BDB come a close second? Thanks.
You should use BDAG—no exceptions. George, would you put HALOT in this same league for OT? Would BDB come a close second? Thanks.
Unlike other lexica compared to BDAG, BDB is still very acceptable though it lacks the input from the discoveries at Ugarit. If you can't afford HALOT, get BDB. If you can afford HALOT, buy it, and if you you still have $$, buy BDB as well.
Here we go again with people thinking that just because someone doesn't know the original languages that they cannot understand the Bible. The Bible itself speaks against this. Book of James anyone? Stop being Pharisees!
I think you're hearing things which weren't said. Time to get your hearing checked.
Don't you mean the Book of Jacob?
Here we go again with people thinking that just because someone doesn't know the original languages that they cannot understand the Bible. The Bible itself speaks against this. Book of James anyone? Stop being Pharisees! Don't you mean the Book of Jacob?
In case you hadn't noticed, Paul, the language of this forum is English. In English we call him James regardless of the fact that his name in Hebrew/Aramaic was Jacob (actually, it wasn't even Jacob but Ya`akob). Neither is it Yeshu`a (or some corruption of that) but Jesus. You complained about my remarks to you, but you persist in such inanities.
"All one needs is a faithful English version of the Bible and a good dictionary, and he will be equipped for every work in Christ Jesus." ~ Wilbert Webster White (father of the inductive Bible study method, and founder of the Biblical Seminary in NY)
"All one needs is a fateful English version of the Bible
That could indeed be "faTeful." (Not disagreeing, I just thought the typo was funny. [:D]
"All one needs is a fateful English version of the Bible That could indeed be "faTeful." (Not disagreeing, I just thought the typo was funny.
That could indeed be "faTeful." (Not disagreeing, I just thought the typo was funny.
Good catch George, I still need one of those spell checkers that knows what I meant to say [:D]
Although I can think of at least one fateful English translation that folks keep coming to my door with...[li]
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
