TDNT

Daniel Riecker

I currently have a Verbum package and I love it. I am currently working through the NT using TDNT. Having spent several years in academia I always do my best to check my sources and to learn about the authors and editors of works I am utilizing. While looking into the background of the editor of the TDNT, I discovered that G. Kittel seems to have been an Anti-Semite in the Nazi Party, advocated for the extermination of the Jews, wrote several academic papers on the "Final Solution", and was held by  the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg, and Wlliam F. Albright is quoted in Wikipedia as stating to the Tribunal "In view of the terrible viciousness of his attacks on Judaism and the Jews, which continues at least until 1943, Gerhard Kittel must bear the guilt of having contributed more, perhaps, than any other Christian theologian to the mass murder of Jews by Nazis."

 I also found this comment on a website, Biblical Research, http://biot500.wordpress.com/lessons/lesson-4-the-historical-study-of-the-bible/732-2/ : "Here’s an irony of history: This approach to getting at the Hebrew concept behind Greek words is best exemplified in Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.  Sadly, we have to acknowledge that Kittel was a Nazi, and there are anti-Jewish elements in his great work (he was the editor, other scholars wrote the individual articles).  His teacher was Adolph Schlatter, a devout Christian with a love for the Old Testament and an appreciation for Israel’s testimony to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.  Schlatter developed the word study method in conjunction with his colleague Cremer and exemplified it in his 500 page study of Faith in the New Testament.  The method, which Schlatter taught to his student Kittel was to study the usage of each NT word exhaustively including its use in the NT, in the papyri and Greek inscriptions, in classical Greek, and in the Septuagint—then to study the Hebrew word underlying the Septuagint concept.  Each usage was studied in context, then various uses were categories, and the underlying theological concepts were clarified.

So, it wasn’t actually Albright’s students who produced Kittel’s TDNT, but it illustrates their way of doing theology."

While this does not, in itself, eliminate the TDNT as a good resource, I am cautious about what kind of influence this may have had on this work. I would appreciate some thoughts on this and on the reputation of the TDNT.

Unix

I highly doubt it affected, I mean of course he wore a theological hat while working on TDNT.

Ken McGuire

The TDNT is a landmark of scholarship.  It assembles into "easy" to read volumes the work of many scholars combing through academic libraries.  I, for one, would not want to be without it.

That said, it has its weaknesses.  In school we were alerted to the antisemitism of the early volumes.  But even if with this, the data collected and presented is still useful.

Others have criticized the methodology of these volumes.  They do sometimes argue that the "root" meaning is the one meant in scripture.  But roots are only a part of the meaning of words.  For example, if I were to ask if a sweater is hand made or manufactured, you would know what I mean by the question.  But the word "manufacture" is from the Latin roots for "hand" and "to make", and so the root meaning of "manufacture" is to make by hand - quite the opposite of the meaning today by common usage.

And so you should not accept what the TDNT says uncritically.  But it remains a monument of research, and so remains useful.

SDG

Ken McGuire

P A

When was Kittels Theological Dictionary of The New Testament Written? Published?  What Languages?

What is the relationship between and TDNT and the Little Kittel?

To what extent are his anti-Jewish views reflected in his work?

How does his work compare to other similar works?

Should we use with caution?

Thanks

P A

DMB

Daniel ... you have an academic background. It should be easy enough to simply read from left to right, watching carefully for anything that looks suspicious.