What underpins the sense information in BSL?

The discussion at http://community.logos.com/forums/t/73948.aspx reminded me of a study I had done in 3 John where the sense information provided by BSL was helpful.

I was looking at the word "trust" and found that the sense information provided indicates that the word is used in this letter to convey different meanings - sometimes a generic "truth" but more frequently the "gospel of Jesus".

Examples below:

Moving over to the BSL and looking for this sense of "truth" I found it shown as occurring 25 times in total

I looked into this further, consulted various commentaries which had various views on this idea and found it provided some useful insight.

But I was left with a couple of questions:

On what basis is the determination made that - in these 25 occurrences of the word truth - it has this particular sense? With 25 occurrences it was relatively easy to look at the various passages and take a view - with 250 occurrences of something else it would be more difficult.
Related to the first question, how confident should we be that there aren't really 26 occurrences?

Any insights appreciated,

Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Not to intrude too much on your query, Graham, but your example illustrates the BSL largely reflecting today's theologies. I'm presently moving between the apostolic fathers into the church fathers along with hefty doses of Eusebius vs Origen. The 2nd example very likely is closer to 2-ways and so a differing semantic location. Ok. I'll shut up.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516678#Comment_516678

Hi Denise

but your example illustrates the BSL largely reflecting today's theologies

Interesting observation - I think you mean that this might not have been the way it was seen earlier. By earlier I am referring to the sort of eras to which you then refer. Is that the point you are making?

The 2nd example very likely is closer to 2-ways and so a differing semantic location.

Sorry, didn't understand that - but think I might like to[:)]

Could you expand please?

Graham

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516725#Comment_516725

I'll probably get clobbered!

'Yes', Graham, in answer to your first question. But part (all?) of my comments may be due to mistakenly perceiving the BSL as a professional lexicon a la the FSB dictionary or some of the other Lexham products. Your example quite clearly demonstates it's really a theological interpretation tool that is well situated in today's Christianity. And that's fine.

I had thought (incorrectly) the BSL would show the 'shades' within the world of the authorship. And so by necessity more than 1 choice is almost always needed simply by virtue of the scholarship.

In the above example, 'truth' quite often was one side of 'two ways'. Way of truth ... way of sin, etc. Often 2-ways in 2nd Temple writing, and indeed Paul, is accompanied by the cosmic battle with Satan and his minions. The BSL structure at 2 Jo 4 attempts to interpret it as 'the gospel' which of course presumes much, but fits most churches today, where it describes a true/false orientation concerning a speaker's creed.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516813#Comment_516813

I'll probably get clobbered!

'Yes', Graham, in answer to your first question. But part (all?) of my comments may be due to mistakenly perceiving the BSL as a professional lexicon a la the FSB dictionary or some of the other Lexham products. Your example quite clearly demonstates it's really a theological interpretation tool that is well situated in today's Christianity. And that's fine.

I had thought (incorrectly) the BSL would show the 'shades' within the world of the authorship. And so by necessity more than 1 choice is almost always needed simply by virtue of the scholarship.

In the above example, 'truth' quite often was one side of 'two ways'. Way of truth ... way of sin, etc. Often 2-ways in 2nd Temple writing, and indeed Paul, is accompanied by the cosmic battle with Satan and his minions. The BSL structure at 2 Jo 4 attempts to interpret it as 'the gospel' which of course presumes much, but fits most churches today, where it describes a true/false orientation concerning a speaker's creed.

I'm certainly not going to be the one to clobber you. [;)] Actually I think that you make a good point. With this type of tool theological slants are easy to show through so I really like your suggestion of future versions of the BSL having more than one choice. [Y]

(‾◡◝)

On what basis is the determination made that - in these 25 occurrences of the word truth - it has this particular sense?

Excellent question.

Here's another. What is the meaning of "... especially as a message that conforms to (and answers) the nature of reality."? Huh? Sounds suspiciously like psychobabble with a spritz of the academy (sniff).

-- deleted --

Personally, I rate this tool as an overreach of dubious value. My advice is to use with a wary eye and treat it as just another commentary full of someone else's opinions about the meaning of the text.

Sorry if I sound too negative.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516849#Comment_516849

I am not troubled with some vagueness nor even with modern theological slants. We all know words are used with different senses and Logos' attempt to make us aware of this and help us get a handle on what sense a word is used in a particular setting is commendable. There is no doubt that in some instances the sense of a word's use is a matter of debatable interpretation. It is up to the exegete to understand this, make allowances, and pursue the possible options before arriving at an interpretation.

To date I have give the tool relatively little use. I do not have that much trouble understanding the use of a word in context nor exploring the interpretive possibilities when this seems significant.

This is very much a tool in development from what I understand and will benefit from constructive criticism for all who use it regularly. For example, the suggestion to be sure that word senses as understood previous ages of the church are included is a good one.

MJ. Smith

Related to the first question, how confident should we be that there aren't really 26 occurrences?

The answer is - the same confidence as you'd give to any lexicon depending upon the word and your experience with the lexicon.

On what basis is the determination made that - in these 25 occurrences of the word truth - it has this particular sense? With 25 occurrences it was relatively easy to look at the various passages and take a view - with 250 occurrences of something else it would be more difficult.

Logos developed it themselves based upon the same lexicon they based their glosses on if I remember correctly.

I had thought (incorrectly) the BSL would show the 'shades' within the world of the authorship. And so by necessity more than 1 choice is almost always needed simply by virtue of the scholarship.

Setting correct expectations (in my opinion):

word nets are designed to work within a single language - Logos creating ia multi-language version is a new twist that still has some kinks to work out
the intent is that there is a separate entry for each sense rather than the use of multiple senses for a single use; this is a stricter rule than most dictionaries, often resulting in more senses
the power is in the ability to see easily a number of facts about the semantic domain of the word - the larger domain of which it is a part (parent), the way the domain can be subdivided (children), and the internal qualities within the domain that allow for classification (siblings). Cousins can be useful in a well-developed word net ... but I've not run into good examples in Logos yet. Third cousins once removed - don't push it.[:)]

Your example quite clearly demonstates it's really a theological interpretation tool that is well situated in today's Christianity. And that's fine.

This is true in the sense that every translation. and hence bilingual lexicon, is interpretation.

I'll probably get clobbered!

I hope you don't feel clobbered ... I'm trying to use you as a means to spread an accurate understanding of how to use the BSL.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516813#Comment_516813

I'll probably get clobbered!

Thanks Denise

I really appreciate your response.

Graham

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516855#Comment_516855

Hi Mark

I am not troubled with some vagueness nor even with modern theological slants. We all know words are used with different senses and Logos' attempt to make us aware of this and help us get a handle on what sense a word is used in a particular setting is commendable. There is no doubt that in some instances the sense of a word's use is a matter of debatable interpretation. It is up to the exegete to understand this, make allowances, and pursue the possible options before arriving at an interpretation.

Thanks for this - some good perspective here.

For example, the suggestion to be sure that word senses as understood previous ages of the church are included is a good one.

That would be very useful

Graham

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516895#Comment_516895

Hi MJ

Related to the first question, how confident should we be that there aren't really 26 occurrences?

The answer is - the same confidence as you'd give to any lexicon depending upon the word and your experience with the lexicon.

Very fair answer - guess I just need to use it more[:)]

Logos developed it themselves based upon the same lexicon they based their glosses on if I remember correctly.

That's useful to know.

the power is in the ability to see easily a number of facts about the semantic domain of the word - the larger domain of which it is a part (parent), the way the domain can be subdivided (children), and the internal qualities within the domain that allow for classification (siblings).

That is a very helpful way of looking at it - I'll bear that in mind.

Graham