TDOT/TDNT (27 vols.) vs "What I Currently Have" - Is the TDOT/TDNT Worth the Price?

I (hopefully) will have my academic discount re-approved soon for another 6 month period. If it is I'm considering some new purchases, one of which is the TDOT/TDNT (27 vols - not the new version). But, I had a few comparison questions.

I really don't want to double up (multiple series that really say the same thing) and I'm REALLY gun shy of buying books/resources that I've never used before, especially at very high prices. I'm wondering how this dictionary set stacks up against what I currently have already (if comparable individually or together then there is no sense in spending an additional $680).

Current List:

-ISBE 1915 Edition
-Easton's Bible Dictionary
-Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
-Lexham Bible Dictionary
-Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vol)
-Lexham Theological Wordbook
-Multiple multi-volume Systematic Theologies

So if you stacked these together against the TDOT/TDNT, how would they compare? Most specifically, would the TDOT/TDNT be primarily a repeat of information? Is it really worth the $680 price tag? How much more information by percentage would you say is contained in the TDOT/TDNT that could not be found in what I already have?

How does the TDOT/TDNT stack up against the ISBE in particular? How does it stack up against the Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vol)?

Thanks for any opinions.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin A

TDOT/TDNT is a lexicon which studies vocabulary/grammar, ISBE/AYBD are encyclopedia which detail different subjects, there is not too much to compare as they have different functions, most words in the AYBD are not in TDNT as no theological significance.

Certain theological words will be in TDNT, such as Logos, Blasphemy, or Sabbath, albeit the greek word, and offer very good details explanations/usage, I think the word 'Dictionary' confuses things, a lexicon being closer to what most people think a dictionary is, but perhaps it is apt common ground for the TDNT/TDOT and the AYBD, they both offer very detailed information but differently. The TDNT is more like an encyclopedia just indexed as a lexicon is.

I could post an excerpt of a word in the TDNT/TDOT if you wish you would like compared with AYBD

You can preview the TDNT https://www.logos.com/product/8491/theological-dictionary-of-the-new-testament-tdnt by clicking on See Inside below the image, and hopefully that will help you compare the other resources also such as TDOT as the previews are very limited.

There is also a 'light' version of the TDNT which might be worth considering in collection. https://www.logos.com/product/390/the-theological-dictionary-of-the-new-testament-abridged-in-one-volume

Quite difficult to explain, hopefully someone else can give a good comparison. I do however very much recommend them if you want to delve deep.

Steven Veach

Yeah, they should have used lexicon instead of dictionary to be more exact. I think I have enough lexicons, especially given the price of this set. Thanks for the info.

Kevin A

I edited my post to be clearer, the TDNT/TDOT is more like an encyclopedia in it's detail, and very much worth looking at.

Here for example is a small part of the 'Apostle' equivalent.

ἀποστέλλω (πέμπω), ἐξαποστέλλω, ἀπόστολος, Ψευδαπόστολος, ἀποστολή

ἀποστέλλω (πέμπω).*

    A.      ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω in Secular Greek.

1. ἀποστέλλειν in its basic meaning “to send forth,” together with the simp. στέλλειν and along with πέμπειν, is well attested both in the literature and the common speech of the classical period as well as Hellenism, and it is often used of the sending of persons as well as’ things,1 As a compound of στέλλειν, it has an additional emphasis as compared with it. This emerges esp. when it is used figuratively2 or almost technically,3 Thus it is more sharply accentuated in relation to the consciousness of a goal or to effort towards its attainment. There is also a significant difference from πέμπειν. In the latter the point is the sending as such, i.e., the fact of sending, as in the transmission of an object or commission or the sending of a man. ἀποστέλλειν, however, expresses the fact that the sending takes place from a specific and unique standpoint which does not merely link the sender and recipient but also, in virtue of the situation, unites with the sender either the person or the object sent. To this extent it is only logical that ἀποστέλλειν should also carry with it the significance that the sending implies a commission bound up with the person of the one sent. This emerges more clearly in Hellenistic Gk. The expression: οἱ ἀπεσταλμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως (3rd. century B.C.), in Dikaiomata ed. Graec. Hal., 1, 124; cf. 147 and 154, gives us already an interesting example of this development, the more so as the construction is purely verbal.4 To be sure, the rulers of provinces sent from Rome are sometimes referred to as οἱ πεμπόμενοι (Ael. Arist. Or., 24 [14], 37 [II, p. 102, 12, Keil]); but the context is sufficient to show that what is in view is less the goal of their coming, i.e., the assumption of the office for which they are commissioned, than the fact of their coming from Rome as an impressive concretion of the empire. In relation to the distinction between πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω the different meanings of πομπή are also instructive, as is the fact that this word is never used in the NT and only once in the LXX in a very doubtful passage (ψ 43:14) which is attested only by Chrysostom (Field, Hexapla, ad loc.) and has no MS support. In general the word πομπή is only externally related to the basic term πέμπω, and in content it is closer to → θέατρον, 1 C. 4:9. Compounds in the LXX are ἀποπομπή, Lv. 16:10; παραπομπή, 1 Macc. 9:37; προπομπή, 1 Εσδρ. 8:51.

2. Already the formula ἀπεσταλμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως links with the thought of sending the further thought of the associated authorisation of the one sent. The men thus described are representatives of their monarch and his authority.5 Yet the use of ἀποστέλλειν in this sense is not in any way restricted to the legal sphere. On the contrary, it takes on its full sense when used, if we may put it thus, to express the impartation of full religious and ethical power. This takes place in the diatribe of the Cynics and Stoics,6 though in this respect it is simply following a common usage of philosophical religion.7 The Cynic knows himself to be an ἄγγελος καὶ κατάσκοπος καὶ κῆρυξ τῶν θεῶν (Epict. Diss., III, 22, 69), not because he is ordained such by himself or his pupils, but because he is certain that he is one who is divinely sent, an ἀποσταλείς, like Diogenes (I, 24, 6). Epictetus can lay it down as a rule (II, 22, 23: τὸν ταῖς ἀληθείαις Κυνικὸν … εἰδέναι δεῖ, ὅτι ἄγγελος ἀπὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἀπέσταλται …) that the ultimate presupposition for genuine Cynicism is awareness of being divinely sent. In all these cases8 ἀποστέλλειν is a technical term for divine authorisation, whereas πέμπειν is used when it is a matter of the charging of the Cynic with a specific task on human initiative9 (I, 24, 3: καὶ νῦν ἡμεῖς γε εἰς τὴν ʼΠώμην κατάσκοπον πέμπομεν. οὐδεὶς δὲ δειλὸν κατάσκοπον πέμπει …; ibid., I, 24, 5).10 Even linguistically, however, it is another matter, and goes beyond the awareness of mission expressed by ἀποστέλλεσθαι, when Epictetus alleges as the only authority, even in face of the emperor and his representative, the καταπεπομφὼς αὐτὸν καὶ ᾧ λατρεύει, ὁ Ζεύς (III, 22, 56, cf. 59). This brings us close to a view which represents the divinity of the true philosopher and which is first emphatically proclaimed by the Cynics (θεῖος ἄνθρωπος) in adoption of a thought of Antisthenes.11 We need not pursue this in the present context, but we must mention it because, in spite of the use of καταπέμπειν, it is better explained and understood in terms of ἀποστέλλειν than πέμπειν. The use of ἀποστέλλειν for entrusting with a religious commission is not confined, of course, to Epictetus. Thus Irenaeus summed up as follows the claim of Menander, the disciple of Simon Magus: ἑαυτὸν μὲν ὡς ἄρα εἴη ὁ σωτὴρ ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄνωθέν ποθεν ἐξ ἀοράτων αἰώνων ἀπεσταλμένος σωτηρίᾳ (I, 23, 5; cf. Eus. Hist. Eccl., III, 26, 1), and he can hardly have used the term unless it was suggested by the matter itself. Again, Philo knows and uses it in the same sense, as in Migr. Abr., 22. Here it is said of Joseph: τὸ φάναι μὴ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀπεστάλθαι, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ κεχειροτονῆσθαι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῶν ἐκτὸς ἔννομον ἐπιστασίαν.
We thus have a religious use of the word in three men in widely varying circles of life and even in very different locations. We can hardly overestimate the significance of this fact for the linguistic expression of the early Christian awareness of mission (→ ἀπόστολος). Naturally, the original meaning of ἀποστέλλειν did not come to be restricted to the exclusive significance of the divine sending and authorisation of a man. Nevertheless, this constitutes the climax of the history of the term, even though alongside it the original secular use continued well into Christian times, as attested amongst other things by many non-literary sources.12

    B.      ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω in the LXX (OT) and Judaism.

1. In the LXX ἀποστέλλειν occurs more than 700 times, in many cases with the variant ἐξαποστέλλειν. With few exceptions it is a rendering of the root שלח, usually in its verbal forms. Similarly שלח is predominantly13 translated ἀποστέλλειν or → ἐξαποστέλλειν. In contrast, the simp. στέλλειν and πέμπειν are almost completely absent. Indeed, στέλλειν does not occur at all, but only → στέλλεσθαι, which we shall ignore in this context. πέμπειν is found about 26 times,14 but only in 6 cases does it render a Heb. original;15 the other instances are in texts which exist only in Gk. The compounds of πέμπειν are so infrequent16 that they do not affect the picture. In the LXX ἀποστέλλειν is the Gk. term for the OT שלח. There is no need to expound the meaning of שלח, since our present concern is with the Gk. equivalent. In brief, however, we may say that ἀποστέλλειν in the LXX corresponds to the original to the extent that it is predominantly used where it is a matter of commissioning with a message or task. מַלְאָךְ and שָׁלַח are conjoined in numerous instances, irrespective of whether the task committed to the messenger is human17 or divine.18

Moreover ἀποστέλλειν//שלח alone is a technical term for the sending of a messenger with a special task; the messenger himself does not have to be named.19 In other words, the emphasis rests on the fact of sending in conjunction with the one who sends, not on the one who is sent. This aspect reaches its climax in the description of the call of Isaiah. Here (6:8) God can ask: אֶת־מִי אֶשְׁלַח וּמִי יֵלֶךְ־לָנוּ, meaning that He needs someone whom he may send as His plenipotentiary, even though this does not have to be stated and is not actually expressed in Isaiah’s brief declaration of readiness (הִנְנִי שְׁלָחֵנִי). At this point we can see most clearly what is the characteristic feature of שלח in all its meanings, namely, the volitional and conscious element in a planned action of any kind. Thus שלח is less a statement concerning the mission than a statement concerning its initiator and his concern;20 the one who is sent is of interest only to the degree that in some measure he embodies in his existence as such the one who sends him. In principle, it does not matter who it is that sends, whether God or man, or who it is that is sent, whether a heavenly or an earthly messenger. Even in the consciousness of the hearer of the commission, the emphasis lies on its author, as we can see from such cases as Abraham (Gn. 12:1 ff.), Eliezer (Gn. 24:1 ff.), Moses and above all the prophets (→ ἀπόστολος, 414).

2. The usage of the LXX is marked by the consistency with which it pursues this thought. This emerges in the fact that there is no mechanical rendering of שלח by ἀποστέλλειν,21 and yet that contrary to the literal sense ἀποστέλλειν is sometimes used for שלח in order to emphasise the purposive and authoritative element in the action concerned and the position of the one who acts.
Thus שלח as well as שלח יד can denote stretching forth the hand. According to the sense the LXX ought to choose one of the renderings listed under n. 13 when it encounters this short formula. But it does not always do so. Thus Ps. 18:16 says of God: יִשְׁלַח מִמָּרוֹם יִקָּחֵנִי, and Ps. 144:7 makes it indisputably clear that He is stretching out His hand to deliver the Psalmist. In ψ 17:17 the LXX has: ἐξαπέστειλεν (→ ἐξαποστέλλω) ἐξ ὕψους22 καὶ ἔλαβέν με, although, as ψ 143:7 shows, ἐξαπέστειλεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ would have met the data. In contrast, it is quite according to the sense that in 2 Βασ‌. 6:6 a simple וַיִּשְׁלַח is rendered: καὶ ἐξέτεινεν … τὴν χεῖρα, while in Ob. 13 συνεπιτίθεσθαι is used for שלח, quite in accordance with the context and the shade of meaning. Apart from ψ 56:4; 143:7, [ἐξ] αποστέλλειν τὴν χεῖρα is used elsewhere for שלח יד only at Ex. 9:15; Job 2:5 and Cant. 5:4. Only in the last instance is it used of a man, and in this case it has the special sense of putting one’s hand through the hole in the door. Conversely, ἐκτείνειν τὴν χεῖρα is used only in relation to man.23 Behind this distinction there stands more than a spiritualised view of God. The limitation of ἀποστέλλειν to God expresses an essential feature of God, namely, the absoluteness of His will. It also brings out the fact that ἀποστέλλειν is not merely linked externally with שלח but has taken on its characteristic element of the awareness and the raising of a claim. In contrast ἐκτείνειν simply affirms the fact without any further interest in its subject. We thus have a similar situation to that of the purely Gk. relationship between ἀποστέλλειν and πέμπειν.24

Self-evidently the ἀποστέλλειν of the LXX cannot deny its linguistic origin. That which characterises the term in secular usage is not lost in biblical Greek but passes into it and links up with what is contributed by the OT equivalent. We may thus say that in the LXX the word is as little given a specifically religious flavour as שלח in the Heb. OT Even in the accounts of the sending of the prophets25 we do not have a purely religious use. In such contexts the word simply denotes sending; it acquires a religious connotation only to the extent that the situation is religiously conditioned and the obedience of the one to be sent is seen as a self-evident attitude before God as the One who sends—an obedience not to be distinguished in its practical results from that which might be rendered, e.g., to a king. It is of a piece with this, and ought to be noted, that in the OT sphere there neither is nor can be any use of שלח or ἀποστέλλειν to describe a consciousness of mission such as that which is the climax of the self-consciousness of the Cynic;26 for alongside the unconditional subordination to the will of Him who sends, which שׁלח and ἀποστέλλειν here presuppose in the messenger, there is no place for this kind of exalted emotion. This may also help to explain why there is no need to restrict the significance and use of ἀποστέλλειν to the purely religious field, though the term has an assured place in most important religious contexts and there is a tendency to use the word only for divine sending.27

3. Rabbinic Judaism keeps within the sphere delineated in its use of שלח. Nowhere does it go beyond the secular use. A special position is occupied only by the derived subst. שָׁלוּחַ or שָׁלִיחַ (→ ἀπόστολος, 414). Josephus uses the word about 75 times.28 On the one side he employs it more or less synon. with πέμπειν;29 on the other it is used to denote an official mission as such.30 In many cases πέμπειν is for Josephus a rather colourless omnibus word like the German lassen.31 This never happens, however, in the case of ἀποστέλλειν. Even where this word is used interchangeably with πέμπειν, it still carries with it a reference to awareness of the action denoted. It is thus understandable that Josephus, too, uses ἀποστέλλειν when the reference is to sending by God, anal. to the usage of the LXX.32 The same seems to be the case in 4 Esr., where the missus est (4:1; 5:31; 7:1; cf. misit, 6:33; misi, 14:4 etc.) with reference to the angel presupposes an ἀπεστάλη etc. in the Gk. We have already said33 that in Philo, as in the Cynic-Stoic diatribe, we find an absol. use of ἀποστέλλειν or ἀποστέλλεσθαι;34 in his case, as has now been shown, there is isolation from both the Rabbis and Josephus, and in his use of ἀποστέλλειν he has not been influenced by שלח, since it is characterised by the fact that there is in it no religious note.

    C.      ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω in the NT.

1. In the NT ἀποστέλλειν occurs some 135 times. The distribution is such that outside the Gospels and Acts it is found only 12 times, 3 times in 1 Jn., 3 in Rev., 3 in Paul (R. 10:15; 1 C. 1:17; 2 C. 12:17), or 4 if we include 2 Tm. 4:12, once in Hb. 1:14 and once in 1 Pt. 1:12. In the Gospels and Acts the occurrence is more or less even in relation to the scope of the individual writings, and the word is obviously an acknowledged part of the vocabulary. Of the compounds, apart from → ἐξαποστέλλειν we find only συναποστέλλειν in 2 C. 12:18.
Alongside ἀποστέλλειν, πέμπειν occurs some 80 times. Of these 33 are in the Fourth Gospel and 5 in Rev. There are 10 occurrences in Lk. and 12 in Ac., while only 4 in Mt. and 1 in Mk. (5:12), the form in Mt. being always πέμψας with the following fin. verb. In contrast with ἀποστέλλειν the distribution is thus most uneven in the historical books.

When we review the material we first note that there is a special occurrence of πέμπειν in the Fourth Gospel which demands separate treatment (→ 2). Otherwise the Lucan writings predominate. This is even clearer when we take into account the compounds of πέμπειν and their distribution in the NT. Thus we find ἀναπέμπειν 5 (4) times, 3 of which are in Lk. and 1 (?) in Ac.; ἐκπέμπειν twice (Ac.); μεταπέμπεσθαι 9 times (Ac.); προπέμπειν 9 times, 3 of which are in Ac. and none in the Gospels; συμπέμπειν twice (Paul). Thus of 27 instances no less than 18 are in Lk. and Ac., none in Mt. and Mk. and only one in the whole Johannine material (3 Jn. 6: προπέμπειν). The full bearing of these statistics only emerges, however, when we investigate the detailed material. Even for Lk., unlike Josephus, πέμπειν cannot be described as “the normal word throughout” for “to send”;35 for even statistically ἀποστέλλειν is more common. Yet Lk. may be compared with Josephus to the extent that in addition to a specific usage of ἀποστέλλειν and πέμπειν he also seems to use the words as synonyms (→ 402).36 Like Josephus, he thus seems to stand between a Semitic use of ἀποστέλλειν under the influence of the OT שלח (as in the LXX), and therefore its sharp distinction from πέμπειν, on the one side, and the less sharp and ultimately nonessential distinction from it in Hellenism on the other; yet always in such a way that he is nearer to the common NT usage than to Josephus.

We may also see kinship between Lk. and Josephus in the fact that for stylistic reasons both seem to use πέμπειν τινὰ λέγοντα or πέμπειν … λέγων promiscue with ἀποστέλλειν. If this is so, then this formula denotes in them the giving of a commission (λέγειν) in spite of πέμπειν, though according to the sense more so in the first form than the second. This would support the view that neither Lk. nor Josephus has any true feeling for the special nature of άποστέλλειν. Cf. Lk. 7:6 with 7:3 (ἀπέστειλεν); 7:19 with 7:20 (ἀπέσταλκεν ἡμᾶς πρός σε λέγων); Ac. 15:22 (πέμψαι … ἄνδρας … γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν, cf. 25) with 15:27 (ἀπεστάλκαμεν οὖν …) and 15:33 (ἀπελύθησαν … πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστείλαντας αὐτούς); Jos. Ant., 18, 325 (καὶ πέμπει τὸν πιστευότατον … λέγοντα) with 326 (βασιλεὺς … ἀπέστειλέν με).

For the rest, the varying frequency and unequal distribution of the two terms in the NT may be explained by the religious character of this literature and therefore of its material, and by the difference in orientation resulting from their linguistic development (→ 398). Sometimes this may be seen even where there seems to be no difference in the use of ἀποστέλλειν and πέμπειν.37 At any rate we can say in general that when πέμπειν is used in the NT the emphasis is on the sending as such, whereas when ἀποστέλλειν is used it rests on the commission linked with it, no matter whether the one who sends or the one who is sent claims prior interest. To the development of the usage as already noted in the LXX and Josephus there also corresponds the fact that the Synoptists never use πέμπειν but only ἀποστέλλειν of God,38 and that Paul seems to follow the same pattern, unless we prefer to suspend judgment in his case in view of the infrequency of occurrence.39
2. A special position is obviously occupied by John’s Gospel. Here ἀποστέλλειν seems to be used quite promiscue with πέμπειν. Thus, to denote His full authority both to the Jews40 and the disciples41 Jesus uses ἀποστέλλειν, since He thereby shows that behind His words and person there stands God and not merely His own pretension. Again, in prayer He uses the same term to describe His relationship to God.42 Yet in close proximity to it He uses πέμπειν as well in such a way that there is no self-evident distinction. Closer investigation, however, shows us that when the Johannine Jesus uses πέμπειν in speaking of His sending by God He does so in such a way as to speak of God as the πέμψας με. This usage is wholly restricted to God, being sometimes amplified to ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ;43 when speaking of Himself He uses other forms of πέμπειν. Except on the lips of Jesus the formula occurs only once, namely, in 1:33 on the lips of the Baptist (ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι …). Of the 33 πέμπειν passages in Jn., apart from the last mentioned no less than 26 fall into this category.44 As against this, in Jn. God is never called ὁ ἀποστείλας με, but whenever ἀποστέλλειν is used of the sending of Jesus by God it occurs in a statement.
At first sight this usage is extremely odd. It is to be explained as follows, In John’s Gospel ἀποστέλλειν is used by Jesus when His concern is to ground His authority in that of God as the One who is responsible for His words and works and who guarantees their right and truth. On the other hand, He uses the formula ὁ πέμψας με (πατήρ) to affirm the participation of God in His work in the actio of His sending. This explanation is in full accord with the Johannine view of Jesus as the One whose “work originates in God’s work” and by whom “God’s work … reaches its goal.”45

Purely linguistically we have in this usage a fairly striking parallel to that of Epictetus in his statements concerning the sending of the Cynic by Zeus. As on the one side ἀποστέλλειν is used to characterise the sending as a mission, so on the other Zeus is for the Cynic the καταπεπομφὼς αὐτόν (Diss., III, 22, 56; → 399). But we should not overemphasise the parallel. For one thing, the formula occurs only once in Epictetus and is not to be given a false significance. Again, though there may be an external kinship, the drift is quite different from that of the ὁ πέμψας με (πατήρ) of the Johannine Jesus. For the Cynic it gives him a claim to exemption from all human authority; as the messenger of God he must give account to Him alone. This is a thought which necessarily lies outside the mode of thinking of the Fourth Gospel. It is excluded by the fact that between Jesus and the “Father” (→ πατήρ) is a unity in will46 and action (10:30; 14:9) which leaves no room for “responsibility.” And it is wholly and utterly excluded by the fact that alongside the formula ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν (5:36) Jesus with equal justification can use the formula ἦλθον (10:10; 12:47) or ἐλήλυθα (εἰς τὸν κόσμον) (12:46; 16:28; 18:37), which finds the basis of this unity in the time preceding His earthly life. We have here ideas which cannot possibly apply in the case of the Cynic.

As there is reflected in these findings the history of the terms outside the NT, so there is also disclosed the specifically Johannine Christology which emphasises as strongly as possible the essential unity of Jesus with God by describing Him absolutely as the Son (→ υἱός). It is in the light of this that in some passages ἀποστέλλειν and πέμπειν acquire their distinctive meanings in the Fourth Gospel. We are not to say, however, that the terms themselves have helped to shape Johannine Christology. For, quite apart from what we have already stated, even in John the words are not fundamentally or essentially theological terms. They are rather taken out of their ordinary meaning by the specific context in which they are used—very forcibly so in this Gospel—and filled with religious significance.

Thus the view falls to the ground of itself that in Jn. ἀποστέλλειν is designed specifically to reveal “the divine sonship of Christ prior to His coming into the world.”47 It is not this which is confirmed in the sending of Jesus. On the contrary, it is from the fact that Jesus is for John the υἱός that in this Gospel His mission acquires its ultimate meaning and pathos in its demand for the decision and division of men.

3. In relation to the general use of ἀποστέλλειν in the NT we must say finally that the word does begin to become a theological term48 meaning “to send forth to service in the kingdom of God with full authority (grounded in God).” Yet this does not imply any real departure from its proper sense.49 What we see here is rather the influence of the NT use of ἀπόστολος. In the NT field the history of ἀποστέλλειν thus merges into that of → ἀπόστολος.

† ἐξαποστέλλω.*

First found in the “Epistle of Philip” in Demosthenes Or., 18, 77, this word became common in Gk. from the time of Polybius1 with essentially the same meaning as ἀποστέλλειν.2 In the LXX it is fully interchangeable with, though not so common as, the latter, as the many variants show. In Philo, too, there is no distinction between them, as may be seen from his explanation of Μαθουσάλα == מְתוּשֶׁלַח (Gn. 5:21 ff.) partly as ἀποστολὴ θανάτου3 and partly as ἐξαποστολὴ θανάτου.4 The word also occurs in Josephus (Vit. 57, 147)5 without having any special significance.

In the NT ἐξαποστέλλειν occurs 13 times, 11 in Luke (Lk. 1:53; 20:10, 11; 24:49; Ac. 7:12; 9:30; 11:22; 12:11; 13:26; 17:14; 22:21) and 2 in Paul (Gl. 4:4, 6). The verses in Luke’s Gospel, apart from 24:49, give us the formula ἐξαποστέλλειν τινὰ κενόν, which is common in the LXX (Gn. 31:42; Dt. 15:13 etc.) but which does not give any special significance to ἐξαποστέλλειν.6 In all the other passages what we have said concerning the simple ἀποστέλλειν applies to ἐξαποστέλλειν.

Linguistically there is no support for the thesis of Zn.7 that in Gl. 4:48 the ἐξ- in ἐξαποστέλλειν indicates that “prior to his sending the one sent was in the presence of the one who sent him,” i.e., in this case “that prior to His sending, or prior to His birth, as the γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός tells us, Jesus was παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (Jn. 17:5) or πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1).” The truth is that in this passage in Paul, which reminds us of John, the verb for sending (→ ἀποστέλλειν, C. 2) does not in itself make any christological statement, but rather derives its christological flavour from the christological context in which it is used. We might also make the very pertinent observation that in Gl. 4:4, 6 Paul is not so much speaking of Christ as of God and of the event of salvation willed and in due time accomplished by Him.

Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ἀποστέλλω (πέμπω), Ἐξαποστέλλω, Ἀπόστολος, Ψευδαπόστολος, Ἀποστολή,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 398–406.

It then moves on to talk about

A. The Word and Concept ἀπόστολος in Classical Greek and Hellenism.

B. ἀπόστολος/ (שָׁלוּחַ) שָׁלִיחַ in Judaism.

C. The Use of ἀπόστολος in the NT.

All very detailed. Hope this helps

Steven Veach

I edited my post to be clearer, the TDNT/TDOT is more like an encyclopedia in it's detail, and very much worth looking at.

I appreciate the extra detail. I looked at the preview link you provided. I would say it could be useful but not at the academic discount price. Especially not at the non-discounted >$800 price. Honestly, there are only a few additional resources I'm looking at (sets) at this point. After that I think I'm going to first make thorough use of the resources I have before I purchase anything else. I have found the Pulpit Commentary to be one of the best purchases I've ever made for Bible study tools. Combining that with the Lexham Study Bible, the NET Notes, the UBS Handbooks (got it on sale for $300), and then the multiple Systematic Theology Sets I have I think I should be good for several years. I'll leave the TDNT/TDOT on my wishlist in case the price ever drops down to <$300, but I doubt that will happen. Then again, I never thought the UBS Handbooks would go below $300 either and then it did.

Ken McGuire

So if you stacked these together against the TDOT/TDNT, how would they compare? Most specifically, would the TDOT/TDNT be primarily a repeat of information? Is it really worth the $680 price tag? How much more information by percentage would you say is contained in the TDOT/TDNT that could not be found in what I already have?

I was in school about 25 years ago. And when I was in school, TDNT was viewed as both an essential reference and a dated resource. Essential because it gives information about the usage of Greek words that is quite difficult to find anywhere else. Dated both because especially some early volumes were more than a bit influenced by the German Christian desire to distance Christianity from Judaism, as well as some dated linguistic presuppositions.

In general, when we did word studies, we were told to start with BAGD, and then read TDNT and Colin Brown's NIDNTT, Since then BAGD has been updated as BADG, and NIDNTT has been updated as NIDNTTE. In addition, EDNT and Spicq are good resources for Greek. But as much as I value these other works, I do find that there is data in TDNT that simply isn't there other works, even if I know I must weigh it carefully.

I am quite a bit worse in Hebrew than Greek and cannot compare how TDOT compares with other lexica.

But to answer your questions directly, TDNT would have significant information about usage of Greek terms of theological interest that you do not have in the references you provided - if you can handle the Greek. I can't give any kind of accurate percentage. And you and your school should be the ones who can decide if this extra information is actually relevant to what you want to know.

Is it worth it? It was one of the reasons I got the old Original Languages Library about 15 years ago. Unfortunately, it appears that it is only in rather expensive base packages currently, but with what you already have, it is certainly possible that it would be cheaper in one of them than separately. Only you can decide if it is wise stewardship of your money to spend it on this, however.

How does the TDOT/TDNT stack up against the ISBE in particular?

More detailed and more up to date, with a vastly larger focus on the original languages. They have quite distinct focuses, namely Bible Encyclopedia, and Original Language Lexicon.

How does it stack up against the Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vol)?

More detailed in the original languages, as well as indexed to the original languages. That said, Anchor is more up to date and so can sometimes be a useful supplement, but Anchor is a Bible Encyclopedia and not a Lexicon focused on usage of Greek and Hebrew terms.

Steven Veach

I was in school about 25 years ago. And when I was in school, TDNT was viewed as both an essential reference and a dated resource....

Is it worth it? It was one of the reasons I got the old Original Languages Library about 15 years ago....

Hey Ken,

Thanks for the detailed overview. Initially I thought the TDNT/OT was more like an encyclopedia than a lexicon. I'm glad I dug deeper to find out details. At this point I don't feel the need for any additional lexicons.

I just wish Logos offered a different pricing scheme that provided more flexibility to get tools into the hands of end users, regardless of what they can afford. But it is what it is.

It took years to outgrow TW5 and its resources (but more so its feature set). I imagine what I have currently for Logos will take years to outgrow and by then I'll be dead or blind or running around in the woods half crazed and won't care what the prices are for Logos products.

#MadHermitintheWoods