Who assigns the appropriate Louw-Nida number in Logos? Why use LN if you have BDAG?

This is a newbie-to-Greek question. Who assigns the Louw-Nida (LN) numbers to a given lemma in Logos. As far as I can tell, Volume 1 of LN simply gives the various semantic domains and Volume 2 gives the various possible domains for a given lemma. In LA181 course (Learn to use Biblical Greek), 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."

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

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?

Christian Alexander

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.

DMB

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've read raving reviews of BDAG on the Forums, something like everybody uses BDAG.

I only rarely use it. Nor the Lexham Sense Lexicon. They attempt the answer from a theology.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306388#Comment_1306388

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.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306390#Comment_1306390

[A]

[^o)] George reminded me of Silent Sam too.

Richard Wilson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306392#Comment_1306392

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 .

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306403#Comment_1306403

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: ἰδού

The 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 Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1306361#Comment_1306361

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.

David Thomas

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.)