Louw-Nida in Old Testament doesn't work

Hi, I have the Scholar's Library. But Louw-Nida doesn't work in the OT. e.g. Gen 2:7, I right click the work creature in ESV and Nouw-Nida doesn't work. And when I display the interlinear and make the Louw-Nida active, a blank row is added without any numbers.

My version is the newest non beta version on Mac: Logos Bible Software 4.3 SR-3 (4.30.0.1592)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

steve clark

Louw-Nida is a Greek New Testament reference system. The Old Testament is mostly Hebrew and a little Aramaic.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Dream: Louw-Nida tagging in Old Testament.

Reality: Louw-Nida tagging only in New Testament. Strong's numbers are tagged in both Old and New Testament.

Option: right click in ESV, click Strong's Hebrew #, open Dictionary of Biblical Languages (DBL) with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament)

DBL Hebrew includes corresponding Louw-Nida domain range for each definition.

May need to prioritize lexicons so DBL Hebrew appears, forum => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/37720/282668.aspx#282668 has lexicon prioritization example.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286281#Comment_286281

Dream Impossibility: Louw-Nida tagging in Old Testament.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286289#Comment_286289

Thanks all. I was confused between the Louw-Nida and DBL. Thanks all.

Greg B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286289#Comment_286289

Dream Impossibility: Louw-Nida tagging in Old Testament.

Not if you are in the Septuagint.

Greg

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286527#Comment_286527

Dream Impossibility: Louw-Nida tagging in Old Testament.

Not if you are in the Septuagint.

Greg

L&N doesn't contain LXX vocabulary and the way the lexicon was designed, it cannot be extended to include a larger text base beyond the NT. The best you could get would be all the words in the LXX that appear in the NT, but even then, what happens when you get a meaning for one of those words that isn't listed because that meaning doesn't appear in the NT.

Like I said, it's an impossibility.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286542#Comment_286542

Mike, no desire to 'argue' but 'impossible'?

I only say this having long ago read the intro to Swanson, who seems to have designed the OT version as an overlay to LN (used the same categories, etc). Why 'Lexham' didn't go the extra step with their OT interlinear is beyond me. Maybe Swanson was too close to LN's copyrights or something?

Hooking Swanson up to the Lexham OT would sure be a powerful tool.

Unless I'm missing something REALLY obvious!

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286586#Comment_286586

Swanson's use of L&N domains is dramatically different than what we find in the NT. The majority of the time, he merely refers to a range of entries, sometimes absolutely massive ranges:

(ʾā∙ḇǎḏ): v.; ≡ Str 6; TWOT 2—1. LN 20.31–20.60 (qal) destroyed, ruined, be lost, i.e., be in a state of ruin and destruction pertaining to an object, including the death of a person (Ex 10:7); (piel) destroy, annihilate, exterminate, wipe out, i.e., cause to destroy an object (Nu 33:52); (hif) destroy (Dt 7:10);

James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

In fact, Swanson's approach only works because he refuses to connect specific Hebrews directly to specific, individual L&N entries. The idea behind the Lexham interlinear NT is that Logos can provide the most precise linking of a given word to a specific L&N entry. That's entirely lost were they had tried to do the same for the Hebrew interlinear.

The LXX interlinear has a different problem, which I already explained above. Because the LXX has more words the NT and L&N uses increasing numbers with no room to expansion, there's no place to put words that don't fit into any of the already existing definitions.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286586#Comment_286586

Mike, no desire to 'argue' but 'impossible'?

Given that one would not assume that Hebrew and Greek semantic ranges would match, impossible sounds good to me.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286642#Comment_286642

I mentioned this in another post in the past, the NIDOTTE does have a handy index of semantic fields.

I use the Enhanced Strong's as my navigation help from Strong's numbers, to GK numbers to NIDOTTE. The index of semantic fields can be searched for specific GK numbers.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286642#Comment_286642

The impossibility to map semantic domains between hebrew and greek is interesting, especially as it presents itself in the LXX and its use by jewish NT writers.

I continue with Westcott on Galatians and Romans. He constantly is pointing out the misuse by NT writers of the hebrew OT, while using the greek OT. But I checked to see where he ended up. His 'final' take was that Paul was working off an aramaic semantic base.

Greg B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286542#Comment_286542

Dream Impossibility: Louw-Nida tagging in Old Testament.

Not if you are in the Septuagint.

Greg

L&N doesn't contain LXX vocabulary and the way the lexicon was designed, it cannot be extended to include a larger text base beyond the NT. The best you could get would be all the words in the LXX that appear in the NT, but even then, what happens when you get a meaning for one of those words that isn't listed because that meaning doesn't appear in the NT.

Like I said, it's an impossibility.

I was just thinking "I can look this word from the Septuagint in the Louw-Nida", but I understand my error after reading the posts in thread. Probably managed multiple errors from Exegetical Fallacies in that one.

Greg

Greg B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286542#Comment_286542

Dream Impossibility: Louw-Nida tagging in Old Testament.

Not if you are in the Septuagint.

Greg

L&N doesn't contain LXX vocabulary and the way the lexicon was designed, it cannot be extended to include a larger text base beyond the NT. The best you could get would be all the words in the LXX that appear in the NT, but even then, what happens when you get a meaning for one of those words that isn't listed because that meaning doesn't appear in the NT.

Like I said, it's an impossibility.

If I am reading the Septuagint and want to look up a specific word in a lexicon, which would be the best to use?

Greg

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286790#Comment_286790

If I am reading the Septuagint and want to look up a specific word in a lexicon, which would be the best to use?

Well, L&N is certainly a good lexicon and where there is overlap between the NT and LXX in vocab, its still going to be useful. As for what other lexicons there are...that's a difficult one. I wrote a blog post about Septuagint lexica a few years ago after I received a copy of Muraoka's LXX lexicon (which is probably the best LXX lexicon there, but as you'll see, there's still plenty missing from it in terms of practical usefulness that can only be gained through using multiple lexicons--which is probably what I would recommend anyway:

https://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/comparing-lexical-entries/

Greg B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286987#Comment_286987

Thanks. I'll take a look at the blog. I don't use it enough to warrant a purchase of a specific lexicon for the LXX. I'm more concerned that when I do, I don't misuse the lexicons I have. If there is a greek word in the LXX that doesn't appear in the Louw-Nida or Spicq, then I don't have an entry. But if the word appears in the LXX but is used in a fundamentally different way because of the passage of time or because the NT co-opted the word in a particular way (say, making it a technical term) that's where I am likely to get into trouble. I do have the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and the entries there offer specifically refer to LXX. My best solution might be to make sure I check for entries there also.

Greg

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287068#Comment_287068

I have Lust, J., Eynikel, E., & Hauspie, K. (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart. in Scholar's Library. Also Liddell-Scott from what I understand is supposed to provide LXX coverage.

David McClister

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287289#Comment_287289

The LEH lexicon will probably be the best way to go for the LXX. As others have noted, it is not a simple matter of "the LXX uses this Greek word, and this Greek word also appears in a NT lexicon, so I'll just use the NT definition." Using L&N for the LXX would actually leave false impressions to your students. The matter of semantic change (from the time of the first LXX translations to the time of the NT, or Greek words taking on new semantic tasks at the hands of Jewish authors) and semantic overlap (between Greek and Hebrew words in Biblical literature) is much more complex.

Greg B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287289#Comment_287289

I have Lust, J., Eynikel, E., & Hauspie, K. (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart. in Scholar's Library. Also Liddell-Scott from what I understand is supposed to provide LXX coverage.

You must have the Silver collection. I just have the regular Scholars. This is one of the frustrations of the collections though. If I had the next one down (Original Languages) I would have it along with Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and Gesenius.Bundle AND The Concise HALOT. That's $230 in books that are in the "lesser " collection that aren't in my "upgrade". I would give up everything under Preaching and Teaching, Ministry, Commentaries, and Apologetics to have those 5 titles. Most of the stuff under the categories are listed are useless fluff in the Scholar's collection. Oh yeah, there is also the Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Greek OT that would set me back $100 and the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts for $40. Much more interesting than Fresh Ideas for Youth or Mastering Church Finances or How to Bang Out a Sermon in a half-hour. Ok, the last one wasn't a real title. But it may capture the intent of one or two.

My counsel to anyone thinking about the Scholars collection is to buy the Original Languages collection. Surf the web for a deal on the Essential IVP Reference Vol 3. Buy the BDAG. You will have a vastly superior library (certainly a more scholarly one) for around the same price.

Greg

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287633#Comment_287633

You must have the Silver collection. I just have the regular Scholars. This is one of the frustrations of the collections though. If I had the next one down (Original Languages) I would have it along with Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and Gesenius.Bundle AND The Concise HALOT. That's $230 in books that are in the "lesser " collection that aren't in my "upgrade". I would give up everything under Preaching and Teaching, Ministry, Commentaries, and Apologetics to have those 5 titles. Most of the stuff under the categories are listed are useless fluff in the Scholar's collection. Oh yeah, there is also the Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Greek OT that would set me back $100 and the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts for $40. Much more interesting than Fresh Ideas for Youth or Mastering Church Finances or How to Bang Out a Sermon in a half-hour. Ok, the last one wasn't a real title. But it may capture the intent of one or two.

Sounds like you should have done what I originally did: bought OLL plus an immediate upgrade to Scholar's. Got all those nice resources you mention, plus Aland, Brenton, Philo, TWOT, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christan Church and a few other nice ones that are not in OLL. Payed $9 more than Scholar's alone costs now (there was a discount at the time). Unfortunately they say you can't do it the other way around, at least not for a reasonable amount of money. Though I guess you could always try persuading a sales rep. He can't do anything worse than say no.

Ron Corbett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286586#Comment_286586

Why 'Lexham' didn't go the extra step with their OT interlinear is beyond me. Maybe Swanson was too close to LN's copyrights or something?

Hooking Swanson up to the Lexham OT would sure be a powerful tool.

I see what has been said about the inherent differences in the languages (Hebrew and Greek / and even NT Greek and LXX Greek in areas) but the CONCEPT of having an OT Hebrew version of L-N is a great one and WHEN someone does it - we will all benefit. In places, we will probably see completely different categories / different semantic domains entirely. What fun!

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287738#Comment_287738

UBS is working on a Semantic Dictionary for Hebrew.....

http://www.sdbh.org/