Greek resource recommendation

I've wondered the same thing since I now have Perseus so am anxious to hear other opinions.  My go-to lexicon for NT studies has been and continues to be DBAG (which I have in another program).  I would highly recommend purchasing that if you don't already have it.

Paul Clarke said:

I think I read somewhere that Logos were working on greater BDAG integration with Perseus.  Perhaps others could shed light on whether this is the case.

I think I also read the same thing. I would still recommend both Liddel and BDAG. If you do decide to get BDAG (the BDAG/HALOT bundle is a very good option too).

Blessings,

Philana

Mark is NIDNTT available in Logos, I searched for that abbreviation and couldn't find it? Curious about the price and if I want to purchase it at Christmas. Thanks

Philana Crouch said:

Mark is NIDNTT available in Logos, I searched for that abbreviation and couldn't find it? Curious about the price and if I want to purchase it at Christmas. Thanks

Philana,

Here it is:

http://www.logos.com/product/5463/new-international-dictionary-of-new-testament-theology

Mark I am actually watching your videos on sermon prep right now, the book you mention Grasping God's Word did you know its on Logos now? It looks good.

There are five reasons why I like NIDNTT over TDNT:

• It's a bit more up-to-date (post Qumran)
• It's easier to read and understand
• The articles are more manageable
• It tends not to get foolishly carried away by etymology like TDNT often does
• It tends not to import meanings into the NT from Graeco-Roman religions as TDNT sometimes does

And three reasons why I like TDNT over NIDNTT:

• It's more authoritative (despite probably being less accurate)
• It's ordered by Greek words not English meanings
• Less words are grouped together at each definition

This extract from a review in Themelios gives a nice flavour:

The NIDNTT is a translation, revision, extension and complete rearrangement of the Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, edited by L. Coenen et al., and published from 1965 onwards. Almost inevitably it will be compared with TDNT, its bigger brother, and fundamental questions are liable to be asked about whether there is any real place for this enterprise. In the reviewer’s opinion the distinctive qualities of NIDNTT certainly justify its publication and indeed, guarantee it a role of considerable importance in the future.

TDNT is a research tool. Its articles are often major and original contributions of considerable length (120 pages on pneuma) and complexity of detail. Latin, Hebrew and Greek are given without transliteration or translation, technical terms abound and the style of articles is usually so concise that the average student quickly develops mental indigestion. By contrast NIDNTT bends over backwards to help the uninitiated. A 25-page glossary gives guidance to technical terms, from the more familiar ‘Allegory’ and ‘Plato’ to the less well-known ‘Pesher’ and ‘Tosefta’, and includes a total of 128 entries. Greek and Hebrew are given in transliteration and usually accompanied by a translation. The style is lucid (for which we must thank quite a team of translators). In addition there are no less than 75 pages of indexes which assist the reader to trace Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words referred to in the volume and to follow up subjects which have not been allocated separate articles.

The articles in NIDNTT are competent sketches giving a fair indication of the semantic range of the words studied, and notes on development of ideas, as well as discussion of the particular theological nuance in important NT contexts. For the most part they successfully steer between the Scylla of enigmatic brevity and the Charybidis of excessive technicality and detail. The material on the Greek background is usually held well in rein: compare, for example, the brief (but helpful) two paragraphs in the first section of the article on sōma (body) with TDNT’s 19 pages which are rather beyond the reader who is without any background in the classics. Examples could be multiplied. Handling of the Jewish background is usually fuller and that of the NT, naturally, the most detailed. Even so, the longest article, on ‘Faith, Persuade’, is a mere 19 pages and only 23 of the major articles exceed 5 pages. The brevity, lucidity and compactness of NIDNTT will commend it to all students, teachers and pastors who are concerned with serious grammatico-historical exegesis but who have not the time to explore the riches of TDNT or who feel they need an orientation course before dipping more deeply into them.

Again in favour of NIDNTT is that it is up to date. Half of the TDNT was produced in the ‘pre-Qumran’ era and most of it before Barr’s criticisms of its method and structure. All of the Begriffslexikon has been produced since these two factors became matters of pressing importance. The results are seen on almost every page in the widespread reference to the DSS, in the comparative lack of ‘linguistic mysticism’ (that fogged so many issues in TDNT) and in the structure of the work as a whole. Articles corresponding to material that appeared in the earlier volumes of TDNT are occasionally longer (cf. Abraham, Adam, Bread, etc.) and where they do not take more space than TDNT they may still give a fuller picture in the light of recent findings (e.g. on Angel, Gabriel, Michael, Apostle, Covenant, etc.). Only very rarely do we find occasions when a Begriffslexikon article appeared before the corresponding section in TDNT (or its German counterpart); though this is felt in (e.g.) NIDNTT on ‘Anoint’ and it may account for the rather ‘thin’ nature of (e.g.) the article on hyios under ‘Child’ (despite the appearance of TDNT viii. in the bibliography). Part and parcel of this up-to-dateness are the excellent bibliographies at the end of each article, usefully divided into (a) English and (b) foreign (mainly German) literature.

NIDNTT will commend itself to an English readership as it is more conservative in its orientation (both in the Begriffslexikon and more particularly in the English translation and revision under Colin Brown—on which see later). The student reading TDNT may occasionally be deluged with a mass of religionsgeschichtliche parallels which wash him away from his chosen moorings. He will rarely be in a position to judge whether the account is a balanced or an extreme one. This is never a real danger with the NIDNTT, and while there are occasional remarks that will worry some, the attitude as a whole is reverent towards both the Scriptures and the Lord.

Denise Barnhart said:

OK, Mark ... we're really tieing up your time, but your opinions are very useful. When you say DSS, I assume you're referring to the sectarian manuscripts and more specifically the Damascus Document, Manual of Discipline, etc (meaning NT parallel concepts usage)? Just trying to understand where the discussion would shift in a  greek dictionary.

Remember it's a theological dictionary, not merely a lexicon. You'll frequently get brief discussion of theological concepts at Qumran for comparing/contrasting with NT use.

The structure is similar as with TDNT. Take the entry for ὀργή (anger, wrath). There's four or five paragraphs on it's use in classical Greek. Then a slightly longer section on the OT (the discussion here is not restricted to occasions where ὀργή is used in the LXX, but also includes θυμός because the author believes the LXX translators used the two words interchangeably). Then there's a paragraph on Qumran (obviously looking theologically at words that are equivalent to ὀργή). Following that, there's then a much longer section on the NT. What I like about the NIDNTT is that the section on the NT feels separate from the earlier sections whereas with TDNT you often get the sense that the writer is importing meaning from the classical period or early Judaism into the New Testament. In NIDNTT you are able to ask yourself at the end of the entry: is this a contrast with Qumran/Graeco-Roman theology, or are there strong similarities?

Anyway, here's everything about Qumran from the entry on ὀργή

 In later Judaism and Qumran some passages are concerned with justified anger, anger directed against sinners (e.g. 1QS 10: 19). But the negative judgment on anger as a vice which is incompatible with wisdom is forcefully exemplified (Wis. 10:3; Sir. 27:30; 1QS 4:10). Women (Sir. 25:21), the rich (Sir. 28:10), and rulers (Sir. 47:20ff.; 2 Macc. 14:27; CD 8:3; 19:15 f.; cf. Matt. 2:16) appear as particularly susceptible to anger. In every case anger and rage are “an abomination” which the godless pursue (Sir. 27:30). But God’s wrath is directed against the godless and pagans (Wis. 11:9; 19:1; Sir. 5:7; 16:7; Man. 5; cf. the calling down of God’s anger on an apostate member of Qumran, 1QS 2:15). This must be seen and taken as seriously as his compassion (Sir. 16:12). It is an admonition to genuine repentance (Sir. 5:7ff.; cf. Zeph. 2:3). In later Judaism, in particular, besides the idea of the wrath of God at work within history (Sir.; CD 1:5 f.; 21; 3:8), there is the thought of an ultimate day of wrath when God will sit in judgment (Jub. 24:28; 30; Eth. Enoch 62:12; cf. 1QM 4:1; Ezek. 7:19; Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:2f.; Prov. 11:4; 1QS 5:12). This day is presented in strong apocalyptic colours, as “a day of ruin and devastation, a day of → darkness and gloom” (Zeph. 1:15), as a day of “the burning anger of the Lord” (Zeph. 2:2; cf. 1QH 3:28). On this day the righteous and unrighteous will be divided according to the way they have → walked (Ezek. 7:3). God will accept those who turn to him in penitence. But his → righteous anger will destroy the others (1QS 4:12; 1QH 3:25 ff.; 15:17, 1QM 3:9).

This extract is relatively long, precisely because - if you compare the two sections yourself - the author has identified something distinctive about the theology of early Judaism in their use of this word. The entry for ἀλείφω (anoint), has just 7 words in the Judaism section: "Judaism retains the varied uses of anointing [in the OT]."

Thanks for the info Mark, this will definitely be on my wish list. I hope the Christmas sales start soon! 

Mark Barnes said:

The LSJ's most important distinctive if it's value in understanding classical Greek rather than Koine Greek, so there are other lexicons (such as BDAG) that are more important to NT studies. Personally I'd also want to have a theological/exegetical dictionary before I bought LSJ. (In Logos your choices are TDNT, EDNT, or NIDNTT. TDNT is seen as the standard work and it's the most comprehensive, though it is beginning to date. I confess a soft spot for NIDNTT myself.

Mark is exactly spot on.  I agree completely.

Colin Brown is a bargain at about $100.  I'd say if you have BDAG, the next thing you need is probably Colin Brown.

I have had both Kittel and Colin Brown in book form since 1979, and I have found Colin Brown more practical for a pastor.

Philana Crouch said:

Is NIDNTT linked to the Perseus Classics collection?

No, it's only LSJ that's been updated at this stage, as far as I know. I doesn't matter too much though, because NIDNTT care much less about classical Greek than TDNT does for the reasons stated earlier. So it's doesn't often cite something that would be in Perseus. It's simpler style also means that very often no exact reference is even given - just a description of the usage and the author's name. When Classic Greek is cited, it's cited in English. Here's an example:

CL halas, or, more commonly, hals, salt (from Homer); poetically, the sea; proverbially, to have eaten a bushel of salt together, i.e., be old friends; to eat the proverbial salt in company, i.e., be bound by ties of hospitality (Aristot.). ōhaliz, to supply with salt, to salt food (Aristot.); to collect, assemble, as military forces, fragments, etc. (Hdt.). halykos, salty (Aristoph.); analos (Aristot.) or analmos (Xen.), without salt, unsalted. ōsynaliz, frequently in Hdt. and Xen., to bring together, collect; or if derived from hals, to eat (salt) with, eat at the same table. The passive means to come together, assemble.

The domestic and medicinal value of salt both as condiment and preservative was as universal in the ancient world as it is today. Pliny declared that “salt has something of the nature of fire”, and he quotes a current saying, “To the whole body nothing is better than → sun and salt” (Nat. Hist. 31, 98, 102). Salt on sacrifices no doubt originated from the primitive conception of → sacrifice as the meal of a god (Homer), but the association of salt with the deity (Plato) also balanced the notion of putrefaction and corruption being linked with demons. Lasting alliances were made by eating bread and salt, or salt alone (Aristot.). Cato, Virgil, and Pliny all refer to the ability of salt to improve the productivity of the soil.

You'll see that although half a dozen authors are referred to in the discussion, only one is referenced (Pliny's Natural History). That's not linked to Perseus.

There are a tiny number of cases where a link to Perseus does work. I presume that's because that particular Greek text was available in Logos before Perseus. Homer's Iliad is one example I've found. Links to Philo and Josephus are of course present.