# Greek Lexicon



## love2read (Aug 22, 2005)

The Lexicon I now have is called: Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by Abbott Smith, published by T&amp;T Clark. It is very helpfull but it is not complete. Which you has used several Lexicons and can tell me which one is the best and why?

Thanks!!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 22, 2005)

I have Thayer's and it seems to be pretty good, but I'm sure others can tell you about more.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 22, 2005)

BDAG is the best and standard Biblical Greek Lexicon.

Liddell & Scott is the best and standard Classical Greek Lexicon.

You can use an old edition of BDAG here:
http://www.biblecentre.net/nt/greek/a&g/main.htm

And an Intermediate version of L&S here:
http://www.biblecentre.net/nt/greek/l&s/main.htm

[Edited on 8/22/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## DTK (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> BDAG is the best and standard Biblical Greek Lexicon.
> 
> Liddell & Scott is the best and standard Classical Greek Lexicon.
> ...


Fred,

These links are so very very helpful. I'm grateful for this post. I have the latest (expensive) version of BDAG, but I don't have L&S. It is helpful to be able to look these up with the click of a mouse.

On another note, how do you guys employ the Greek and Hebrew fonts here on the board?

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 22, 2005)

BDAG!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 22, 2005)

BDAG is the best lexicon.

I occasionally look at Liddell and Scott, but they focus on classical Greek - much older than NT Greek. It is occasionally helpful to see how a word was used hundreds of years before the NT writers use it, but for why this is really indeterminative (and sometimes irrelevant) see Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" 2nd ed. pp. 35-37.

I would also recommend:
Moulton & Geden's "A Concordance to the Greek Testament." 6th ed. Ed by I. Howard Marshall. 
This is hands down the BEST concordance to the Greek NT. 

With BDAG and Moulton & Geden, you are ready for some serious NT studies.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> BDAG is the best lexicon.
> 
> I occasionally look at Liddell and Scott, but they focus on classical Greek - much older than NT Greek. It is occasionally helpful to see how a word was used hundreds of years before the NT writers use it, but for why this is really indeterminative (and sometimes irrelevant) see Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" 2nd ed. pp. 35-37.
> ...



BDAG is a very good lexicon. It is especially valuable for it citations in NT and Church Fathers.

But L&S is not merely hundreds of years older. It is actually far broader than that. It covers the Classical period, as well as after the NT era. But its focus is not as sharp (obviously) on the NT as BDAG (why BDAG is better for the NT).

As for Carson, I think often in his Exegetical Fallacies he protests too much. Sad to say, it has almost become THE only interpretative manual to many (no implication toward Ben, just a comment in general). Carson's treatment of word studies is (in my opinion) flawed by his (almost slavish) reliance on James Barr.


----------



## gwine (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> On another note, how do you guys employ the Greek and Hebrew fonts here on the board?
> ...



check out this link from another thread

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5686#pid67766


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> As for Carson, I think often in his Exegetical Fallacies he protests too much. Sad to say, it has almost become THE only interpretative manual to many (no implication toward Ben, just a comment in general). Carson's treatment of word studies is (in my opinion) flawed by his (almost slavish) reliance on James Barr.



You should write him and let him know. I'm sure he'd be open to your opinion. 

Seriously, I too think that some people overly rely on Carson... but there is a reason for that you know: Exegetical Fallacies is a good book that makes some good points. I will say that - like with MUCH that Carson writes - I get irritated when he makes some statement and then he doesn't give an argument as to why. It gives me the impression that he simply expects his readers to take his word for it because he is, after all, Don Carson. 
I believe that he does this in Exegetical Fallacies (at times), but I think that his comments in regards to "anachronisms" - which is the section immediately preceding the pages I referenced above - and the section I cited are very clear and convincing.


----------



## DTK (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> check out this link from another thread
> 
> http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5686#pid67766



Thanks,
DTK


----------



## love2read (Aug 23, 2005)

Thanks guys,

It's quite clear to me which one I should buy .

Jeroen

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by love2read]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's a really interesting article by Verne Poythress about the new edition of BDAG:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003How.htm


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2005)

Fred,
How does BDAG compare with Louw and Nida?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Fred,
> How does BDAG compare with Louw and Nida?



Different entirely. Louw Nida is a semantical domain lexicon. Definitions are shorter, very few examples; but it _arranges_, for example, all the words relating to "fear" or "being afraid" on one place so you can see the options/shades, etc.


----------

