Greek Lexicon
- Thread starter love2read
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I have Thayer's and it seems to be pretty good, but I'm sure others can tell you about more.
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]
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]
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
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
check out this link from another thread
http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5686#pid67766
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
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.
.
Here's a really interesting article by Verne Poythress about the new edition of BDAG:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003How.htm
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003How.htm
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Fred,
How does BDAG compare with Louw and Nida?
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.
- Status
