Why are NT Greek-English Lexicons better than the LSJ for Bible study?

[Dylan569]

For the Christian believer, the following articles are important to keep in mind for Bible study. The AMGL and Thayer can be found for free. The BDAG may be $150.

The use of New Testament (NT) Greek-English lexicons rather than the Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) classical Greek lexicon is primarily due to their specialized focus on the linguistic context of the NT, which differs significantly from classical Greek. While LSJ is a comprehensive and authoritative resource for ancient Greek, it was compiled based on texts up to 1940, including classical and pre-classical Greek, but it does not specifically address the Hellenistic Greek used in the NT. NT Greek-English lexicons, such as the "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" (BDAG), are tailored to the specific vocabulary, grammar, and usage found in the NT and early Christian writings. These lexicons incorporate insights from papyrus discoveries and modern linguistic analyses that were not available when LSJ was compiled, making them more accurate and relevant for NT study. Additionally, NT lexicons often provide more detailed explanations of words in their specific religious and cultural contexts, which are crucial for accurate interpretation of the NT. While LSJ remains a valuable tool for classical Greek, NT scholars and students typically prefer lexicons that are specifically designed for the NT's linguistic and theological nuances.

The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, commonly known as BDAG, is often considered more suitable for Bible study than Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) due to its specialized focus on the Koine Greek used in the New Testament and related early Christian texts. BDAG provides a comprehensive survey of vocabulary that includes not only the New Testament but also the Septuagint and other first-century Koine Greek literature, making it particularly valuable for understanding the nuances of biblical language. In contrast, LSJ is a more general lexicon covering classical Greek, which, while extensive, may not always be as directly applicable to the specific linguistic context of the New Testament. Additionally, BDAG offers detailed entries that include not just definitions but also discussions of meanings and usages, providing insights into how words were used in various contexts. This makes BDAG an indispensable resource for serious New Testament scholars who require a deeper understanding of the language's nuances.

Beware of anyone rejecting an English translation of the Bible based on the LSJ!

 

[B-A-C]

Liddell Scott was rejected by both the theological schools I attended. Gnerically they are condered my "philospophically" based than being just an accurate translation.

The Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapel and Foursquare churches advise against them.

 

[Rhema]

Beware of anyone rejecting an English translation of the Bible based on the LSJ!

What nonsense. Just more slander from you directed at me, typical of those who embrace the debate tactic of Poisoning the Well. I use the LSJ because I can post Links online. Can one link to the BDAG? NO. Because they want MONEY, selling the Word of God for profit.

The BDAG is seriously inbred. They give you Evangelical definitions because they are Evangelical from the beginning. I had a rather in-depth conversation over a three month period with someone holding a PhD in Ancient Near East Religions, and he rather convinced me that this lexicon is just as biased as the translations commissioned by the major denominations listed by @B-A-C. You get the Bible that provides the theological narrative they paid for, just as you get a lexicon that provides the theological narrative that their customers want.

There is no academic impartiality applied to their work as with, for example, the Cambridge Greek Lexicon or Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. The BDAG will happily give you the religious fiction you wish, and laugh all the way to the bank. And given your gushing recommendation, maybe they should pay you a commission.

The use of New Testament (NT) Greek-English lexicons...

This reminds me of the ignorant ones who use Strong's, citing words listed AFTER the Dash ( - ) to "prove" that the KJV is right, when each and every word AFTER the dash ( - ) are examples of what the KJV uses to begin with. The insane circular logic is just stupefying.

their specialized focus on the linguistic context of the NT, which differs significantly from classical Greek.

A claim without support. But considering that the translators of the KJV and other Bibles thought that the New Testament was written in some Divine Dialect of Greek, yes, there is a significant difference between the NT and the Classical literature. BUT. This is not because of any specialized vocabulary that was "God ordained." The differences exist because the COMMON (i.e. Koine) parlance used by the everyday speaker and reader of Greek at the time was used in the NT, instead of the specialized Greek tailored for Greek Poetry and Plays and Novels. (Think of the difference between the English we use and the writings of Shakespeare.) But don't for one minute think that such Greek literature wasn't available and read during the first century.

New Testament writers wrote for the common man, not using some divine detached specialized holy language.

(BDAG), are tailored to the specific vocabulary, grammar, and usage found in the NT and early Christian writings.

Yep. Biased through and through. Because Common usage was NOT only found in the NT and early Christian writings, but in the common Papyri found in SECULAR documents. There is no specific New Testament vocabulary, grammar and usage or "theological nuances."

Let me cut to the chase...

One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.​

... Thayer ...

...in 1895, Adolf Deissmann published his Bibelstudien - an innocently titled work that was to revolutionize the study of the NT. In this work (later translated into English under the title Bible Studies) Deissmann showed that the Greek of the NT was not a language invented by the Holy Spirit (Hermann Cremer had called it "Holy Ghost Greek," largely because 10 percent of its vocabulary had no secular parallels). Rather, Deissmann demonstrated that the bulk of NT vocabulary was to be found in the papyri.

The pragmatic effect of Deissmann's work was to render obsolete virtually all lexica and lexical commentaries written before the turn of the century. (Thayer's lexicon, published in 1886, was outdated shortly after it came off the press - yet, ironically, it is still relied on today by many NT students.)"

- Daniel B. Wallace. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. Zondervan, 2000, p. 21.​

Beware of anyone recommending Thayer's.

 

[Garee]

...in 1895, Adolf Deissmann published his Bibelstudien - an innocently titled work that was to revolutionize the study of the NT. In this work (later translated into English under the title Bible Studies) Deissmann showed that the Greek of the NT was not a language invented by the Holy Spirit (Hermann Cremer had called it "Holy Ghost Greek," largely because 10 percent of its vocabulary had no secular parallels). Rather, Deissmann demonstrated that the bulk of NT vocabulary was to be found in the papyri.

Did Adolf Deissmann define the Greek word Aggelos which means messenger. With nothing added or taken away .UPS, Amazon, Fed X, Pony express angel?

Sounds the same (homonymy's) but has different meaning. rather than messenger they become the authors the source of prophecy . Making the true messengers apostles without effect.

Using the bible to show its usage define the word apostle???

The loving commandment not to create fake words.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it(singular), that ye may keep the commandments(plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.