Dan McDonald's commendation of Liddell-Scott for NT work needs some
1) It is somewhat dated, and the evidential and scholarly bases for
semantic judgments in Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich are in many cases significantly
more recent and reflective of contemporary scholarship.
2) Liddell-Scott is PRIMARILY oriented to classical Greek and to a braod
coverage of word uses/developments. BAG is a more intensive and focused
treatment of word uses in the NT and other very early Greek Christian Lit.
For exegesis, one might well want to consult both, but for different
purposes. For reading assistance and lst-choice consultation, however,
BAG is a better choice for the NT.
3) There is no scholarly tool that is not affected by the biases or
assumptions or commitments of its authors/editors, Liddell-Scott, BAG,
whatever. Tools prepared by NT scholars, or "theologians" (as the term is
colloquially used outside the academy of scholars), are no more or no less
likely to reflect such problems--The point is, however, that tools like
BAG are prepared to the same high standards of critical scholarship as any
tool prepared by classicists or ancient historians, etc. So Mr.
McDonald's fear/implication here is both ill-founded and misleading, and
downright unfair to those who have labored mightily to prepare such
invaluable tools as BAG.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
- Re: Lexicons
- From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>