Thayer - Mt 4:10 - A concrete example.

Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Tue Dec 25 11:53:25 EST 2001


Dear Ted,

(1) If the right question or questions are are asked
    and if the answers are based on the correct
    database then I really don't see anything wrong
    with conclusions based on silence. The question
    is , "Can anyone point out any main definition of
    Thayer's that is incorrect? Now the database is the
    B-Greek list. So if anyone should know, they should.

(2) I think assertions should be based on concrete examples?

(3) I shouldn't said a "very good lexicon" but "a lexicon that's
     still in the ball game". Naturally there are going to be 
    improvements in the new lexicons like BDAG.

(4) I believe we would all be supprised at how many who are still
     using Thayer.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!
Harry Jones

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harry W. Jones" <hjbluebird at aol.com>
> To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 8:45 PM
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Thayer - Mt 4:10 - A concrete example.
> 
> Harry Jones wrote (snip):
> > I think that the results of my  questions indicate very clearly that
> Thayer is still very a good lexicon.
> 
> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1.  As others have pointed out, the statement above isn't reasonable.  It
> doesn't follow from the fact that no one on a discussion list has submitted
> specific criticisms of Thayer (but note Richard Ghilardi's recent post),
> that it is therefore a good (or bad) lexicon.  A lack of information doesn't
> prove anything.
> 2.  On the other hand, if people on the list have asserted that Thayer is
> out of date (especially if these assertions have been made fairly recently),
> they ought to be able to provide some examples, unless none of them have
> been following this thread.  Why would anyone claim that Thayer's is
> sub-standard unless he has some substantive reasons for doing so?
> 3.  I have heard for years that Thayer's lexicon is out of date, and from
> many other sources than b-Greek.  Although I have not bothered to check this
> out, I would think that such a wide-spread viewpoint would at least give one
> pause to consider the possibility that it isn't altogether reliable.
> 4.  When there are so many wonderful current resources (BDAG, etc.)
> available, I don't see much reason for using a lexicon that is 100+ years
> old.  Unless it has been updated to take into consideration the thousands of
> manuscripts that have been examined since the 19th Century, it's bound to be
> at least somewhat out of date, even if specific examples haven't been
> identified.
> 
> Ted
> Dr. Theodore H. Mann
> theomann at earthlink.net
> http://home.earthlink.net/~theomann



More information about the B-Greek mailing list