Re: Lexicons for the LXX

From: Bernanrd Taylor (btaylor@helix.lasierra.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 22 1996 - 13:32:11 EST


On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

> After suffering through a chapter of the LXX weith the big LSJ,
> I'm looking for a better alternative for my purposes.

You ask about Lust et al. Since weight is an issue, you will be well
ahead if you purchase this volume. However, there are two counts against
it: first, it is based on LSJ, and shares this volumes preference for
glosses rather than definitions; second, at present it is not complete,
though the second (and final) volume is due out this year.

On the positive side, even if you were to do no better than you are doing
with LSJ, and you *will* do better, it is *much* quicker to use Lust.
They have made a significant contribution despite the limitations. After
all, they were the first in about 170 years to attempt the undertaking.
 
Muraoka has his volume (of the same name as that of Lust) on the Minor
Prophets, and that strives for definitions rather than glosses. Too bad
you are not working in this corpus!

> If it was a matter of a word here or there, I wouuldn't care, but
> I had to look up five words in Ps 161 alone! That's too much back pain from
> the big LSJ. It weighs more than my 2 yr old.

161? ... or 151? Have I missed something here?

BTW, are you aware of my _Analytical Lexicon_ (Zondervan, 1994) that parses
all of the words in the Rahlfs text (but no definitions)? ... or is that
stooping too low?! :-)

> Ken Litwak
> GTU
> Bezerkley, CA

Bernard Taylor,
Loma Linda, CA



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT