From: Bernard Taylor (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 01 1996 - 16:58:18 EDT
On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Mike Phillips wrote of Schleusner's Lexicon:
> The definitions are all in Latin, which will cause some of us difficulty.
> But it is at present the only lexicon to the LXX. S. Jellicoe (in 1968)
> called it a "justly famous work," whose "rich treasures have never been
> fully explored."
As one who has used this extensively (when I had access to it at HUC),
there is a major caveat beyond the fact that it is in Latin: its _forte_
is Hebrew-Greek parallels, and so will have minimal use outside of the
LXX corpus, and within this corpus, the amount of material outside of
this area is correspondingly smaller.
ps, If you already have it, The Abbott-Smith (sp?) NT Greek lexicon has a
wealth of LXX info included in entries. This was (one of the) first to
include in any systematic way LXX info, and it is especially helpful,
again, in Heb-Gr parallels. If you don't own it, I would recommend you
take a look at it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT