From: Jim West (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 11 1998 - 19:59:19 EDT
At 05:48 PM 4/11/98 -0600, you wrote:
>If I understand correctly, TDNT seems to be considered, (at least to
>some extent) "unworthy of one's interest or concern," because of what is
>perceived to be too great a reliance on etymology an not enough regard
This is absolutely untrue! TDNT's writers go to great lengths to place the
words they discuss in context!
> I may be way off base here, but I have noticed that it is
>not regarded highly by scholars and if it's not too far off topic for
>B-Greek I, for one, would appreciate some discussion of its weaknesses
It is only disregarded by those who follow James Barr and his linguistic
leanings. Those who appreciate excellent religio-historical research have
used it and will continue to use it. There is simply nothing like it for
research into the meaning (in context!!!) of all of the important words
found in the NT.
So- as to strength's:
1) it is thorough
2) the contributors were the most brilliant scholars of the last generation
(when it was produced)
3) the notes are copious
4) one can learn more from it than from most contemporary commentaries.
5) it is the basis for most modern scholarship
1) too many people bought the abridged volume
2) too many people either have never used it; or only used it once because
the depth was to great for them.
3) too many people read a review somewhere by Barr and on his word alone
dismiss the whole thing.
>Rev. John M. Moe
Best to all.
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT