>Does anyone else sense that at times the L-N begs the question in its
>map of semantic domains?...
>It appears at times as if L and N have looked at other lexicons...
>and used these definitions for their description limits of a term's range
without ever
>questioning whether a given lexicographer's definition is correct. Is
>this an adequate assessment?
I would say that is an unfair assessment. The official answer to your
query may be found in:
_Lexical Semantics of the Greek NT: A Supplement to the Greek-English
Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains_ by Eugene Nida and Johannes
Louw (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 25) Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
The preface explains that the purpose of the book is to "provide
scholars, translators and students with a more complete statement about
the principles and proceedures employed in the preparation of [the
lexicon]."
Carl's comment re. any lexicon being viewed as a secondary tool and
therefore fallible is certainly true, but L&N have done their semantic
homework and not just used BAGD, etc. as their def. pool. One of the
major benefits of L&N is that they actually attempt to define the word.
BAGD gives only a translation "gloss" and really does not define much
beyond that.
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker, Asst. Prof./NT Baptist Bible Seminary
rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit, PA
_________________________________________________________________