From: Harry W. Jones (hjbluebird@aol.com)
Date: Sun Dec 23 2001 - 20:45:34 EST
Dear Carlton,Ted,Carl,Steven and All,
I believe that some on the list have completely misunderstood
what I've been pointing out by my questions. So I will try to explain
more clearly.
I simply asked if anyone knew of any of the main
definitions of Thayer that were incorrect. I was not talking about any
of Thayer's interpretations of bibical passages. That's a matter of
interpretation and not definition. I was not talking about any of Thayer's
notes that were related to interpretation. But notes related to definition
would be included of course. So I then posted my question. If I got no
response I would have to conclude that no one knew of any incorrect
definitions. But a number did respond but gave no examples of
incorrect definitions in Thayer.
I think that the results of my questions indicate very clearly that
Thayer is still very a good lexicon.
Best Regards and a Merry Xmas to All,
Harry Jones
> In a message dated 12/23/01 3:44:05 PM, Ted Mann writes:
>
> >I'm sticking my oars in where I'm unqualified, but I wonder if it would
> >be
> >fair to say that the Thayer lexicon is fine as far as it goes, but probably
> >doesn't go far enough for the purposes of current lexical studies, given
> >the
> >information that has come to light since the 19th Century. That is, a
> >great
> >deal of information can now be added to lexical entries about which Thayer
> >knew
> >little or nothing - information that is now available in more recent works
> >(BDAG, etc.).
>
> What Ted has said here is true. I would add also that some of the conclusions
> in Thayer that are made more tentatively, now have more information to
> support them. For instance he made some "guesses" about EPIOUSIOS that now
> have support.
>
> Harry, seemed to indicate that no specific words listed meant that there are
> no words where Thayer gives a wrong meaning. I would caution that arguments
> from silence do not produce evidence supporting Thayer, if that is what he
> wants, but only evidence that no one on the list is going to do Harry's
> homework for him. If he wants to support Thayer then he should make his own
> list of words. Carl Conrad has suggested some good words to look for. I would
> add that he should check all the prepositions and many of the other little
> words.
>
> I bought my edition of Thayer in 1955 and it is well worn. I learned after a
> few years that I also needed Moulton and Milligan, BAG, BAGD, Louwe & Nida,
> and two editions of LSJ. In writing a syntax book, I found these resources
> indispensable. Along the way I read many of the articles in TDNT (TWNT
> before all volumes were translated). I have spent many nights with Thayer
> working on translations for classes and have a great deal of respect for this
> work. But, it has been superceded by better more thorough works. One place I
> differ now based on other works is the interpretation of hUPER in 1 Cor.
> 15:29. I have often cautioned students of the dangers of building theological
> castles on prepositions as Thayer seems to do here. They are like shifting
> sand in such instances.
>
> So, there can be much respect for this work and at the same time acknowledge
> that time marches on. Can a newer Greek student learn anything from Thayer?
> Yes, but he will later have to modify some of it when he begins to want to go
> below the surface meanings and avoid some pitfalls in doing theology from
> texts. Remember, we don't do theology on the list.
>
> Carlton Winbery
> Louisiana College
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:14 EDT