27 replies to this topic

[luke]

[Is this the right place to put this?]

I think my copy of Strong's is a stinker :angry:
I'm a bit suspicious of it 'cos it doesn't seem to agree with either my on-line Bible or my copy of Youngs <_<

Can you help out, please?
In Acts 11:23 Barnabas exhorts the believers in Antioch, telling them to 'cleave unto' the Lord.
The 'cleave unto' is 4347 proskollao, according to my Strong's. But Young's says it's prosmeno; as does on-line Bible (4357).

Should I throw my Strong's away (or is there some other reason - other than my Strong's being wrong - that there is this difference)?

[Fortigurn]

Nestle is to be taken above all others. ^_^

[luke]

Quote

Nestle is to be taken above all others.

Shame, 'cos if it was 4347 then it could be linked to Matt. 19:5:
'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall become one flesh'

Is there a Scriptural link that can had from 4357 prosmeno?
(this is for MIC u c )

[luke]

Quote

And Strong's for the strong!

I'm not so sure ('specially after being mislead this time <_< ). Anyone else got a prefered concordance; and why?

A brother I know says prefers Young's over Strong's, and Englishman's over both 'cos it takes a further step away from English interpretations of the Biblical words, and deal more with how the words are used in the Bible itself.

[Adanac]

luke, on May 10 2003, 08:47 AM, said:

Quote

And Strong's for the strong!

I'm not so sure ('specially after being mislead this time <_< ). Anyone else got a prefered concordance; and why?

A brother I know says prefers Young's over Strong's, and Englishman's over both 'cos it takes a further step away from English interpretations of the Biblical words, and deal more with how the words are used in the Bible itself.

I prefer Englishman's for the reason you say. The best way to study a Bible word is to look at how it is used in other contexts. For instance, have a look at the word "rib" in Gen 2 and consider how it is used elsewhere and the fact that Eve was literally "built" like a house. A very quick look at the entry in Englishman's will help establish what I am on about.

I had an old version of the Online Bible once and was doing a study on the word for "needlework" or "embroidery". I was fascinated that the same word, according to the Online Bible, was used in the place where it says that Manasseh "did evil (embroidery) in the sight of the Lord". For ages I was trying to figure out the connection - was he weaving an evil tapestry? That was until I figured out the Online Bible had a mistake in its Strong's data and checked other sources.

[luke]

Evil embroidery! I love it!

(always thought Textiles at school was the Devil's subject :devil: )

[Fortigurn]

One of the best lexicons out there is Liddell/Scott/Jones, edition 9. It's comparable to BADG.

And guess what? It's online here. ^_^

[Kesaph]

I like young's cos you can see where else the same original word is used and easliy see the ref, rather than having to go through all the quotes of that particular english translation.

for just looking up references or verse hunting i use my palm PDA! always got it on me and it's quick. Source

Fort - you said Nestle's is better - so does that mean that Young's is a more accurate concordance for translations, than Strong's? for the greek anyway

[Fortigurn]

Kesaph, on May 11 2003, 09:07 AM, said:

Fort - you said Nestle's is better - so does that mean that Young's is a more accurate concordance for translations, than Strong's? for the greek anyway

Yes, it would be, if it's based on the Nestle text. But even Strong's (the latest version), should have a list of the textual variations.

Nestle isn't a lexicon or concordance, iof course, t's a Greek New Testament text - the most accurate and the authoratative standard New Testament text.

It's currently in its 27th revision, I believe (I have a hardcopy of the 27th revision), and is invaluable if you want to know the right word for these sorts of difficulties.

I first came across problems years ago, when I was still in my teens - couldn't figure out why Strong's sometimes differed from the Diaglott.

[Kesaph]

I realise Nestle's is a translation.

I've not really come across any major problems with words, cos I guess I'm not that academic about them.
There's no way I could go to the lengths that you and Ev do to prove your points!

[Fortigurn]

Actually it's not even a translation - it's a Greek New Testament text. ^_^

It's the text from which just about every modern Bible translation is taken, which makes it a very useful reference tool - you can check up to see if they've been dodgy!

I believe that word studies aren't necessary to prove sound doctrine. On occasion they are needed to refute certain arguments, but I steer away from lexical fights.

[Evangelion]

Quote

There's no way I could go to the lengths that you and Ev do to prove your points!

Tnx mate.

[Fortigurn]

There isn't any difference. People in the first century used the common Greek of the day. So did Jews and Christians.

[Fortigurn]

Having said that, LSJ also includes references from the LXX and New Testament. ^_^

[Evangelion]

Here follows a quote from Dr Rodney Decker (Calvary Theological Seminary) on the B-Greek discussion list:

It may be that your statement is just a matter of terminology. Certainly Greek is one language in the sense that there has been
continuity between the oldest forms of the Greek language (Mycean Greek and perhaps even earlier) and modern Greek. There were no abrupt, overnight changes into a drastic new language (even though we use the dates 330 BC-AD 330 to delineate Koine. The underlying structure and grammatical forms of the Classical period are very similar to the Koine, so it is not unreasonable that someone who has studied Classical (as yourself), can read Koine. Scholars have, however, defined things more precisely than that.

The nature of the Greek of the NT was a debate that raged during the 17-19th centuries. There were three basic answers offered.

1. The Hebraists argued that all examples of unusual constructions are due to the influence of Hebrew.
2. The purists said (much as you are suggesting, Dan) that all examples that seem unusual in NT Gk grammar and syntax are really good, classical Greek. They sought to find parallels for all such constructions in classical literature.
3. Some agued that NT Greek was "Holy Spirit Greek" (e.g., Cremer, Thayer). (See BAGD, xi-xii.)

The discovery and study of the papyri changed those conclusions substantially. There are currently three basic views among Koine scholars as to the nature of the Greek found in the NT.

1. Biblical Greek is standard Koine Greek: the ordinary, spoken Greek of the first century (Deissmann; see MHT 1:2P8; Colwell, IDB 2:486).
2. Biblical Greek is a unique dialect of Hellenistic, Koine Greek (Nigel Turner); this is similar to the older "Holy Spirit Greek" theory.
3. Biblical Greek is conversational Greek (Wallace).

Part of the confusion lies in the failure to recognize that in any language there are three "levels": the vernacular (the "language of
the streets", popular" speech, rustic, colloquial), conversational (the spoken language of educated people; grammatically correct, but lacking the subtleties, etc. of literature), and literary (the polished Koine as written by scholars/academics; artistic expression in writing).

Most NT writings fit the conversational category, though there are some that lean toward either end of the spectrum. The "mainline" group is represented by (most of) Paul and Matthew. On the edge of conversational, but leaning toward vernacular are Revelation, Mark, John, and 2 Peter. On the other side, leaning toward literary, are Hebrews, Luke-Acts, James, Pastorals, 1 Peter, and Jude. (This paragraph summarized from Wallace, "Exegetical Syntax," 8-23.)

As I understand it, there are three major characteristics of Koine Greek that mark it as distinct from Classical Greek.

1) Many words had changed meaning;
2) the grammar was simplified; and
3) expressions were phrased with greater clarity. (See Wallace, 9P11 for greater detail.)


1) Many words had changed meaning.
E.g., lalew, at one point meant "to babble." In Koine it had become the normal word for speaking. Ballw used to mean a somewhat violent throwing, has been toned down to indicate, in some instances, simply "I put" or "I send." The prepositions likewise had begun to overlap.

Classical Greek had made a clear distinction between eis and en. In the Koine eis had begun to encroach on the territory of en. (Cp. Westcott's comments on John 1:18; the papyri has shown than making fine distinctions between these two words is not legitimate.)

Conjunctions also changed in usage. In Classical, hina always indicated result. In the Koine it may indicate content, result, and even a temporal "when" [Jn. 16:32].

2) The grammar was simplified.
Koine is not as refined and polished as was Classical. The older language used a large number of conjunctions to express the most minute differences in the relationships between clauses. Koine has only a few, kai being the most common. Even word formation has been simplified. The older form had not only singular and plural forms, but also a dual which has disappeared in the Koine.

Most of the older mi-verbs are gone, being replaced with the familiar omega forms. Syntax was likewise modified as shorter sentences replaced the long, complex sentences of Classical Greek (though Paul still manages some long sentences in Eph. 1!).

3) The Koine has also become more explicit and thus more clear.
Compound verbs are more common. It is much more common to find pronouns supplied as subjects of verbs where they are not needed. Prepositions are being used more frequently in place of phrases that formerly used only the case to express meaning. Direct discourse is much more common than indirect discourse. There is considerable redundancy with expression such as "the very same," "each and every," and "very great."

Source.

It would appear, therefore, that the differences are largely stylistic and grammatical. They have little bearing on the actual definition of the words in question.

This would also explain why LSJ contains definitions of the Greek from both Koine and Classical sourcs.

[Evangelion]

You're right, I should have qualified that.

You'll notice that Decker's examples of "words which changed their meaning" are by no means radical. What seems to have happened in many cases is that one particular form of a word began to overlap another form of that same word.

Thus:

E.g., lalew, at one point meant "to babble." In Koine it had become the normal word for speaking. Ballw used to mean a somewhat violent throwing, has been toned down to indicate, in some instances, simply "I put" or "I send." The prepositions likewise had begun to overlap.

These are not radical changes. They involve merely a change of emphasis, or a tendency towards equivalence. They do not involve a change that is so great as to result in an unbridgable gap between Koine and Classical Greek.

And in any case, each word must be taken on its own merits. If somebody wants to claim "Oh, you're using LSJ, which doesn't provide an accurate definition of this particular word, because the Koine had come to mean something different", they must first prove that this is so.

They can't just shrug off LSJ as if it's totally irrelevant.

[Fortigurn]

Johanan, on May 12 2003, 01:00 AM, said:

Always?

I usually use the NASB which is based on Nestle, but there are times when I wonder if it is always the best choice. John 1:18 comes to mind.

The Nestle-Aland text (and any translation based on it), really needs to be read with Metzger's Commentary, which explains all the textual decisions made, and the process by which they were made.

There was doubt over John 1:18, and a mere two manuscript fragments tipped the scale. One of the committee members records in Metzger's Commentary a formal protest.

[Fortigurn]

Alethia, on May 13 2003, 03:42 AM, said:

Might this not get confusing? If definitions are included from Classical sources, which were no longer in use in the New Testament period, it could lead to mistaken meanings.

No, because LSJ provides quotes from the New Testament when it wants to illustrate meanings not originally in classical sources.

Quote

Regarding the Nestle- Aland text, would it not be correct to say that while N-A is the best source consensus source text available today, there are still questions ins some areas, and there is no source that is perfect or unquestionable?

Definitely. And there is precious little wrong with Nestle-Aland.

[Fortigurn]

One of the early editions of Strong's actually takes into account the later recensions. The latest editions, if I recall correctly, recognise N-A.

[luke]

luke, on May 10 2003, 02:35 PM, said:

[...] if it was 4347 then it could be linked to Matt. 19:5:
'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall become one flesh'

Is there a Scriptural link that can had from 4357 prosmeno?

I figure Barnabas' exhortation to the Antioch believers is more fitting with the word prosmeno than with the word proskollao 4347 (not suprising, huh, considering it's inspired n' all. ).

The NKJV translates prosmeno as 'continue with', and the on-line Bible gives other definitions for it, like 'to remain with', 'to remain still', 'tarry', and 'stay'.
If we take the Scriptural theme of Chirst and his Bride, then Matt. 19:5 could aply to Jesus 'cleaving to' his Bride (it talks about "him" cleaving to "her").
The Lord Jesus will cleave(proskollao) to us through all things, we "simply" have to stay with him, to remain with him - i.e. not walk away from Jesus and go serve other things (like our own sinful desires) - like his faithful bride.

Make sense?