Louw/Nida dictionary authoritative?
W illem S V orster University o f South Africa
A bstract
In w h at sen se is th e L o u w /N id a d ic tio n a ry a u th o r i
tative?
T h is essay d e a ls w ith fo u r fa c to rs w hich m a k e th e L ouw /N ida dictionary authoritative. T hese include the p re s e n ta tio n o f lexical m eanings in sem antic dom ains, the definition of m eanings, the distinction th a t is m ade b etw een m eaning and reference, and th e layout o f the d ic tio n a ry . A ll fa c to rs a re d isc u sse d c ritic a lly an d exam ples o f w here the dictionary fails are given.
T h e Greek-English lexicon o f the N ew Testament based on sem antic domains, edited by J P L ouw & E A N ida, and h e re a fte r re fe rre d to as L & N , has received a re m arkably positive reception by the scholarly w orld until now. A ccording to R eese (1988:150): ‘[T]he p u b licatio n o f this attractively p resen ted lexicon will force the sc h o la rly gu ild to p ay a tte n tio n to th e lin g u istic m eth o d o lo g y u n d e rly in g th is re v o lu tio n a ry a c h ie v e m e n t’. In a sim ila rly p o sitiv e rev iew , S ilva (1989:165) m aintains: ‘[T]his w ork has to be regarded as a prodigious step forw ard in th e field o f lexicography generally, and in the study o f N T vocabulary specifically’ (see also Boers 1989; B otha 1989; E lliott 1988; L ategan 1988; Snyman 1988). I am also o f the opinion th at it is a m ajor achievem ent in lexicographical studies o f the vocabulary of th e G r e e k N ew T e s ta m e n t. T h e d ic tio n a ry o ffe rs a new a p p ro a c h to lexical s e m a n tic s in th is fie ld , an d it is in m any ways to ta lly d if fe re n t fro m ex istin g d ic tio n a r ie s o n th e N ew T e s ta m e n t. T h is gives rise to th e q u e s tio n o f how authoritative this lexicon is.
• This essay was prepared for a symposium on the Louw/Nida wordbook at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans, November 1990.
26 ISSN 0259 9422 = H TS 47/1 (1991)
W S Vorster
In the introduction to L & N the com pilers assert that:
T he principal reason for a new type o f G re e k New T estam en t lexicon is the inadequacy o f most existing dictionaries, which for the m ost part are lim ited in indicating m eanings, since they depend principally on a series o f glosses.
(Louw & N ida 1988:viii)
R a th e r th a n asking w h eth er th ese in ad eq u acies have b e e n overcom e in this new dictionary, I decided to address the problem o f th e authority o f L & N (see B arnhart 1980). By this I m ean w hether the scholarly w orld can rely on this dictionary as an
‘authority’ for the lexical m eanings o f the words used in the G reek New T estam ent.
‘A u th o rity ’ is u sed h e re in th e sen se o f ‘th e pow er o r rig h t to co n tro l, ju d g e or p ro h ib it th e actio n s o f o th e r s ’ (C o llin s 1986 s v). It is a p p a re n t th a t th e re are aspects on which this dictionary cannot be regarded as authoritative since, it was not designed to give inform ation on such aspects. It is, for exam ple, not authoritative on etym ology, m orphology, pronunciation, syntax, th e lexical m eaning o f each occur
rence o f a p articular w ord in the New T estam ent, and the m eaning o f the w ords dis
cussed in their usage outside the New T estam ent, to m ention but a few things. L & N is a sem antic dictionary dealing with th e lexical meanings o f the G reek w ords in the New T estam ent. It can th erefo re only be auth o ritativ e w ith regard to th e m eaning o f w ords in the New T estam ent. T he question o f authority will therefore be addres
sed in this respect.
It sh o u ld b e k e p t in m in d th a t L & N w as d e v e lo p e d p rim a rily fo r u se by translators. T his explains th e m any annotations relating to tran slatio n included in th e d ictio n ary . T his does n ot, how ever, im ply th a t th e d ictio n ary can n o t b e an au th o rity o r a help fo r o th e r users such as students, exegetes, theologians and all o th er persons interested in the m eaning o f New T estam ent words. O n the contrary.
T he dictionary gives a com prehensive tre a tm e n t o f approxim ately 25 000 m eanings o f so m e 5 000 w o rd s w hich a re u se d in th e N ew T e s ta m e n t. I sh all lim it my discussion o f the question o f the authority o f L & N to lexical sem antics only.
A ccording to Louw (1979:109): ‘T h e p u rp o se o f th e W o rd b o o k is to p rovide a c c u ra te a n d p ractical guidance in d eterm in in g satisfactory eq u iv alen ces fo r the G reek N T vocabulary’. This m eans th at translators and exegetes are provided with
‘clear descriptions o f areas o f m eaning o f single words, set phrases and idiom s’, and th a t in d icatio n s a re given o f ‘how equivalences o f m ean in g m ay b e satisfactorily ex p ressed in o th e r lan g u ag es’ (L ouw 1979:109). H ow successful is L & N in this
regard? T his question will be approached from different perspectives. Let us first deal with the arrangem ent of meaning in the dictionary.
T h e m ain d ifferen ce betw een L A N and o th e r bilingual d ictio n aries on th e New T estam en t is th a t in L & N the focus is on the related m eanings o f different words, an d not on the different m eanings tor which a particu lar w ord is used in the New T estam ent. T hat is why the many meanings for which G reek w ords are used in the New T estam en t are organised into ninety-three sem antic areas or domains. This is p e rh a p s th e m ost innovative asp ect o f th e dictio n ary since it is th e first tim e in history th a t an a tte m p t has b een m ade to arran g e th e d ifferen t m eanings o f the com plete New T estam ent vocabulary into sem antic domains.
T he idea of the arrangem ent o f m eaning into sem antic dom ains is nothing novel (see G eeraerts 1986:67-148). W hat is new is the arrangem ent o f the different m ea
nings of G reek New T estam ent term s into sem antic fields. TTie question we have to ask is w hat this arrangem ent is based on, and w hat m akes the arrangem ent of I A N authoritative.
The com pilers o f the dictionary assert that the sem antic dom ains o f L A N reflect the classification of words into sem antic areas on the ground of th ree basic kinds of s e m a n tic c o m p o n e n ts, nam ely s h a re d o r c o m m o n c o m p o n e n ts, d is tin c tiv e o r d ia g n o stic c o m p o n en ts, an d su p p le m e n ta ry c o m p o n e n ts (see L ouw 1979:109).
A ccording to th e ir view (see Louw 1979:108f; also Louw & N id a 1988:ix) these d o m ain s do n o t follow a system o f classification b ased on, fo r exam ple, logico- philosophical categories as in the case o f R oget o r the classification proposed by Friedrich (1973). T he assum ption is th at L A N 's classification reflects the sem antic stru ctu re o f th e G re e k o f the New T estam en t. Louw (1979:109) even claim s th at th eir classification is based on an ‘em ic’ approach, ‘th a t is to say, an assignm ent of m eanings as they would have b een classified by native speakers of K oine G reek ’. In accordance with the view o f the ancients who regarded ‘fire’ as one o f the four basic elem ents, nOp, for exam ple, is classified as a substance and not as a process, it is argued (see also Louw & N ida 1988:xiv).
T h e re are a few basic insights, an d p erh ap s even problem s, which have to be dealt with before we continue our discussion o f the authority o f the dictionary in this regard. First o f all it is necessary to decide w hat the com pilers o f the dictionary did w hen th e classificatio n o f th e d iffe re n t m eanings o f th e G re e k N ew T e sta m e n t v ocab u lary w as m ad e. D id they discover, analyse o r find th e sem antic dom ains inh eren t in th e vocabulary, o r did they create them ?
28 H TS 47/1 (1991)
t v S V(mter
It is w ell known th a t th e term s ‘em ic’ and ‘e tic’ w ere first used by a n th ro p o logists in the description of behaviour (see Pike 1966). T hese term s represent two stan d p o in ts ‘which lead to results which shade into one a n o th er’ (Pike 1966:152).
W hile the etic (coined from p honetic) standpoint studies behaviour and language from outside a system, the em ic (from phonem ic) standpoint studies the system from inside. T h e re is a vast d ifferen ce betw een th e two ap p ro ach es, esp ecially w ith regard to the G reek o f th e New T estam ent, although th ere also is no reason for a dichotomy betw een the two approaches. T he one is d ependent upon the other.
Pike (1966:153f) gives a very useful survey of the most im portant characteristics of the two standpoints. It becom es clear that, if we apply these characteristics to the study o f the language of th e New T estam ent, one can hardly speak o f studying the G reek vocabulary solely from an em ic point of view. W hile the em ic structure o f a system , fo r e x am p le, has to be d isc o v e re d , th e e tic s tru c tu r e is c re a te d . P ike (1966:153) argues. W ith regard to New T estam en t G re e k one will have to assume two things, if one holds the view th at it is analysed emically. T he first assum ption is th at th ere is an inherent system in the language, and the second is th at it is possible to discover it. Both these views are problem atic. Let us deal w ith the latter first.
W e study the G re e k o f the New T estam ent, which is p art of H ellenistic G reek of th at era, m ainly from an etic point o f view. D ue to the lack o f native speakers and the lack o f exact inform ation on the spoken language o f the writers o f the New T estam ent docum ents, there is no reason for any scholar to claim th a t the language of these docum ents is studied o r described from inside, th a t is from the standpoint of a native speaker of th at language (see also Ossege 1975:79). T he problem is that we know so little about the ‘language of the New T estam ent’. It is only for the sake o f conv en ien ce th a t we speak o f ‘New T e sta m e n t G re e k ’. T he docum ents w ere w ritten by different authors, in different parts o f the N ear E ast and Asia, a t different tim es a n d in d iffe re n t circu m stan ces. Som e o f th e d o cu m en ts w ere w ritte n by bilingual a u th o rs w hose second language was G reek, o th ers by au th o rs w ho had a good com m and o f the language. In w hat sense can one then speak of the sem antic stru c tu re o f the G re e k o f the New T e sta m e n t? T h ese facto rs c o n trib u te to the difficulties involved in having an em ic view of the ‘language’ o f the New T estam ent.
It is m ore th an difficult to discover the cultural key - th at is, the know ledge o f the em ic system - o f th e G re e k o f th e N ew T e sta m e n t. W h at we actu ally do is to co n stru e th e c u ltu ra l key by studying th e la n g u a g e from o u tsid e . T h is, in my opinion, also applies both to the classification o f the sem antic structure of the New T e s ta m e n t v o c a b u la ry in to se m a n tic d o m a in s by L ouw a n d N id a, a n d th e ir d e fin itio n o f lexical m eanings o f th is v ocabulary. T h e se m a n tic d o m ain s w ere created rath er th an discovered, and so was the definition of m eanings with th e help
o f com ponential analysis. Let us elaborate.
T he com pilers o f L & N correctly reject the structure proposed by Friedrich and have convincingly draw n atten tio n to p roblem s involved in the stru ctu rin g o f the lexical m eanings o f th e New T e sta m e n t vocabulary in existing d ic tio n a rie s (see Louw 1985b:53ff). B ut w hat about their own structure? A re their dom ains built on th a t in h eren t in th e sem antic stru ctu re o f the New T estam en t vocabulary, as they presum e?
TTie dom ains o f L A N obviously reflect the theory on w hich th e dictionary is based. In th e first place they reflect th e id ea th a t w ords can be divided into four m a in c a te g o rie s n am ely - events, objects, abstracts a n d discourse referentials.
F urtherm ore, they reflect the idea th at the m eaning o f w ords can be determ ined by an analysis o f th e ir com ponents, and th a t this excludes th e use o f encyclopaedic kn o w led g e, to m e n tio n only thw o fu r th e r asp ects. T h e re a re m o re. T h is has re s u lte d in a very im pressive classification o f th e d iffe re n t m eanings o f re la te d words into ninety-three main dom ains o f meaning. O ne should, however, not forget th a t th e th r e e m e n tio n e d p r in c ip le s o f c la s s ific a tio n fo rm th e b a sis o f th is classification. In fact, they explain w hat th e com pilers discovered and how they succeeded in creating their classification. W hether these principles comply with the w ay in w hich first-c e n tu ry G re e k -sp e a k in g C h ristia n s u sed lexical m ean in g s is an o th er m atter.
Som e o f the dom ains may certainly overlap w ith th e way native speakers may have u n d ersto o d th e relatio n betw een re la te d m eanings. This is particularly true w ith re g a rd to se m a n tic d o m ain s w hich a re easy to reco g n ise - such as plants, anim als, foods, body and p arts of the body and kinship term s. T h ere are, however, num erous fields which are not so clear. A good exam ple is dom ain 25, ‘A ttitudes and E m otions’, w here we find dyotnow and ócyóaxri grouped together with words such as (|)iXé(o, (|)iXio, (|)iXo6eX(|)ia, (j)iXó8eX(tio<;, d ax o p y o q , ^tiXck»), axevox(upéojj,ai é u xoli; CTnXáyxvoiq, au^inaSéu) ktX. W h a t is rem a rk a b le , is th a t we do n o t find )aiCT€(iJ h ere. W e find )i.iaéa) u n d er the subdom ain ‘H ate, H ateful’ with w ords such as KOKÍaS niKp'ux*’, niKpaii;o)aai, áax u p y éo ), GeooTuyfii; KtX. S ubdom ain 88, of w hich these w ords form p art, concerns ‘M oral an d E thical Q u alities and R elated B ehavior’. This is a m atter o f interpretation. If ‘h a te ’ belongs to this dom ain, does
‘love’ not also belong h ere, and why are nX oúaioq and re la te d w ords not included u n d er dom ain 88 (see M alina 1987)? How w ould native speakers have understood these term s? A nother example might help us a little further.
M aK apioq is a ls o lis te d u n d e r d o m a in 25 w ith w o rd s su ch as IXapoxriq, éxxjipoaúvTi, x«pó“, auyxaípo), cnji/fi8op.ai kxX in subdom ain 25.K: ‘H appy, G lad, Joyful’. T h e re are, how ever, in terp re ters who argue th at th e ‘b eatitu d es‘ should be
30 H TS *7/1 (1991)
W S Vonter
re a d as ap o caly p tic blessings (see G u elich 1976). T h e se m ight a rg u e th a t the m eaning of jiaKÓpio^ would not be ‘pertaining to being happy, with the im plication o f enjoying fav o rab le circum stances’, but th a t the w ord should be placed u n d er dom ain 53, ‘Religious Activities’- that is, ‘pertaining to being blessed by G o d ’. Such exam ples can be m ultiplied. O ne soon realises th a t sem antic dom ains can easily be stru c tu re d in d iffe re n t ways d e p e n d in g on w h a t o n e sees as th e d istin g u ish in g com ponent o f m eaning (see also G eeraerts 1986:112ff). A good exam ple w ould be éctGíw. A ccording to L A N the word m eans ‘to consum e food, usually solids, but also liquids’. T he last p a rt o f th e definition is included to accom m odate the use of n o ijia íu e i noíjiTii/ koI éK toO yaSaxxoc, Tty; noi(j,i/riQ oúk eaG iei: in 1 C orinthians 9:7. T o my m ind th e use o f th e p re p o s itio n ÉK w ith th e v erb has to be ta k e n seriously. 1 think th at coGiu) m eans ‘to consum e food’ and th at it is used in the New T estam ent for th at m eaning only, also in 1 C orinthians 9:7. It is furtherm ore used as a close synonym o f xpcijyo) and is not used in the sense o f ‘eating liquids’. If I had to stru ctu re th e subdom ain, I w ould have placed eaGuij first and th en Tpúyoj and so on, in th is o rd e r. T h is is ju s t to show th a t th e stru c tu rin g o f th e d o m a in s is d e te rm in e d by o n e ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e lexical m ean in g o f w ords. B oth th e stru ctu re and th e definition o f m eanings are ascribed, obviously norm ally on good grounds, not discovered. Let us go a little further.
‘[W ]ords are rooted in social systems; they realize m eanings from social systems’
(M alin a 1987:358). T o classify th e m eaning of G reek New T estam en t w ords into s e m a n tic d o m a in s p re s u p p o se s th e a b ility to re c o n s tru c t o rig in a l c o n te x ts o f c o m m u n ic a tio n in th e first-c e n tu ry M e d ite rr a n e a n w o rld . T h is is a n a lm o st im possible task. T he m ost we can do is to construct possible cross-cultural contexts of understanding.
T he idea th a t th ere is an inh eren t sem antic structure in language, which has to b e d isco v ered a n d d e sc rib e d , is eq u ally p ro b le m a tic . It is b a se d on stru c tu ra l sem antics, w hich was in vogue from 1930-1975. O n e o f the m ain problem s is th a t too little distinction is m ade betw een knowledge of language and knowledge o f the w o rld . S tru c tu ra l se m a n tic s p re s u p p o s e s th a t la n g u a g e h as its ow n se m a n tic stru ctu re - which has nothing to do w ith encyclopaedic knowledge. In the w ords of Louw (1985a:80): ‘It is ... im portant th at we should add strictly sem antic dictionaries to o u r list o f d iffe re n t types o f d ic tio n a r ie s ’. T h is view has b e e n re je c te d as illusionary since it is argued th a t the difference betw een encyclopaedic and ‘p u re’
sem antic knowledge does not exist (see G eeraerts 1986:187).
F rom the perspective o f cognitive sem antics, ‘universals’, such as objects, events, and abstracts, are not regarded as comm on structures or elem ents o f language. They are regarded as com m on strategies to classify experience. Language is furtherm ore
seen as p a rt and parcel o f cultural contexts (see G ee ra e rts 1986:198f). ‘Sem antic structures a re taken to be nothing o th er than conceptualizations shaped for symbolic purposes according to the dictates of linguistic convention’ (Langacker as quoted by G eeraerts 1986:211).
T he point I wish to m ake is th at the compilers o f L & N are responsible, on both em ic a n d e tic c o n sid e ra tio n s, fo r th e ir classificatio n o f re la te d m eanings into dom ains an d subdom ains. They did n o t discover these categories in the sem antic structure o f the G reek New T estam en t vocabulary. They created these dom ains in th e light of their analysis of the related meanings o f words. O nce one realises this, the dictionary can be used in an interactive fashion. If one knows th at the dom ains o f L & N are possible ways o f dealing with related m eanings in the New Testam ent, th e u se r can sta rt using th e m aterial critically. This is exactly w hat m akes L & N a u th o rita tiv e . It is n o t b ecau se the la st w ord has b e e n said a b o u t th e re la tio n betw een related meanings of different words in the New T estam ent th at this lexicon is an authority th at has to be followed. It is because the dictionary enables the user to see a particular word within the context of o th er words which are possibly related th a t it is to be regarded as an authority. In the w ords of Louw and N ida (1988;x):
‘T he prim ary value o f a lexicon based upon sem antic dom ains is th a t it forces the read er to recognize som e of the subtle distinctions which exist betw een lexical items whose m eanings are closely related and which in certain contexts overlap’.
A second factor which m akes L & N authoritative is the definition of the m eaning of individual words. In this respect, the dictionary is totally different from all existing bilingual dictionaries on the vocabulary of the New Testam ent.
T h e d e sc rip tio n o f m ean in g by way o f d e fin itio n in s te a d o f in glosses and tra n sla tio n a l eq u iv alen ts m akes this dictionary u n ique. T h e d efin itio n s a re the resu lt o f th e analysis o f th e com ponents o f th e lexical m eaning of each individual w ord. In m o st cases th e d e fin itio n s re fle c t th e d ia g n o stic c o m p o n e n ts o f th e particular m eaning. In this m anner the different m eanings are identified and m ade m o re p re c is e . T h e a d v a n ta g e o f d e fin itio n s o f m e a n in g o v e r tr a n s la tio n a l e q u iv a le n ts is o b v io u s . W h ile tr a n s la t io n a l e q u iv a le n ts a r e a p p ro x im a te p resen tatio n s o f th e lexical m eaning of a w ord in the source language, definitions are supposed to be m ore precise. i
C o m p o n e n tia l analysis is n o t an u nknow n m e th o d o f analy sin g th e lexical meanings of words. T he advantage of defining m eaning in this way is th a t the focus is on those com ponents th a t distinguish the m eaning o f particu lar w ords from one
32 H TS 47/1 (1991)
Vorster
a n o th er. It also helps to see w hich com ponents are shared by w ords w ith related m eanings and w hich are su p p lem en tary . Ideally, this is one o f th e b est ways o f dealing w ith m eaning. T h ere are, however, also disadvantages in this approach to the analysis of meaning.
As we have seen above, w ith reg ard to dom ains, it a p p e a rs an illusion th a t sem an tic fields can be clearly m ark ed in acco rd an ce w ith an in h e re n t sem antic stru ctu re. Since sem antic dom ains are fuzzy, and since th e b o u n d aries o f lexical m eanings are also fuzzy, one can never say with certainty th at a particular feature is the d iag n o stic c o m p o n en t o f th e lexical m ean in g o f a p a rtic u la r w ord (se e also G e e ra e rts 1986:112ff). M eanings overlap and are d ependent on subtle distinctions and on connotative and associative elem ents, and can therefore never be analysed in a m echanical o r m achine-like m an n er. T h at, p erh a p s m ore th an anything else, explains why som e o f the definitions o f L A N are b e tte r th an others, and why som e are totally inadequate. A few examples may illustrate the point.
I w ould regard the definition o f th e m eaning o f Gumáo) as ‘to b urn aro m atic substances as an offering to G od’ (53.25), for example, o f xú<tio)aai as ‘the process of b u rn in g slowly, w ith accom panying sm o k e an d relativ ely little glow ’( 14.64), o f CTeiCT)j,ó(; as ‘a s u d d e n an d sev ere m o v em en t o f th e e a r t h ’ (14.87), an d all the m eanings defined in 15 as ad eq u ate and good definitions o f the lexical m eaning of th e p a r tic u la r w ords. O th e rs , how ever, a re un co n v in cin g an d in a d e q u a te for different reasons. T he definition o f Panticrcfiq (53.42) as ‘one who b ap tizes’ does n o t explain th e m eaning o f the w ord. W hat is the difference b etw een the lexical m eaning of the idioms orrpaTUx oúpáviog (12:30) and a x p a tl a tou oOpai'oO (12-45)?
I find the definitions ‘a large group o r throng o f angels’ (12:30) an d ‘th e stars of heaven as symbols o f various supernatural pow ers’ (12:45) unconvincing. W hat does it m e a n to be ‘fr e e ’ as in th e case o f éX euG epía (‘the s ta te o f b ein g fr e e ’) and éXeúGepoí;® ( ‘p e rta in in g to b ein g f r e e ’)? T h e v ag u en ess o f th e s e d e fin itio n s becom es a problem when one com pares them with éXeú0epo<;*’ (87.84), ‘pertaining to a p erso n who is not a slave, e ith e r one w ho has never b een a slave or one who was a slave form erly but is no longer’.
T h e fa c t th a t d efin itio n s o f m eaning a re o m itted in som e cases also causes problem s. T he m eaning o f éKKCUxéíi) (19:14) is defined as ‘to pierce w ith a pointed instrum ent’, while the m eaning of víkjcto) is not defined. Both are then translated by
‘to pierce’. In the case o f the latter th ere is an annotation - reading: ‘norm ally not as serious a w ound as is im plied by éKiceuTéa)’. T his exam ple also illu strates the problem o f defining the m eaning o f words from the outside. A lthough th e com pilers h o ld th e view th a t th e re is no such th in g as w ords having co m p letely th e sam e m eaning (Louw & N ida 1988:xv), they are unable to distinguish th e subtle differen-
ces betw een these w ords th at are used by the sam e author in close connection (see, however, 19.18 and 19.19). T he entries u nder 53.4-7 also illustrate th at it is alm ost im possible to define close synonyms in the New T estam ent with the help o f compo- n e n tia l analysis. W e ju s t do n o t h ave th e co m p eten ce to distinguish th e subtle differences in th e m eanings o f these words.
T he com pilers are m oreover, not always consistent in their definitions of lexical m eaning. A good exam ple is the definition o f w ords referrin g to specific festivals (see 51.5-12). In som e cases even the d ate of the festival is given, while in others it is not. T h e sam e ap p lies to w ords fo r coins in 6.76-82. In m o st cases it is said w hether the coins w ere R om an or G reek. Only in the case o f Xctitóv and crcorcrp is this not done. A re these features not diagnostic for outsiders as well in these two cases?
Som e definitions display the convictions and beliefs o f the com pilers m ore than others. O n e such case is the entry on 0eó<; (12.1) w hich certainly contains much m ore th a n sem antic inform ation, especially w hen it com es to m atters such as the patro p assio n heresy! Is the definition ‘a title w ith M essianic im plications used by Jesus concerning h im self, a definition o f th e diagnostic com ponents o f the words uloq ToO ái/G púnou? Why is it regarded as a title? New T estam ent scholars do not a g re e a b o u t this. W hy M essianic? T h e sam e ap p lie s to th e a n n o ta tio n (? ) in b ra c k e ts a fte r TtveCfia“ (12.18), w hich reads: ‘a title fo r th e th ird p erso n o f the T rinity D oes this an n o tatio n define th e m eaning o f the w ord? A nd if so, is it from an em ic point of view?
T he definitions o f th e m eanings of óiXTiSfiq, ‘p ertaining to being in accordance w ith historical fact’, and o f óXfiGeio, ‘the content o f th a t which is tru e and thus in accordance with w hat actually h appened’, reflect a positivist perception o f truth. It is doubtful w hether these definitions reflect the lexical meanings of the w ords in the New T estam ent.
T h ere are o th e r definitions which are also deb atab le, b u t the above examples will suffice.
In sp ite o f th e p ro b le m s I have discu ssed w ith re g a rd to th e d e fin itio n o f m e a n in g in som e e n trie s , o n e sh o u ld n o t g e t th e im p ressio n th a t L & N is n o t generally speaking authoritative in this respect. I would like to underscore the fact th a t th e description o f m eaning by way o f definitions is far m ore a p p ro p ria te than the giving o f translational equivalents.
34 H T S *7/1 (1991)
M'S Vorsler
A c le a r d istin ctio n is fu rth e rm o re m ade b etw e e n m eaning an d reference by th e com pilers o f L & N (Louw and N ida 1988:xvii). In this respect, too, th e lexicon is auth o ritativ e. T h e re is a trem endous difference betw een w hat a w ord m eans and w hat it refers to, som ething o f which scholars are not always aw are. L & N is very h elp fu l in th is re g a rd . In som e cases, how ever, it is n o t c le a r w h e th e r c e rta in definitions in L & N are given in term s o f m eaning o r referen ce (see 11.59-64, also 11.66 and 53.52). L et us consider a few examples.
It is possible th at ó 6<tiu; 6 óipxatoq in R evelation 12:9 and 20:2 has the m eaning
‘devil’. T he term clearly refers to the ‘devil’, and it is probable th at 6<t)iq could have acq u ired this m eaning in Jew ish C hristian circles. Ju st as ‘evil p erso n ’ is a fig u rativ e ex ten sio n , the m ean in g ‘d ev il’ w ould also be a fig u rativ e e x ten sio n . R eferences becom e meanings of words through convention. A nother, perhaps even clearer, case would be ó(j)6ciX)jó(; nourpó<;a-t>- Both m eanings are regarded as idioms in L& N. They have been defined as ‘a feeling of jealousy and resentm ent because o f w hat som eone else has o r does’ (88.165), and ‘to be stingy’. N ow here does one, however, find a reference to the belief in an Evil Eye which was com m on a t the tim e of the New T estam ent in the M editerranean world, as J H Elliott (1988) has convin
cingly shown.
T he inclusion of oúpauó<;<= (12.16) u n d er ‘S upernatural Beings’ is fu rth erm o re u nderstandable, b u t nevertheless problem atic. Instead o f giving a definition o f the m eaning o f the word, an annotation explains the term . It reads ‘a reference to G od based on th e Jew ish tendency to avoid using the nam e o r direct term for G o d ’. If oúpauóq is used, like D“*ny>, as a replacem ent for the nam e of G od, one w ould first o f all expect the term under ‘N ames o f Persons and Places’(93).
S in ce th e r e a r e m any a n n o ta tio n s in c lu d e d in L & N fo r th e sa k e o f th e translator, it would have b een of help had th ere been m ore rem arks about reference in cases w here it is possible to determ ine w hat words refer to.
A final factor which m akes this dictionary authoritative is its layout, since it compels th e u se r to co n sid er thoro u g h ly w h e th e r a p a rtic u la r m ean in g is a p p lic a b le . It therefore has an educational function.
U sers o f lexica o ften ten d to th in k th a t th e p u rp o se o f bilin g u al lexica is to provide th e user w ith the m eaning o f a w ord in a p articular context. It is often not re a lise d th a t a lexicon is only an aid fo r th e user to d e te rm in e th e m ean in g o f a p a rtic u la r w ord in a p a rtic u la r co n tex t. It is th e u se r, n o t th e lexicon, o r th e com pilers o f the lexicon, who has to d eterm in e the m eaning o f a word in use. T he
way in which L & N presents inform ation on the lexical m eaning o f New T estam ent words forces the user to make use of the inform ation in a creative way.
A lth o u g h L & N gives a c o m p le te survey o f all th e m ean in g s fo r w hich th e d ifferen t w ords in th e New T estam en t are used, it is not com plete w ith regard to each case w here a particular m eaning is applicable. This simply m eans th at the user has to m ake full use of the inform ation provided in the dictionary. If a particu lar case is not m en tio n ed in the re fe re n c e index, th e u se r has to co n su lt th e o th e r indices. H aving d ecid ed th a t a p a rtic u la r w ord m en tio n ed u n d e r a G re e k entry might be applicable, both the definition o f th at m eaning and the definition o f other related m eanings in its im m ediate area have to be consulted. This is the only way to be relatively sure th at a chosen meaning is applicable in a particular context.
In stead o f going through the list of d ifferen t m eanings o f a p a rtic u la r G reek w ord, as they norm ally occur in an alphabetically arran g ed dictionary, th e user is introduced the sem antic a re a of related m eanings o f different words. This has the advantage that, in addition to the different meanings o f the sam e word, the user also sees the re la te d m eanings o f different term s in th e sam e sem antic dom ain. Since m e a n in g is a ls o m ostly d e fin e d a n d n o t p re s e n te d in th e fo rm o f g lo sses o r translational equivalents, the user has to decide actively, with th e help o f sem antic inform ation provided by the dictionary, w hether a particular choice is applicable.
I have discussed four factors which m ake L & N an authority on lexical m eanings of th e New T estam ent vocabulary. T here are others. I am thinking o f th e im portance o f figurative extensions of m eaning, the treatm en t of m eanings of w ord groups and especially of idioms. T he fact that idioms are listed and treated m akes L & N unique.
Space does n o t allow m e to go into these factors further. Enough has been said to in d ic a te t h a t th e r e a r e g o o d r e a s o n s fo r th is d ic tio n a r y to b e re g a r d e d as a u th o ritativ e in d ifferen t aspects and on d ifferen t grounds. T he p u b licatio n is a m ilestone in th e history o f New T estam ent lexicography.
W orks cited
B a rn h a rt, C L 1980. W hat m akes a d ictionary a u th o rita tiv e , in Z g u sta, L (ed), Theory and m ethord in lexicography: Western and non-W estem perspectives, 33-42.
Colum bia: H ornbeam Press.
36 H T S 47/1 (1991)
W S Vorsler
B oers, H 1989. R eview o f G reek-English lexicon o f the New Testam ent based on sem antic domains, 2 vols. E dited by Johannes P Louw and E ugene A Nida. New York: UBS. JB L 108, 705-707.
Botha, J 1989. D ie Louw & N ida-w oordeboek: ’n Kragtige nuwe hulpm iddel vir die eksegeet, prediker en Bybelvertaler. In die Skriflig 23,1-23.
Collins paperback English dictionary, The 1986. London: Collins.
E llio tt, J H 1988. T he fear o f the leer: T he evil eye from the Bible to L i’l A bner.
Foundations & Facets Forum 4, 42-71.
E lliott, J K 1989. R eview o f Jo h an n es P Louw and E ugene A N ida (eds), Greek- Englisfi lexicon o f the New Testam ent based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols. New York: UBS. ATT 31, 379-380.
F ried rich , G 1973. D as b isher noch feh len d e B egriffslexikon zum N eu en T e s ta m ent. N T S 19,127-152.
G eeraerts, D 1986. Woordbetekenis: Een overzicht van de lexicale semantiek. Leuven:
Acco.
G uelich, R A 1976. T he M atthean beatitudes: ‘E n trance-requirem ents’ o r eschato- logical blessings? JB L 95,415-434.
Lategan, B C 1988. Louw & Nida: ’n Nuwe begrip in G riekse w oordeboeke vir die Nuwe T etsam ent. Scriptura 25, 48-51.
Louw, J P 1979. T he G reek New T estam ent wordbook. BiTr 30,108-117.
— (ed) 1985. L exico g ra p h y a n d tra n sla tio n : W ith sp e c ia l referen ce to B ible translation. Cape Town: Bible Society o f South Africa.
— 1985a. T h e p re s e n t state o f New T estam en t lexicography, in Louw 1985: 97- 117.
— 1985b. W hat dictionaries are like, in Louw 1985: 53-81.
Louw, J P & N ida, E A (ed s) 1988. G reek-English lexicon o f the N ew Testam ent based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols. New York: UBS.
M alina, B 1987. W ealth and poverty in the New T estam ent and its world. Interp. 41, 354-67.
O ssege, M 1975. E inige A sp ek te zu r G lied eru n g des n eu testam en tlich en W ort- schatzes (am Beispiel von 6iicoiocr6i/Ti bei M atthaus). Linguistica Biblica 34, 37-
101
.
Pike, K L 1966. E tic and emic standpoints for the description o f behavior, in Smith, A G (e d ) . C o m m u n ic a tio n a n d culture: R ea d in g s in th e c o d es o f h u m a n interaction, 152-163. New York: H olt, R inehart and W inston.
R eese, J M 1988. Review o f Jo h an n es P Louw and E ugene A N ida (eds), Greek- English lexicon o f the New Testam ent based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols. New Y ork: UBS. S T B 18,150-151.
Silva, M 1989. R eview o f Jo h a n n e s P Louw an d E u g en e A N id a (ed s), Greek- Engtish lexicon o f the N ew Testam ent based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols. New York: UBS. WThJ 5 1 ,163-167.
Snyman, A H 1988. R esensie van Louw, J P; Nida, E A; Smith, R B an M unson, K A Greek-English lexicon o f the New Testament based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols.
New York: UBS. N G T T 2 9 ,407-408.
38 H T S 47/1(1991)
