tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post2296953481608787307..comments2024-03-28T15:19:14.151+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Cambridge Greek Lexicon 4 – Do We Need It?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54881985555088356772021-06-30T18:27:20.281+01:002021-06-30T18:27:20.281+01:00Aha, I was thinking of LSJ when the article I refe...Aha, I was thinking of LSJ when the article I referenced (not this one by Dirk) was comparing it to Liddel and Scott's 1889 Intermediate Greek-English lexicon. Ok, but my question still remains if we just adjust to the LS Intermediate Greek-English lexicon. If the Cambridge Greek Lexicon is in some sense revising that, has the revision at times, possibly seen in these 2 examples, removed valuable information in the attempt to revise antiquated and offensive language? LS's Intermediate Lexicon is a work of scholarship in its own right. Maybe it gives us more information or greater specificity at times in some respect or another than even LSJ. Perhaps it does so in the case of βλαύτη. Why would LS include the fop part? <br /><br />Regarding κροκωτός, I have to wonder why the article I quoted from mentioned "gay" as part of the definition being revised if it was not in the LS Intermediate. Could they have been referencing LSJ without mentioning it? That's starting to get confusing by adding in a third dictionary and its supplements without mentioning them. The article presents the new lexicon as an update of LS' 1889 Intermediate. Not sure what happened there. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82239414107618578262021-06-30T16:59:02.003+01:002021-06-30T16:59:02.003+01:00The definition of βλαύτη is that of the 1889 Inter...The definition of βλαύτη is that of the 1889 Intermediate Greek-English lexicon, https://archive.org/details/intermediategree00lidd_0/page/150/mode/2up . That of LSJ is just "slipper", https://archive.org/details/b31364949_0001/page/318/mode/2up . Prof. Diggle is more precise here, https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/epic-dictionary-re-defines-ancient-greek-including-the-words-which-made-the-victorians-blush .<br />As for κροκωτός, LSJ s.v. 2 gives "saffron-coloured robe" as the definition (in sloping type), then "worn by gay women" (in upright type) as the first of several contexts for such a robe, with citations. (There is no 'gay' in the Intermediate, https://archive.org/details/intermediategree00lidd_0/page/450/mode/2up .) The 1968 Supplement to LSJ directed readers to delete "gay", and the 1996 Revised Supplement (to which readers are directed by a reference mark in the 1996 and subsequent printings of LSJ) replaces "worn by gay women" with "worn by women on special occasions".<br />So there is nothing very new or surprising here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17188077699776869142021-06-30T15:05:44.046+01:002021-06-30T15:05:44.046+01:00Just saw an article about this today. This part co...Just saw an article about this today. This part concerned me:<br /><br />'Antiquated and offensive language also gets a makeover. While Liddell and Scott defined βλαύτη (blaute) as “a kind of slipper worn by fops”, in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon it is described as “a kind of simple footwear, slipper”; κροκωτός (krokotos) is no longer defined as “a saffron-coloured robe worn by gay women”, but as a “saffron gown (worn by women)”.'<br /><br />Revising antiquated language is fine. But that, and especially, revising offensive language, could be problematic if it removes reliable information. In these examples, was the slipper in view worn by what Greco-Roman culture would have considered fops (men devoted to or vain about appearance), or was that a judgment imposed on the word by LSJ? Why would LSJ specify that the slipper was worn by males if it wasn't largely limited to males? With the LSJ reference to gay women, I have to assume that refers to happy/celebrative women. It is fine to remove the word "gay" since most today would assume it refers to lesbian women. But it would be a loss if the robe was fundamentally associated with women celebrating or conveying happiness in their attire, but that information is removed in the interest of removing antiquated or offensive language. Do you have any sense of whether this is a problem with the lexicon or of it seems they took care not to remove reliable information? In the examples I have mentioned, it could be that the those slippers were not largely worn by males specially concerned about their appearance/dress. And the robe might not have been associated with women in happiness. But why would LSJ indicate those aspects?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61825031704510210042021-05-26T14:10:47.679+01:002021-05-26T14:10:47.679+01:00The boxing problem is a very annoying modern thing...The boxing problem is a very annoying modern thing!Alexander Thomsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20123364087555980512021-05-26T12:10:11.915+01:002021-05-26T12:10:11.915+01:00One thing I've discovered that I don't nee...One thing I've discovered that I don't need is the box the two volumes come in. It is nice, but it is so tight that I have found it impossible to take out just the volume I need. So I've dumped the box and just keep the two volumes on the shelf. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13594293997311958992021-05-01T15:30:15.636+01:002021-05-01T15:30:15.636+01:00The Canadian price has shot up to $220 since I las...The Canadian price has shot up to $220 since I last posted. Think I'll pass for now. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10915737233077999632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59751491194115207352021-05-01T12:10:53.375+01:002021-05-01T12:10:53.375+01:00Maybe you could produce some kind of NT supplemen...Maybe you could produce some kind of NT supplement. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53213613334949866942021-05-01T12:10:27.090+01:002021-05-01T12:10:27.090+01:00Got my copy this morning. Got a good deal. Got my copy this morning. Got a good deal. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66511532717592778322021-04-30T12:36:49.968+01:002021-04-30T12:36:49.968+01:00Thanks Dirk, lots to think about. I especially ap...Thanks Dirk, lots to think about. I especially appreciate your reference to DGE & it’s English version.John Wilderspinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776722013880963181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70101311469285204712021-04-30T11:58:21.865+01:002021-04-30T11:58:21.865+01:00Thanks Dirk, appreciate your review. Thanks Dirk, appreciate your review. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10915737233077999632noreply@blogger.com