Danker's The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

[mgvh]

Danker's The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2009 version, not the 1983 Gingrich/Danker) is an excellent shorter and more affordable Greek-English lexicon. Since Danker is the editor, it reflects the excellence of the standard Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich (BDAG).

It is better than the glosses provided by the UBS/Newman dictionary. It is not as exhaustive as the 1993 The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (CWSD-NT) by Zodhiates that is included in Discoverer and higher collections, but it is more straightforward. While CWSD-NT is certainly helpful, there is considerable theological bias that skews some entries. (E.g., see the long entry under βῆμα which goes way beyond anything connected with that word!)

[Brian W. Davidson]

I was trying to find a post on this earlier today. Assumed someone had requested it in the past. I use the print dictionary just about every day when doing devotional reading. This is the most noteworthy lexicon that is in BibleWorks but not in Accordance yet.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Brian W. Davidson

[Michel Gilbert]

+100¹⁰⁰

 

Yes, requested many times, e.g., at https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/8956-concise-danker/?hl=danker

 

The best for rapid reading for most people.

[Michel Gilbert]

Here is the first word in Matthew:

 

 

[mgvh]

+100¹⁰⁰

 

Yes, requested many times, e.g., at https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/8956-concise-danker/?hl=danker

 

The best for rapid reading for most people.

I looked for a previous request but didn't find it. Thanks for noting it. I see now where it was in "Features" request. It's at home here now in "Modules" request.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Mark,

If I recall, Feature and Module Requests used to be one category and split into two. Also, for whatever reason, sometimes Members don’t post in the correct place, or at least where Acc intended them to. I’ve been guilty of this myself. Now I usually search from the main page to cover all the bases. Sometimes if I get too many hits, I search in individual Forums.

Thanks for reviving this request. I was hoping someone would. I think it is invaluable.

Regards,

Michel

[Michel Gilbert]

FWIW, I get the impression that some think Holladay’s and Danker’s concise versions are simply copies of the glosses in HALOT and BDAG, which of course, is simply not the case.

[Brian W. Davidson]

Danker emphasized that this is really a new work at the end of his career.

A quote from the preface:

 

"This lexicon is therefore neither a revision of any previous small-scale dictionary of New Testament Greek, nor an abridgment of BDAG, although I have certainly benefited from innumerable sources of information, ancient and modern, that make their mark in the pages of BDAG."

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Very helpful, those last couple of posts. I don't know this work but it sounds useful now I understand better what it is.

 

+1

thx

D

[Rick Bennett]

I had a feeling this would come up soon (and it's not the first time). 

 

Here are my thoughts on "concise" lexicons (or other abridged, shorter, etc. type resources): 

 

1. These two in particular (Danker and Holladay), and others like them are very widely used in schools because they are portable, get to the most commonly (if that's a good word) needed information more easily, and are less expensive. These are great features. I used the predecessor by Gingrich for 3 years in college, and became very acquainted with it, and agree it's superior to anything of its size. In seminary, Holladay was required, but I had HALOT in Accordance (and indeed almost every class the prof would ask me what HALOT said since no one else had it electronically, nor carried the 6 vols. to class).

 

2. Size is obviously not a constraint for electronic resources. Concise information about the passage you are working in is easily attainable with no additional effort via amplify with context. The price for these is relatively low considering the BDAG/HALOT bundle, academic discounts, and the frequently occurring 25% off pick a product sale. And, eventually, anyone who purchases one of these concise editions will purchase BDAG/HALOT. So, why invest in both? (I know some will disagree, and that's fine, too).

 

And from a development perspective, is it worthwhile to invest our resources in acquiring and developing them? It's tough to answer, and historically we have answered that "no." And, we have had relatively few requests in recent years as well.

 

That said, it's more probable that we can get Danker, and if others make the call to acquire it, I will not say no to develop it. 

 

I hope that helps…thanks for the feedback.

[Brian W. Davidson]

Thanks for considering Danker.

 

I have never had an interest in Holladay because it is weird in that it is really a concise version of something in between the second and third editions of KB. Besides the Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew is far better.

[Michel Gilbert]

Besides the Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew is far better.

 

I knew this would come up too.

 

Anderson wrote some scathing criticisms of the DCH, see http://www.biblicals...3_50_clines.pdf , which have not been answered. I’ve checked every CDCH definition over the past few years and compared them to HALOT and Holladay, and Anderson’s criticisms hold true for the entire set. I'm not going to go into it, but I don't think Anderson's concerns about DCH's methodological inconsistencies can be answered. We just have to use it with caution.

 

Of course, DCH has the benefit of covering all classical Hebrew texts. And it has other benefits. But it is not far better, nor is it particularly suited for the average reader, e.g., which homonym should they choose, and why? Nor is Holladay simply an abridgement of HALOT. I know because I've read Holladay and HALOT (and CDCH and BDB) cover to cover, in the context of reading the HB over the last two decades, and I've seen that Holladay was too modest about his own contributions to the work (many others have said this as well). Nor does the common argument of an old gloss approach (honestly, whatever that means, as if Hebraists from former generations used interlinears and just replaced them with the newest glosses from the latest lexicons) versus a new lingusitic approach hold water for a lexicon whose sole purpose was to give glosses, a context, and a for further reference if needed, which was HALOT itself. So,in context, I think you would have to prove DCH is far better than HALOT to prove CDCH is far better than Holladay. I think Anderson showed that that can't be done.

 

Having said all this, I would prefer Danker’s concise lexicon for the NT, and Brill’s Konzise und aktualisierte Ausgabe des Hebräischen und Aramäischen Lexikons zum Alten Testament. But if Acc can't get KAHAL, then i would vote for Holladay in its place. Or, if I just had students in mind, vote for Holladay in the first place.

 

I'm not as well versed in NT lexicons, but from what I've seen, Danker seems to have made improvements over BDAG in the same way Holladay did over HALOT.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

 

[Brian W. Davidson]

I do prefer HALOT to DCH, but I've always really enjoyed CDCH as a reading lexicon, like Danker for NT.

 

Haven't used Holladay cover to cover or in comparison so I'll bow out on the comparison to CDCH and concede with a "Touché, kind sir."

[Brian W. Davidson]

Michel, wanted to say, "Thank you SO much!" [dripping with sarcasm].

 

I just had to go to the local bookstore and buy another copy of Holladay (sold mine years ago) to give it another go.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Brian,

 

Just today I checked אב and מופת. HALOT has 9 entries, Holladay has 6 for אב, and I like "originator, founder" in Holladay vs "progenitor" in HALOT (for #2). I especially dislike "parent" in CDCH. Also, for מופת , I like Holladay's "omen" vs HALOT's and CDCH's "portent." I would guess that there are hundreds of places where I prefer Holladay's glosses over HALOT's. I think they are better glosses based on my studies, and, no doubt, based on where I've lived, e.g., I'm more used to the phrase "founding fathers" vs "progenitors of the nation," and "omen," as in, "Oh man, something bad is going to happen," vs "I just saw a portent."

 

I could say a lot more, but I won't, except that I admit that once in a while I prefer a CDCH gloss.

 

Now I have my own user lexicon, not just gleaned from the main lexicons, but also including my own work. I'm going to check it against KAHAL next, probably starting in January.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Fabian]

Hi Brian,

 

Just today I checked אב and מופת. HALOT has 9 entries, Holladay has 6 for אב, and I like "originator, founder" in Holladay vs "progenitor" in HALOT (for #2). I especially dislike "parent" in CDCH. Also, for מופת , I like Holladay's "omen" vs HALOT's and CDCH's "portent." I would guess that there are hundreds of places where I prefer Holladay's glosses over HALOT's. I think they are better glosses based on my studies, and, no doubt, based on where I've lived, e.g., I'm more used to the phrase "founding fathers" vs "progenitors of the nation," and "omen," as in, "Oh man, something bad is going to happen," vs "I just saw a portent."

 

I could say a lot more, but I won't, except that I admit that once in a while I prefer a CDCH gloss.

 

Now I have my own user lexicon, not just gleaned from the main lexicons, but also including my own work. I'm going to check it against KAHAL next, probably starting in January.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

I'm interesting in your opinion of the new Gesenius.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[markusvonkaenel]

I'm afraid because KAHAL and also Gesenius are German, they will never made it to Accordance.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Markus,

 

They both came out in 2013, and I planned to go through KAHAL first. Life got in the way (including Robert's syntax database in Acc), and I haven't even bought my own copy of it yet, never mind the new Gesenius.

 

Regarding German titles, at least in this case, if Acc coud license KAHAL under reasonable terms, they know that some/many? would buy it.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[markusvonkaenel]

Hi Michel

 

would be a difficult decision for me, as I own Gesenius.  I use mostly Kleins Etymologial Dictionary from Carta Jerusalem. Also on paper. For accordance I mainly use CDCH.

 

Therefore I can not promise any purchase. I'm at the moment done with Hebrew dictionaries. But looking forward of your commentary about KAHAL here on the form.

 

Otherwise its a strategical decision, if they are planning to "conquer" the German market. Then they need certainly such high quality books in German.

 

BTW: I'm looking in Kittel or BDAG for Greek, this will be my next purchase. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by markusvonkaenel

[hefin jones]

I had a feeling this would come up soon (and it's not the first time). 

 

...

 

And from a development perspective, is it worthwhile to invest our resources in acquiring and developing them? It's tough to answer, and historically we have answered that "no." And, we have had relatively few requests in recent years as well.

 

That said, it's more probable that we can get Danker, and if others make the call to acquire it, I will not say no to develop it. 

 

I hope that helps…thanks for the feedback.

The KEY distinction though is Danker's CONCISE is not merely condensed BUT an AUGMENTED edition relative to the full BDAG 2000. In the Concise Danker extended his practice of providing definitions as opposed to glosses to more lexemes than he already had in BDAG. 

 

In lieu of  BDAG.x  (unlikely to ever see the light of day?)  having  Danker Concise alongside BDAG would be helpful.

 

HJ

[accordance_fan]

May I add a belated perspective. I would welcome both the addition of Holladay and Danker. The latter was available in Bibleworks so there must be an electronic version. Sometimes an brief overview of glosses can be just the thing one needs. Holladay is based on the German edition of the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, before that famous lexicon reached its third edition and before it was translated into English by M. E. J. Richardson. It is not as some presuppose an abridgment of Richardson as Richardson only appeared later. This edition is therefore largely the work of one man while Richardson worked with an team of OT scholars. Holladay though did also consult many English translations, notably the RSV to ensure that this was more than a translation from the German.

[Michel Gilbert]

From Holladay's Introduction,

"The first fascicle of the German third edition was of course available to me already set in type, and beyond this I have been able to make use of the manuscript of the German third edition through the letter ס; for ע and beyond I have then resorted to the German first/second edition."

Also,

"But it is my hope that, even truncated as the present work is, it still offers the student enough significant variations from the Revised Standard Version or from whatever other modern translation might be at hand, to prompt the student to raise the tolerance for uncertainty, and to begin to 'test everything, holding fast to what is good.'"

 

[dandennison]

I think the benefit to electronic concise lexicons is primarily in the educational process. In that I think there can be significant value, but I imagine the market is considerably smaller than for the regular sized works.

[mgvh]

Another reason to consider incorporating the Danker Concise Lexicon is that it could serve as the 'base' lexicon for some of the packages. E.g., the Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament has its benefits, but Danker's might be a better initial (and cheaper?) option.

[Steven S]

+1

 

Just wanted to say that, while I love having BDAG on my mobile device, I find using it for amplification can be tedious due to the amount of scrolling I need to do. I would love to have the Danker concise lexicon for amplification while continuing to use BDAG as a primary window resource when I need to dig beyond what the concise entry offers. But I agree with some of the caveats offered above and doubt I would ever use Danker's concise lexicon on my desktop.