|
You’re St. Melito of Sardis! You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers! |
|
You’re St. Justin Martyr! You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers! |
6 comments:
I'm pretty sure it's Muraoka. You can read some of Mike Aubrey's thoughts on it at his blog. And John Hobbins reviewed it as well.
I believe Taylor's was recently published in a second edition by Hendrickson, the primary update involving the addition of short glosses from Lust, et. al. in the entries for the lexical/dictionary form of the word. Taylor's is problematic because it has absolutely no citations, just forms and very slight definitions (though the analytical portion is good). This might be good enough for class focusing on LXX Greek, particularly if they've only had one year of Greek to date. It also has the benefit of being relatively inexpensive. Otherwise, I think Muraoka (which I've not seen, only read the reviews Nick mentions) probably has a slight edge.
That is, I think Muraoka has a slight edge over the 'full' Lust, et. al.
This is a false choice. Lust is, of course, a standard and essential lexicon. But, Muraoka's volume (particularly the now in print third edition) is also incredibly helpful. Moreover, their respective approaches to the LXX translation theory make choosing either one a tough option. I choose both.
I'm glad not everyone is beating up on Lust. It's the "LXXicon" I use.
I'll beat up on Lust:
Half of it's glosses are simply pulled for LSJ, which is already known to be deficient for the LXX & other Hellenistic literature (and the glosses in the revamped Taylor are pulled from Lust).
It's method is one of glosses *only.* No definitions.
The only thing it has going for it is the bibliographies, which, though incomplete, differ enough from Muraoka's (also incomplete) to make it beneficial to have it.
Post a Comment