In what sense is the

Louw/Nida dictionary authoritative?

W illem S V orster
University o f South Africa

A bstract
In w h at sense is th e L o u w /N id a d ictio n a ry a u th o ri­
tative?

T h is essay d e a ls w ith fo u r fa c to rs w hich m ak e th e

L ouw /N ida dictionary authoritative. These include the
p resen tatio n of lexical m eanings in sem antic domains,
the definition of meanings, the distinction th at is m ade
betw een m eaning and reference, and the layout of the
d ic tio n a ry . A ll fa c to rs a re d iscu ssed critic ally an d
examples of where the dictionary fails are given.

T he Greek-English lexicon o f the New Testament based on sem antic domains, edited
by J P Louw & E A N ida, and h e re a fte r re fe rred to as L & N , has received a re ­
m arkably positive reception by the scholarly world until now. A ccording to R eese
(1988:150): ‘[T]he p u blication o f this attractively presen ted lexicon will force the
sch o larly guild to pay a tte n tio n to th e lin g u istic m eth o d o lo g y u n d erly in g this
re v o lu tio n a ry a c h ie v e m e n t’. In a sim ilarly p o sitiv e review , Silva (1989:165)
m aintains: ‘[T]his work has to be regarded as a prodigious step forward in the 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; Lategan 1988; Snyman 1988). I am also o f the
opinion that it is a m ajor achievem ent in lexicographical studies of the vocabulary of
th e G re e k N ew T e sta m e n t. T h e d ictio n a ry o ffers a new a p p ro a c h to lexical
sem an tics in th is field , an d it is in m any ways to ta lly d iffe re n t fro m existing
d ic tio n a rie s on th e N ew T e sta m e n t. T h is gives rise to th e q u e stio 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 compilers assert that:

T he principal reason for a new type o f G reek New T estam ent lexicon
is the inadequacy of most existing dictionaries, which for the most part
are lim ited in indicating meanings, since they depend principally on a
series o f glosses.

(Louw & N ida 1988:viii)

R a th e r th an asking w hether th ese inadequacies have b een overcom e in this new

dictionary, I decided to address the problem o f the authority o f L & N (see B arnhart
1980). By this I m ean w hether the scholarly world can rely on this dictionary as an
‘authority’ for the lexical meanings of the words used in the G reek New T estam ent.
‘A u th o rity ’ is used h ere in th e sense of ‘th e pow er o r right to co n tro l, ju d g e or
p ro h ib it th e actions o f o th e rs’ (C ollins 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 example, not authoritative on
etymology, m orphology, pronunciation, syntax, th e lexical m eaning o f each occur­
rence of a particular word in the New T estam ent, and the m eaning of 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 the lexical meanings of the G reek w ords in the
New T estam ent. It can th erefo re only be authoritative with regard to the m eaning
of words in the New T estam ent. T he question of 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. This explains th e many annotations relating to translation included in
th e dictionary. T his does not, how ever, im ply th a t th e dictio n ary can n o t b e an
authority or a help for o th er users such as students, exegetes, theologians and all
other persons interested in the m eaning of New T estam ent words. O n the contrary.
T he dictionary gives a com prehensive treatm en t of approxim ately 25 000 meanings
o f som e 5 000 w ords w hich a re u sed in th e N ew T e sta m e n t. I shall lim it my
discussion of the question of the authority of L & N to lexical sem antics only.
A ccording to Louw (1979:109): ‘T h e p u rpose of th e W ordbook is to provide
accu rate and p ractical guidance in determ in in g satisfactory equivalences fo r the
G reek N T vocabulary’. This m eans that translators and exegetes are provided with
‘clear descriptions of areas of m eaning o f single words, set phrases and idioms’, and
th a t indications a re given o f ‘how equivalences o f m eaning may b e satisfactorily
expressed in o th e r languages’ (Louw 1979:109). H ow successful is L & N in this

H T S 47/1 (1991) 27
Louw/Nida dictionary

regard? This question will be approached from different perspectives. Let us first
deal with the arrangem ent of meaning in the dictionary.

T he m ain difference betw een L A N and o th e r bilingual dictionaries on the New

T estam ent is that in L & N the focus is on the related meanings of different words,
and not on the different meanings tor which a particular word is used in the New
Testam ent. T hat is why the many meanings for which G reek words are used in the
New T estam ent are organised into ninety-three sem antic areas or domains. This is
p erh ap s the m ost innovative aspect of th e dictionary since it is the first tim e in
history th a t an attem p t has been m ade to arran g e the d ifferent 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 meaning into sem antic domains 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 what m akes the arrangem ent of I A N
authoritative.
The compilers o f the dictionary assert that the sem antic domains of L A N reflect
the classification of words into sem antic areas on the ground of th ree basic kinds of
se m an tic co m p o n e n ts, nam ely sh a re d o r com m on c o m p o n en ts, d istin ctiv e or
d iag n o stic co m po nen ts, and su p p lem en tary c o m p o n en ts (see L ouw 1979:109).
A ccording to th eir view (see Louw 1979:108f; also Louw & N ida 1988:ix) these
dom ains do not follow a system o f classification b ased on, for exam ple, logico-
philosophical categories as in the case of R oget o r the classification proposed by
Friedrich (1973). T he assum ption is that L A N 's classification reflects the sem antic
structure of the G reek o f the New T estam ent. Louw (1979:109) even claims that
their classification is based on an ‘em ic’ approach, ‘th at is to say, an assignm ent of
meanings as they would have been classified by native speakers of K oine G reek ’. In
accordance with the view o f the ancients who regarded ‘fire’ as one of the four basic
elem ents, nOp, for example, is classified as a substance and not as a process, it is
argued (see also Louw & N ida 1988:xiv).
T h ere are a few basic insights, and perhaps even problem s, which have to be
dealt with before we continue our discussion of the authority of the dictionary in this
regard. First of all it is necessary to decide what the compilers of the dictionary did
w hen the classification of th e d ifferen t m eanings of th e G re e k N ew T esta m e n t
vocabulary was m ade. D id they discover, analyse o r find th e sem antic dom ains
inherent in the vocabulary, or did they create them ?

28 H TS 47/1 (1991)
 t v S V(mter

It is well known th a t the term s ‘em ic’ and ‘etic’ w ere first used by an th ro p o ­
logists in the description of behaviour (see Pike 1966). T hese term s represent two
standpoints ‘which lead to results which shade into one an o th er’ (Pike 1966:152).
W hile the etic (coined from phonetic) standpoint studies behaviour and language
from outside a system, the emic (from phonemic) standpoint studies the system from
inside. T h ere is a vast difference betw een th e two ap p ro ach es, especially with
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. The one is dependent upon the other.
Pike (1966:153f) gives a very useful survey of the most im portant characteristics
of the two standpoints. It becomes clear that, if we apply these characteristics to the
study of the language of the New T estam ent, one can hardly speak o f studying the
G reek vocabulary solely from an emic point of view. W hile the emic structure o f a
system , fo r ex am ple, has to be d isco v ered , th e e tic stru c tu re is c re a te d . Pike
(1966:153) argues. With regard to New T estam ent G reek one will have to assume
two things, if one holds the view that it is analysed emically. T he first assumption is
that there is an inherent system in the language, and the second is that it is possible
to discover it. Both these views are problem atic. Let us deal with the latter first.
We study the G reek o f the New Testam ent, which is p art of H ellenistic G reek
of that era, mainly from an etic point o f view. D ue to the lack o f native speakers
and the lack of exact inform ation on the spoken language of the writers of the New
T estam ent docum ents, there is no reason for any scholar to claim th at 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 that language (see also Ossege 1975:79). The problem is that
we know so little about the ‘language of the New T estam ent’. It is only for the sake
o f convenience th a t we speak of ‘New T e stam en t G re ek ’. T he docum ents w ere
w ritten by different authors, in different parts of the N ear E ast and Asia, at different
tim es and in d ifferen t circum stances. Som e o f th e docum ents w ere w ritten by
bilingual authors whose second language was G reek, o thers by authors w ho had a
good com m and of the language. In w hat sense can one then speak of the sem antic
stru ctu re of the G re e k of the New T esta m e n t? T hese factors c o n trib u te to the
difficulties involved in having an emic view of the ‘language’ of the New T estam ent.
It is m ore than difficult to discover the cultural key - that is, the knowledge of the
em ic system - o f th e G ree k o f th e New T e sta m en t. W hat we actually do is to
co n stru e th e c u ltu ral key by studying th e lan g uag e from o u tsid e. T h is, in my
opinion, also applies both to the classification of the sem antic structure of the New
T e s ta m e n t v o cab u la ry in to se m a n tic d o m a in s by L ouw an d N id a, a n d th e ir
d e fin itio n of lexical m eanings o f this vocabulary. T he sem an tic dom ains w ere
created rather than discovered, and so was the definition of meanings with the help

HTS 47/1 (1991) 29

Louw/Nida dictionary

of com ponential analysis. Let us elaborate.

The com pilers o f L & N correctly reject the structure proposed by Friedrich and
have convincingly draw n atten tio n to problem s involved in the structuring o f the
lexical m eanings o f th e New T e stam en t vocabulary in existing d ictio n aries (see
Louw 1985b:53ff). B ut what about their own structure? A re their dom ains built on
th a t inh erent in the sem antic structure of the New T estam ent vocabulary, as they
presum e?
TTie dom ains o f L A N obviously reflect the theory on which the dictionary is
based. In th e first place they reflect th e idea th a t words can be divided into four
m ain c a te g o rie s nam ely - events, objects, abstracts a n d discourse referentials.
Furtherm ore, they reflect the idea that the meaning o f words can be determ ined by
an analysis of th eir com ponents, and th a t this excludes the use o f encyclopaedic
know ledge, to m en tio n only thw o fu rth e r asp ects. T h e re a re m o re. T h is has
resu lted in a very im pressive classification o f th e d ifferen t m eanings o f re late d
words into ninety-three main domains of meaning. O ne should, however, not forget
th a t th e th r e e m e n tio n e d p rin c ip le s o f c la s sific a tio n fo rm th e b asis 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
way in w hich first-cen tu ry G re ek -sp eak in g C h ristian s used lexical m eanings is
another m atter.
Som e of the dom ains may certainly overlap with the way native speakers may
have understood th e relatio n betw een related m eanings. This is particularly true
w ith reg ard to sem an tic do m ain s w hich a re easy to reco g n ise - such as plants,
anim als, foods, body and parts of the body and kinship terms. T h ere are, however,
num erous fields which are not so clear. A good exam ple is dom ain 25, ‘A ttitudes
and Em 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 yo q , ^ tiXck»), axevox(upéojj,ai é u
xoli; CTnXáyxvoiq, au^inaSéu) kt X. W h at is rem ark ab le, is th a t we do n o t find
)aiCT€(iJ here. W e find )i.iaéa) u n d er the subdom ain ‘H ate, H ateful’ with words such
as KOKÍaS niKp'ux*’, niKpaii;o)aai, áaxupyéo), GeooTuyfii; KtX. Subdom ain 88, of
which these w ords form p art, concerns ‘M oral and E thical Q ualities and R elated
B ehavior’. This is a m atter of interpretation. If ‘h ate’ belongs to this dom ain, does
‘love’ not also belong here, and why are nXoúaioq and related w ords not included
under dom ain 88 (see M alina 1987)? How would native speakers have understood
these term s? A nother example might help us a little further.
M aK apioq is a lso liste 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 ere are, however, interpreters who argue that the ‘b eatitudes‘ should be

30 H TS *7/1 (1991)
 W S Vonter

re ad as apocalyptic blessings (see G uelich 1976). T h ese m ight a rg u e th a t the

m eaning of jiaKÓpio^ would not be ‘pertaining to being happy, with the implication
of enjoying favorable 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
examples can be multiplied. O ne soon realises th at sem antic dom ains can easily be
stru c tu re d in d iffe re n t ways d ep en d in g on w h at o n e sees as th e d istinguishing
com ponent of m eaning (see also G eeraerts 1986:112ff). A good example would be
éctGíw. According to L A N the word m eans ‘to consume food, usually solids, but also
liquids’. The last p art o f the 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 sitio n ÉK w ith th e v erb has to be ta k e n
seriously. 1 think that coGiu) m eans ‘to consume food’ and that it is used in the New
T estam ent for that meaning only, also in 1 Corinthians 9:7. It is furtherm ore used as
a close synonym of xpcijyo) and is not used in the sense of ‘eating liquids’. If I had to
structure the subdom ain, I would have placed eaGuij first and then Tpúyoj and so
on, in th is o rd er. 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 ete rm in e d by o n e ’s in te rp re ta tio n of th e lexical m ean in g o f w ords. B oth the
structure and the definition of meanings 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 meanings from social systems’
(M alina 1987:358). T o classify th e m eaning of G reek New T estam ent w ords into
se m an tic d o m ain s p re su p p o se s th e ab ility to re c o n stru c t o rig in al c o n tex ts of
c o m m u n icatio n in the first-ce n tu ry M e d ite rra n e a n w o rld . T h is is an alm o st
impossible task. T he most we can do is to construct possible cross-cultural contexts
of understanding.
T he idea that there is an inherent sem antic structure in language, which has to
be discovered and describ ed , is equally p ro b lem atic. It is b ased on stru ctu ral
sem antics, which was in vogue from 1930-1975. O ne of the m ain problem s is th at
too little distinction is m ade betw een knowledge of language and knowledge of the
w orld. S tru c tu ra l sem an tics p re su p p o se s th a t la n g u ag e has its own sem an tic
structure - which has nothing to do with encyclopaedic knowledge. In the w ords of
Louw (1985a:80): ‘It is ... im portant that 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 rie s’. T h is view has b e e n re je c te d as
illusionary since it is argued th at the difference betw een encyclopaedic and ‘p u re’
sem antic knowledge does not exist (see G eeraerts 1986:187).
From the perspective of cognitive semantics, ‘universals’, such as objects, events,
and abstracts, are not regarded as common structures or elem ents of language. They
are regarded as comm on strategies to classify experience. Language is furtherm ore

H TS 47/1 (1991) 31
Louw/Nida dictionary

seen as p a rt and parcel of cultural contexts (see G eeraerts 1986:198f). ‘Sem antic
structures are taken to be nothing other 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 make is that the compilers of L & N are responsible, on both
em ic and etic c o n sid eratio n s, for th e ir classificatio n of re la te d m eanings into
dom ains and subdom ains. They did no t discover these categories in the sem antic
structure o f the G reek New T estam ent vocabulary. They created these dom ains in
the light of their analysis of the related meanings of words. Once one realises this,
the dictionary can be used in an interactive fashion. If one knows that the domains
of L & N are possible ways of dealing with related meanings in the New Testam ent,
th e u ser can sta rt using the m aterial critically. This is exactly w hat m akes L & N
a u th o rita tiv e . It is no t becau se the last w ord has been said a b o u t th e relatio n
betw een related meanings of different words in the New T estam ent that this lexicon
is an authority that has to be followed. It is because the dictionary enables the user
to see a particular word within the context of other words which are possibly related
that it is to be regarded as an authority. In the words of Louw and N ida (1988;x):
‘T he prim ary value o f a lexicon based upon sem antic dom ains is th at it forces the
reader to recognize some of the subtle distinctions which exist betw een lexical items
whose meanings 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 he d escrip tio n o f m eaning by way o f d e fin itio n in stea d o f in glosses and
tran slatio n al equivalents m akes this dictionary unique. T h e definitions a re the
result o f the analysis of the com ponents of the lexical m eaning of each individual
w ord. In m ost cases th e d efin itio n s refle c t th e d iag n o stic co m p o n en ts o f the
particular m eaning. In this m anner the different meanings are identified and made
m o re p re c ise . 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 tra 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 tio n a l e q u iv a le n ts a re a p p ro x im a te
presentations of 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 en tial analysis is n o t an unknow n m eth o d o f analysing th e lexical
meanings of words. The advantage of defining meaning in this way is th at the focus
is on those com ponents th at distinguish the m eaning of particular words from one

32 H TS 47/1 (1991)
 Vorster

another. It also helps to see which com ponents are shared by w ords with related
m eanings and w hich are supplem entary. Ideally, this is one o f the best ways o f
dealing with m eaning. T h ere are, however, also disadvantages in this approach to
the analysis of meaning.
As we have seen above, with regard to dom ains, it ap p e ars an illusion th a t
sem antic fields can be clearly m arked in acco rd an ce with an in h e re n t sem antic
structure. Since sem antic dom ains are fuzzy, and since th e b oundaries o f lexical
meanings are also fuzzy, one can never say with certainty that a particular feature is
the diagnostic co m pon en t o f th e lexical m eaning o f a p a rtic u la r w ord (see also
G eeraerts 1986:112ff). M eanings overlap and are dependent 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 anner. T h at, p erh ap s m ore th an anything else,
explains why some of the definitions of L A N are b e tte r than others, and why some
are totally inadequate. A few examples may illustrate the point.
I w ould regard the definition of the m eaning of Gumáo) as ‘to burn arom atic
substances as an offering to G od’ (53.25), for example, of xú<tio)aai as ‘the process of
b u rning slowly, w ith accom panying sm oke and relativ ely little glow ’( 14.64), of
CTeiCT)j,ó(; as ‘a su d d en and severe m ov em en t o f th e e a rth ’ (14.87), and all the
m eanings defined in 15 as ad equate and good definitions o f the lexical m eaning of
th e p a rtic u la r w ords. O th e rs, how ever, a re unconvincing and in a d e q u a te for
different reasons. The definition of Panticrcfiq (53.42) as ‘one who baptizes’ does
n ot explain the m eaning o f the word. W hat is the difference b etw een the lexical
m eaning of the idioms orrpaTUx oúpáviog (12:30) and a x p a tla tou oOpai'oO (12-45)?
I find the definitions ‘a large group o r throng o f angels’ (12:30) and ‘th e stars of
heaven as symbols of various supernatural powers’ (12:45) unconvincing. W hat does
it m ean to be ‘fre e ’ as in th e case o f éX euGepía (‘the state o f b eing fre e ’) and
éXeúGepoí;® ( ‘p e rta in in g to b eing fre e ’)? T he vagueness o f th ese d efin itio n s
becom es a problem when one com pares them with éXeú0epo<;*’ (87.84), ‘pertaining
to a person who is not a slave, eith er one who has never been a slave or one who
was a slave formerly but is no longer’.
T he fact th a t defin itio n s o f m eaning a re om itted in som e cases also causes
problem s. The meaning of éKKCUxéíi) (19:14) is defined as ‘to pierce with a pointed
instrum ent’, while the meaning of víkjcto) is not defined. Both are then translated by
‘to pierce’. In the case of the latter there is an annotation - reading: ‘norm ally not
as serious a w ound as is im plied by éKiceuTéa)’. T his exam ple also illustrates the
problem of defining the meaning o f words from the outside. A lthough the compilers
hold the view th a t th e re is no such thing as w ords having com p letely th e sam e
m eaning (Louw & Nida 1988:xv), they are unable to distinguish th e subtle differen-

H TS 47/1(1991) 33
Louw/Nida dictionary

ces betw een these words that are used by the sam e author in close connection (see,
however, 19.18 and 19.19). T he entries under 53.4-7 also illustrate that it is alm ost
impossible to define close synonyms in the New T estam ent with the help of compo-
n en tial analysis. W e ju st do no t have th e com petence to distinguish the subtle
differences in the meanings of these words.
T he compilers are moreover, not always consistent in their definitions of lexical
m eaning. A good exam ple is the definition o f w ords referring to specific festivals
(see 51.5-12). In som e cases even the date of the festival is given, while in others it
is not. T h e sam e ap p lies to w ords for coins in 6.76-82. In m ost cases it is said
w hether the coins w ere R om an or G reek. Only in the case of Xctitóv and crcorcrp is
this not done. A re these features not diagnostic for outsiders as well in these two
cases?
Some definitions display the convictions and beliefs o f the compilers m ore than
others. O ne such case is the entry on 0eó<; (12.1) which certainly contains much
m ore th an sem antic inform ation, especially w hen it com es to m atters such as the
patropassion heresy! Is the definition ‘a title with M essianic im plications used by
Jesus concerning him self, a definition of the diagnostic com ponents o f the words
uloq ToO ái/Gpúnou? Why is it regarded as a title? New T estam ent scholars do not
ag ree a b o u t this. Why M essianic? T h e sam e ap p lies to th e a n n o ta tio n (? ) in
brack ets a fte r TtveCfia“ (12.18), w hich reads: ‘a title for th e th ird p erson o f the
T rinity D oes this anno tatio n define th e m eaning o f the w ord? A nd if so, is it
from an emic point of view?
T he definitions of the m eanings of óiXTiSfiq, ‘pertaining to being in accordance
with 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 happened’, reflect a positivist perception of truth. It
is doubtful w hether these definitions reflect the lexical meanings of the words in the
New T estam ent.
T here are o th er definitions which are also debatable, b u t the above examples
will suffice.
In sp ite o f th e p ro b lem s I have discussed w ith re g a rd to th e d e fin itio n o f
m ean in g in som e e n trie s, one sh o u ld n o t g et 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 at the description o f m eaning by way o f definitions is far m ore a p p ro p riate than
the giving of translational equivalents.

34 H T S *7/1 (1991)
 M'S Vorsler

A clea r distinction is fu rth e rm o re m ade b etw een m eaning and reference by the
com pilers of L & N (Louw and N ida 1988:xvii). In this respect, too, th e lexicon is
authoritative. T h ere 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
helpful in this reg ard . 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 or reference (see 11.59-64, also
11.66 and 53.52). L et us consider a few examples.
It is possible that ó 6<tiu; 6 óipxatoq in R evelation 12:9 and 20:2 has the meaning
‘devil’. T he term clearly refers to the ‘devil’, and it is probable that 6<t)iq could have
acquired this m eaning in Jewish C hristian circles. Ju st as ‘evil p erson’ is a
figurative extension, the m eaning ‘d ev il’ w ould also be a fig u rativ e extension.
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 meanings are regarded as idioms
in L& N. They have been defined as ‘a feeling of jealousy and resentm ent because
of w hat som eone else has o r does’ (88.165), and ‘to be stingy’. Nowhere does one,
however, find a reference to the belief in an Evil Eye which was comm on at 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) under ‘S upernatural Beings’ is furtherm ore
understandable, but nevertheless problem atic. Instead o f giving a definition o f the
meaning of the word, an annotation explains the term . It reads ‘a reference to G od
based on the Jew ish tendency to avoid using the nam e or 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 would first
of all expect the term under ‘Names o f Persons and Places’(93).
S ince th e r e a re 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 been of help had there been m ore rem arks about reference
in cases w here it is possible to determ ine what words refer to.

A final factor which m akes this dictionary authoritative is its layout, since it compels
the u ser to consider thoroughly w h eth er a p a rticu lar m ean in g is ap p licab le. It
therefore has an educational function.
U sers o f lexica often tend to think th a t th e p u rp o se of bilingual lexica is to
provide th e user with the m eaning o f a w ord in a particular context. It is often not
realised th a t a lexicon is only an aid for the user to d eterm in e th e m eaning o f a
p a rtic u la r w ord in a p a rtic u la r context. It is th e u ser, n o t th e lexicon, o r th e
com pilers o f the lexicon, who has to determ ine the m eaning o f a word in use. The

HTS 47/1 (1991) 35

Louw/Nida dictionary

way in which L & N presents inform ation on the lexical m eaning of New T estam ent
words forces the user to make use of the information in a creative way.
A lthough L & N gives a co m p lete survey o f all th e m eanings fo r w hich th e
d ifferent w ords in the New T estam en t are used, it is not com plete with regard to
each case w here a particular meaning is applicable. This simply m eans that the user
has to m ake full use of the inform ation provided in the dictionary. If a particular
case is not m ention ed in the referen ce index, the u ser has to consult th e o th er
indices. H aving decided th a t a p articu lar w ord m entioned u n d er a G reek entry
might be applicable, both the definition o f that meaning and the definition of other
related meanings in its im m ediate area have to be consulted. This is the only way to
be relatively sure that a chosen meaning is applicable in a particular context.
Instead of going through the list of d ifferent m eanings o f a p articu lar G reek
word, as they norm ally occur in an alphabetically arranged dictionary, the user is
introduced the sem antic area of related meanings of different words. This has the
advantage that, in addition to the different meanings of the sam e word, the user also
sees the related m eanings o f different term s in the sam e sem antic dom ain. Since
m e a n in g is a lso m ostly d e fin e d an d n o t p re s e n te d in th e fo rm o f glosses or
translational equivalents, the user has to decide actively, with the help of 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 meanings of
the New T estam ent vocabulary. T here are others. I am thinking of the im portance
of figurative extensions of m eaning, the treatm en t of m eanings of word groups and
especially of idioms. The fact that idioms are listed and treated m akes L & N unique.
Space does not allow m e to go into these factors further. Enough has been said to
in d ic a te th a t th e r e a re g o o d re a s o n s fo r th is d ic tio n a ry to b e re g a rd e d as
au thoritative in d ifferen t aspects and on differen t grounds. T he p ublication is a
m ilestone in the history o f New T estam ent lexicography.

W orks cited
B arn h art, C L 1980. W hat m akes a dictionary a u th o ritativ e, in Z gusta, L (ed),
Theory and methord in lexicography: Western and non-W estem perspectives, 33-42.
Columbia: H ornbeam Press.

36 H T S 47/1 (1991)
 W S Vorsler

B oers, H 1989. R eview of Greek-English lexicon o f the New Testam ent based on
semantic domains, 2 vols. Edited by Johannes P Louw and E ugene A Nida. New
York: UBS. JBL 108, 705-707.
Botha, J 1989. D ie Louw & Nida-woordeboek: ’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 lliott, J H 1988. T he fear o f the leer: The evil eye from the Bible to Li’l A bner.
Foundations & Facets Forum 4, 42-71.
E lliott, J K 1989. Review of Jo h an n es P Louw and E ugene A N ida (eds), Greek-
Englisfi lexicon o f the New Testament based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols. New
York: UBS. ATT 31, 379-380.
F riedrich, G 1973. D as bisher noch fehlende B egriffslexikon zum N euen T e sta ­
m ent. N T S 19,127-152.
G eeraerts, D 1986. Woordbetekenis: Een overzicht van de lexicale semantiek. Leuven:
Acco.
Guelich, R A 1976. The M atthean beatitudes: ‘E ntrance-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. The G reek New T estam ent wordbook. BiTr 30,108-117.
— (ed) 1985. L exico gra p h y a n d tra n sla tio n : W ith sp e cia l reference to B ible
translation. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa.
— 1985a. T he p resen t state of 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 (eds) 1988. Greek-English lexicon o f the N ew Testament
based on semantic domains, 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 spekte 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. Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior, in Smith,
A G (e d ). C o m m u n ic a tio n a n d culture: R eadings in th e co 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 of Jo h an n es P Louw and E ugene A N ida (eds), Greek-
English lexicon o f the New Testament based on sem antic dom ains, 2 vols. New
York: UBS. S T B 18,150-151.

H TS 47/1 (1991) 37
Louw/Nida dicticNiary

Silva, M 1989. R eview o f Jo h a n n e s P Louw and E u gen e A N id a (ed s), Greek-

Engtish lexicon o f the N ew Testament 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 Munson, K
A Greek-English lexicon o f the New Testament based on semantic domains, 2 vols.
New York: UBS. N G T T 2 9 ,407-408.

38 H T S 47/1(1991)