Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos

New Testament Lexicography

Fontes et Subsidia
ad Bibliam pertinentes
(FoSub)

Band 6
Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos (†)

New Testament
Lexicography

Introduction – Theory – Method

Translated, Annotated, and Supplemented by

Andrew Bowden

Edited by
David S. du Toit
ISBN 978-3-11-040813-3
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040897-3
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-040905-5
ISSN 1861-602X

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018942562

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

www.degruyter.com
Editor’s Preface
In the history of the lexicography of New Testament Greek, 1988 – 1990 were out-
standing years. Not only did the 6th edition of Walter Bauer’s dictionary (1988)
and the 4th edition of Francisco Zorell’s lexicon (1990) appear, Johannes P. Louw
and Eugene A. Nida also published in 1989 their novel Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. In a case of extraordinary coincidence,
Juan Mateos, Professor at the Oriental Institute in Rome, in the very same year also
published a monograph titled Método de análisis semántico. Aplicado al griego del
Nuevo Testamento, in which he presented in preparation for the planned Diccionario
Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento a theory for determining lexical meaning.
Seven years later this was supplemented by a study titled Metodología del diccionario
griego-español del Nuevo Testamento by Jesús Peláez, Professor for Greek at the Uni-
versity of Córdoba in Spain. I am pleased that nearly 400 years after the publication
of the first dictionary on New Testament Greek by Georg Pasor in 1619, these two im-
portant studies on lexicographical theory and method can be made available to a
broader scholarly public by means of an annotated English translation. For a
more detailed assessment of the importance of the “Cordoba Model” presented
here, I refer to my introductory essay in this volume.
When I suggested some years ago to Albrecht Doehnert, Editorial Director for
Theology, Jewish and Religious Studies at De Gruyter, to publish a translation of
these two theoretical studies on lexicographical method, he immediately proposed
the series Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes (FoSub) as the appropriate series
for publication—certainly a most fitting location for such a technical study. I sincere-
ly thank him for all his support for this project. The project was to a large extent fi-
nanced with funds from the Investment Fund of the University of Munich—I express
my gratitude to all those involved in granting me this generous financial support. I
also thank Nara Kim for his invaluable contribution pertaining to many aspects of
the project and Daniel Kuss for compiling the indexes. Special gratitude is further-
more due to Jesús Peláez, the congenial partner of the late Juan Mateos († 2003),
who from the very start accompanied the project with enthusiasm and provided ad-
vice and active support whenever needed. In particular, I am indebted to my student
Andrew Bowden who enthusiastically took on the challenge and—notwithstanding
serious illness—dedicated himself with diligence to the fulfillment of the project.
Without his meticulous work, discipline, and prowess this project would never
have been completed!

David du Toit
Munich/Jena

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-001
Translator’s Preface
The concepts, terminology, and layout of the Spanish texts of Mateos and Peláez pre-
sented several difficulties. My original strategy as translator was to deal with the var-
ious challenges by rendering the original Spanish rather literally in English. Addi-
tionally, if the books’ various diagrams were not aligned in the text, I felt no need
to align them in my translation. If the authors placed a Spanish word in italics, I
placed its English translation in italics. If a word was capitalized, I capitalized the
English word. By translating in this manner, I hoped to render the original texts ac-
curately, and, if I am honest, to bear as little responsibility as possible for their chal-
lenging contents, ideas, and terminology.
David du Toit, who commissioned my translation of the text and serves as its ed-
itor, quickly indicated that another strategy would be necessary. Perhaps in part be-
cause of my translation method, many points were left unclear. It would not only be
necessary to make the English version more reader-friendly, but also to expand, re-
vise, and clarify aspects of the text. Although I knew the editor was right, I also knew
this would involve a great deal more work, including a careful revision of the entire
text and comprehensive translator’s notes would need to clarify challenging aspects
of the text. Furthermore, it was decided to account for developments in the field of
New Testament lexicography, such as the publication of BDAG in 2000. Thus, despite
my originally unspoken and probably naive intention of allowing the original au-
thors to bear the full responsibility for the translated volume, the project in some
ways has become a product of my own.
In spite of the challenges involved in the translation of the text, I have thorough-
ly enjoyed working on this project, in large part thanks to the support of Professor
David du Toit. In the winter semester of 2014/15, Professor du Toit organized a weekly
meeting at the University of Munich to discuss my preliminary translation and to un-
derstand the authors’ methodology. His insightful, critical, meticulous, and suppor-
tive comments have greatly improved my own understanding of the text. As a result,
the translation is much improved. Additionally, Nara Kim, who faithfully attended
these meetings, has improved the translation thanks to his insightful questions, as
well as his careful proofreading of my English, the Latin, and, not the least, of
every Greek accent. I have been amazed to see how many friendships have been
formed and strengthened as a result of this project, and the fun that has been had
as well. I could not help but note that in our weekly sessions at the University, we
—that is, natives of South Africa, South Korea, and the southern United States—
held discussions in German about an English translation of two Spanish books
which contain a good deal of Greek and also some Latin. Our discussions of the
text were always conducted in a congenial, light-hearted atmosphere. I am also
thankful for the opportunity this project has afforded me to get to know Professor
Peláez personally, first in Berlin and then in Munich. Special thanks are also due

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-002
VIII Translator’s Preface

to Albrecht Doehnert, who not only agreed to publish the English translation with de
Gruyter, but also enabled the collaborators to meet in Berlin and in Munich.
It is thus clear that this translation is the result of a collaboration by many indi-
viduals. Nevertheless, for the end result of this translation and interpretation, despite
my initial hesitations, I bear full responsibility.

Andrew Bowden
January 31, 2017
Munich
Contents
Editor’s Preface V

Translator’s Preface VII

Abbreviations XV

Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation (D. du Toit,

A. Bowden) XVII

Introduction: The Contribution of the Cordoba-School to the Lexicography of New

Testament Greek (D. du Toit) XXI

Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996) XXXIX

PART I New Testament Lexicography: A Critical Introduction

(Jesús Peláez)

Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning 3

. The Concept of Dictionary 3
. What Do We Mean by Meaning? 8
.. Analytical or Referential Theory 9
.. Operational or Contextual Theory 11
. The Practice of Bilingual Dictionaries 12
. How Do Words Mean, If They Do? 12

Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New

Testament 15
. Introduction 15
. F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990) 17
. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des
Neuen Testaments, 6th ed. (1988) 23
Excursus: The Third English Edition: BDAG (A. Bowden) 28
. J. P. Louw, E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
based on Semantic Domains (1988) 37
.. Unique Aspects of the Dictionary 37
... The Composition of the Dictionary 37
... Primary Characteristics of the Dictionary 38
... Justification for This Kind of Dictionary 40
... How to Use the Dictionary 42
X Contents

... Basic Principles of the Analysis and the Semantic

Classification 42
.. Critique of the DictionaryTN 43
... Organization of the Dictionary’s Entries 47
... Material Cited in the Entries 48
... Treatment of the Lexemes 49
... The Definitions of Meaning 50
... Translational Equivalents 51
... Lexemes and Paralexemes 53
... Practicability 53

PART II A Theory of Semantic Analysis (Juan Mateos)

Chapter 3: Introduction 57
. Goals and Purpose 57
. Preliminary Overview of the Method 58
. Concepts and Terminology 61
.. Lexeme 61
... Morpholexeme 61
... Paralexeme 62
... Lexeme and Root 62
... Lexemes and Cases of Inflection 63
.. Semes 63
... Semic Nucleus 63
... Nuclear Configuration 64
... Generic Contextual Semes (Classemes) 64
... Occasional Contextual Semes 64
.. Sememe 65
. Grammar and Semantics 65
.. Grammatical and Semantic Classes 65
.. Semantic Classes 66

Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula 70

. Entity Lexemes 70
.. Entity Lexemes with Simple Structure 71
.. Entity Lexemes with Complex Structure 72
. Attribute Lexemes 73
.. Attribute Lexemes with Simple Structure 73
.. Attribute Lexemes with Complex Structure 74
. Event Lexemes 76
.. Event Lexemes without Connotation 77
.. Event Lexemes with One Connotation 77
 Contents XI

.. Event Lexemes with Two Connotations 78

.. Event Lexemes with Three Connotations 81
. Relation Lexemes 85
. Determination Lexemes 87
. Abstract Lexemes 90
.. Classification of Abstract Lexemes according to Semantic
Classes 90
... Abstract Attribute Lexemes 90
... Abstract Event Lexemes 91
.. The Correspondence of Abstract Lexemes with Verbal Forms of the
Infinitive 94
. The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic
Classes 96

Chapter 5: Semic Analysis 103

. Grammatical and Semantic Categories 103
.. Gender 103
.. Number 104
.. Mode 105
.. Tense 107
.. Aspect 109
.. Voice 111
.. Hierarchy of Semantic Categories 112
. Semic Development 114
... Semes 114
.. The Semic Nucleus: A Methodological Option 114
. The Lexeme in Isolation: Determining the Constants 116
.. Generic Nuclear Semes 116
.. Specific Semes 116
.. The Semic Nucleus 117
.. Definition of the Lexeme 117
. Lexemes in Context: Determining the Variables (Classemes and Occa-
sional Semes) 117
. Lexeme, Formula, and Semic Development 118
. Summary 118

Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis 120

. Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 120
.. Entity Lexemes 120
.. Attribute Lexemes 126
. Analysis of Event Lexemes 134
.. Event Lexemes with One Connotation 134
.. Event Lexemes with Two Connotations 137
XII Contents

.. Event Lexemes with Three Connotations 152

... Lexemes of Giving 153
... Lexemes of Verbal Communication 156
... Other Event Lexemes 160
. Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 163
.. Relation Lexemes 164
.. Determination Lexemes 177

Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis) 189

. Lexemes with Figurative Meanings: καρδία 189
. Lexemes with Stative and Dynamic Aspect: σῷζω 193
. Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of a State in Action:
φιλέω 195
. Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action:
δικαιοσύνη 197
. Abstract Lexemes with Three Semic Groups: βασιλεία 200

PART III Method. A Methodology of the Diccionario Griego-

Español del Nuevo Testamento (J. Peláez)
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes 205
. Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class 206
.. Grammatical Classes 206
.. Semantic Classes 207
. The Semantic Formula 211
.. Denotation and Connotation 212
.. From Formula to Meaning 215
. Semic Development of the Formula 216
.. Gender 217
.. Number 218
.. Aspect and Voice 220
... Aspect 220
... Voice 221

Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development 222

. Determining Lexical and Contextual Meaning 222
. Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 224
.. Types of Collective Entities 225
.. Semic Development and Definition of Meaning 227
... Non-quantifiable Collective Entities with a Dynamic Event
(Activity) 228
 Contents XIII

... Non-Quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative

Event 234
... Non-quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event and a
Dynamic Event 238
... Collective Entities that only Denote a Relation 239
... Quantifiable Collective Entities with Explicit Quantification: τετράδιον,
-ου, τό 242
... Quantifiable Collective Entities with Implicit Quantification that Denote
a Dynamic Event 242

Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes) 247

Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar

Definitions 264

Catalogue of Semes 288

Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish) 292

Glossary 296

Bibliography 299

Publications on Semantics and Lexicography by Members of GASCO (Grupo de

Análisis Semántico de Córdoba) 305

Index of Greek Words 308

Index of Subjects 313

Index of Authors 316

Index of References 318

Abbreviations

§ Section number in the translation; for example, § 40 refers to section 40

A Attribute
BAA Bauer, W., K. Aland, B. Aland. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des
Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Berlin, 1988
BADG Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago, 1979
BAG Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1957
BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 2000
CE Common Era
D Determination
DGE Adrados, F. A. Diccionario griego-español, Vol I-VII. Madrid, 2008 – 2010.
DGENT Mateos, J., J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento.
Fasc. I-III. Cordoba, 2000 – 2008
Ent Entity
Ev Event
FIEC Fédération internationale des associations d’études classiques
FNT Filología Neotestamentaria
G Generic Seme
GASCO Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement
L&N J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Se-
mantic Domains. 2 vols. New York, 1988
LMU Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
LXX Septuagint
LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supple-
ment. Oxford, 1996
NT New Testament
PGL Lampe, G. W. H., ed., Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1968
POx. Oxyrhynchus Papyri
RBL Review of Biblical Literature
S Specific Seme
TRu Theologische Rundschau
TWNT Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart,
1932 – 1979
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
X Polyvalent reality, representing an event and an entity depending on context

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-003
Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation
The monographs Método de análisis semántico. Aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testa-
mento, by Juan Mateos (1989), and Metodología del diccionario griego-español del
Nuevo Testamento, by Jesús Peláez (1996), are being published together in this vol-
ume. In consultation with Jesús Peláez, it was decided not only to print them in one
volume but also to amend the original order of the chapters in order to facilitate the
flow of reading and hence a better understanding of the theory presented in the two
books. Consequently, this volume begins with the general introductory chapters of
Peláez, Metodología (= Part I: New Testament Lexicography: A Critical Introduction
= chaps. 1– 2), followed by Mateos’s Método de análisis semántico (Part II: Theory of
Semantic Analysis = chaps. 3 – 7) and then by the rest of Peláez’s Metodología (Part
III: Methodology = chaps. 8 – 11).
Such a combination of two texts required a number of steps in order to create a
coherent text both in content and style. To attain this, the division of chapters of both
volumes was restructured in such a way that the eight chapters of Método de análisis
semántico were combined to comprise five chapters in the present volume (chaps.
3 – 7), whereas the lengthy third chapter of Metodología was split into two chapters
(chaps. 8 – 9).¹ It should be noted that it sometimes has been necessary to exercise
a good deal of translational freedom in order to foster the coherence of this new
structure. The combination also required a completely different numbering system
of the books. It was necessary to renumber the sections and subsections of both
books, which sometimes required the introduction of new intermediate subtitles
for particular sections.
In order to help the reader find a particular passage in the two original Spanish
source texts, the original page numbers are noted throughout the translation, namely
by the symbol | followed by a number and then the letter -M or -P. This symbol indicates
the end of the numbered page in the respective Spanish text: thus, |1-M on page one of
this volume indicates that page one of the Mateos text ends and that page two begins.

***
The translated volume of the text is sub-divided into sections numbered from §§ 1–
443, which facilitates precise cross-references both in the text and in the indexes.
The cue for this has been taken from Mateos, who numbered the passages in his
book in this way, although for each new chapter he started with § 1 (in this volume
§§ 69 – 306, 441– 443). Since Peláez’s Metodología does not have such sections, his
text was sub-divided into these units and numbered accordingly (§§ 1– 58, 307– 440).

 Mateos, Método: Introduction and chap. I constitute chap. 3 in this volume, chap. II = chap. 4,
chaps. III–IV = chap. 5, chaps. V–VII = chap. 6, chap. VIII = chap. 7. Peláez, Metodología: Chaps. I–
II = chaps. 1– 2, chaps. III A = chap. 8, chap. III B = chap. 9, chap. IV–V = chap. 10 – 11 in this volume.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-004
XVIII Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation

To enhance both the coherence of the text as well as the understanding of the
theory, many cross-references to various passages were added in the translation.
This enables the reader to consult other passages that have bearing on the matter
under discussion. Such cross-references are placed within parentheses and indicated
by section numbers. Thus, if one sees a reference such as: (cf. §§ 297– 306), this
would indicate that sections 297– 306 contain further information that is relevant
for the matter under discussion. Of course, comprehensive indexes have also been
composed to facilitate the practicality of the English translation and to enable read-
ers to quickly find additional information on a particular topic. The indexes refer to
the section number(s) of the matter being discussed and not to the page number(s). To
aid those who want to delve deeper into the theory and method presented here, we
also append a list of publications pertaining to lexicography by members of the
Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba (GASCO).

***
One recurring problem consisted in the translation of the “semes.” In order to convey
the semes, the authors constructed artificial Spanish terms as a technical metalan-
guage (cf. § 205). Although there are a few instances where these terms present
few problems (such as hostilidad = “hostility,” colectividad = “collectivity,” or human-
idad = “humanity”), their translation often created difficulties. For example, there
were many semes in Spanish that carried different connotations or were unclear in
English, as was the case with objectividad (“objectivity” in English would not denote
“objectness,” but rather the objectivity of a viewpoint), parcialidad (“partiality” in
English might imply the partiality of a judge rather than “partialness,” i.e., some-
thing’s incompleteness), civilidad (“civility” denotes good behavior, but “civicness,”
i. e., civic duty, is hardly a better translation). In other instances, the meanings of the
terms were quite clear, but nevertheless could only be awkwardly translated in Eng-
lish, as was the case with jerarquicidad (“hierarchiness” or “hierarchicity”?) and sac-
erdotalidad (“sacertodalness” or “priestness”?). In another case belicidad could
hardly be translated as bellicity, but are warness, battleness, or conflicticity better op-
tions? What is conveyed by the term terminalidad? Should this be translated as ter-
minality, terminalness, or perhaps endness? Only after countless attempts did the
choice, with strong hesitation, fall on towardness. Since semes recur throughout
the text, the translator continually wrestled with this issue in translation. Because
of the many difficulties caused by the translation of the numerous original Spanish
semes, we decided to supply a comprehensive list of all semes as an appendix,
which mentions all semes that appear in this volume. In this Comprehensive List of
Semes, the semes are listed alphabetically in English, followed by the original Spanish
terminology in italics. Readers can judge for themselves if they want to follow the trans-
lations offered for the semes in this volume.

***
 Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation XIX

The volume presented here is not just a translation of the two Spanish source vol-
umes. In order to assist the reader to understand the complex theory forwarded by
the authors, Andrew Bowden annotated the text with numerous comments. These ex-
planatory annotations are found in footnotes. Instead of supplying an extra set of
footnotes for these explanatory notes, all footnotes are provided consecutively. To
distinguish translator’s notes from the authors’ footnotes, translator’s notes are indi-
cated with a superscript “TN”. Thus, in chap. 4 of this text, “18” indicates a normal foot-
note, but “19TN” indicates a translator’s note. Accordingly, each of the translator’s
notes in this book are clearly identified at the bottom of the respective page by
means of an introductory “TRANSLATOR’S NOTE:”.
The explanatory notes are intended to facilitate the understanding of complicat-
ed issues and unclear aspects of the original Spanish texts. Thus, for example, there
are instances where the reason that a diagram’s arrows point in one direction or the
other is explained, or why certain semantic classes are included and others are omit-
ted is clarified. In this connection, special attention should be drawn to the Cata-
logue of Semes at the end of this book. Several translator’s notes had to be added
to J. Mateos’s text because of the frequency with which he ends his discussion
with “etc.” In the translation, the missing semes concealed behind “etc.” are supplied
in translator’s notes for each of the semantic classes discussed by Mateos (i. e., for
entities, events, relations, attributes, and denotation). Additionally, Mateos notes
that the same semes are used for various classes, but he does not go into more detail
on this. These semes are listed comprehensively in translator’s note 9 of the Cata-
logue of Semes.
In conclusion, attention should also be drawn to two other features of the trans-
lation:
(1) Although Peláez’s original discussion of Zorell’s dictionary (cf. §§ 26 – 28)
cites Latin examples without translating these, we have opted to translate the
Latin into English for the convenience of readers not fluent in Latin.
(2) Due to the publishing of the 3rd edition of the English translation of Walter
Bauer’s dictionary by Frederick Danker in 2000 (BDAG), we considered it necessary
to supplement Peláez’s survey of dictionaries of New Testament Greek in Metodología
with a critical discussion of BDAG by A. Bowden (§§ 36 – 47).

David du Toit and Andrew Bowden

David S. du Toit

Introduction: The Contribution of the

Cordoba-School to the Lexicography of New
Testament Greek
1 Introductory Remarks

In his invaluable book A History of New Testament Lexicography,¹ John Lee refers to
the first fascicle of the Análisis Semántico de los Vocablos,² published by Juan Mateos
and Jesús Peláez at the turn of the century in preparation of their planned Diccionario
Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT), and writes:

It follows the footsteps of Louw-Nida in the use of definition. Though a debt to Louw-Nida is ac-
knowledged, the definitions are independently formulated, and the presentation is alphabetical,
not by domains. It also incorporates detailed semantic analysis of each word, along with full
presentation of the New Testament occurrences. Like Louw-Nida (and unlike most lexicons), it
has been preceded by a thorough exploration of method in preliminary publications. It is too
early to assess this lexicon fully. What it offers is clearly valuable, but it confines itself to the
New Testament data and does not contribute to major task of reassessing the whole tradition
in the light of all the evidence.³

This concise evaluation of the DGENT-project in its early phase clearly acknowledges
the potential of the Cordoba-project, but also notes particular limitations of the ap-
proach. In this introduction, I want to evaluate the contribution of the Cordoba-proj-
ect to New Testament lexicography nearly fifty years after the commencement of this
mammoth enterprise. Such an evaluation should comprise two different aspects. On
the one hand, the DGENT-project should be situated within the modern history of
New Testament lexicography inaugurated at the turn of the last century by Adolf
Deissmann. On the other hand, an appreciation for the particular contribution of
the lexicographical approach forged in Cordoba during the last few decades is an ur-
gent need. In his book John Lee masterfully presents the development of New Testa-
ment lexicography, including the development in the twentieth century.⁴ The task of
situating the Cordoba-school within the development of New Testament lexicogra-
phy⁵ will thus be constrained in the following to the most important aspects (2). Con-

 Cf. J. A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, Studies in Biblical Greek 8 (New York:
Peter Lang, 2003).
 Cf. J. Mateos and J. Peláez, Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT). Análisis
semántico de los vocablos, Fasc. 1 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2000).
 Cf. Lee, History, 165 – 66.
 Cf. Lee, History, 1– 175 (= Part I, chaps. 1– 10), on the 20th century: 119 – 75.
 New Testament lexicography arguably commenced with the publication of a Vocabularium in the
fifth volume of the famous Complutensian Polyglot, printed 500 years ago (1514– 17) in Alcalá (Com-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-005
XXII Introduction

sidering, however, that the work of the Cordoba-school—and in particular of its two
leading scholars, Juan Mateos and Jesús Peláez—has received rather scant attention
outside the Spanish speaking scholarly community, the particularities and innova-
tions of their approach deserve to be spelled out in some detail (3.1– 3.2). In the
final section I shall relate the Cordoba approach to some developments within gen-
eral semantics during the last decades (3.3).

2 Situating the Cordoba-School in History: New Testament

Lexicography in the 20th Century
2.1 Setting the Scene: Adolf Deissmann’s Lexicographical Program

By the end of the 19th century it was common opinion that New Testament Greek (and
the Greek of the Septuagint) constituted a variant of ancient Greek that was unique to
the Holy Scriptures, with distinctive syntactic features and vocabulary.⁶ Due especial-
ly to the seminal work of Adolf Deissmann,⁷ however, this opinion on the character of
New Testament Greek changed during the 20th century. By drawing on the flood of
new publications of newly discovered Greek papyri (mostly from Egypt), inscriptions,
and ostraca (mostly from Asia Minor and Syria), Deissmann demonstrated⁸ compel-
lingly that the language of the New Testament should be considered “a specimen of

plutum), Spain, but published and distributed since 1522; cf. Lee, History, 45 – 60, 329 – 30. Consider-
ing that there existed no Spanish dictionary of the Greek of the New Testament at the start of the Cor-
doba-project, DGENT constitutes a kind of “coming home” of New Testament lexicography to Spain.
In the meantime, however, a shorter dictionary has appeared; cf. Amador Ángel García Santos, Dic-
cionario del Greigo Bíblico. Setenta y Nuevo Testamento, Instrumentos para el estudio de la Biblia XXI
(Estella: Verbo Divino, 2011). Cf. my review in Gnomon 86, (2014): 691– 96.
 An excellent and influential example is H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutesta-
mentlichen Gräcität (Gotha: F. A. Perthes 1866, 111923). The English translation was reprinted until
1954.
 On Deissmann’s life and work, cf. A. Gerber, Deissmann the Philologist, BZNW 171 (Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter, 2010).
 Deissmann published his groundbreaking insights from 1895 to 1908 in three studies: G. A. Dei-
ssmann, Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache,
des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums (Marburg: N.
G. Elwert, 1895); idem, Neue Bibelstudien: Sprachgeschichtliche Beiträge, zumeist aus Papyri und In-
schriften zur Erklärung des Neuen Testaments (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1897). English Translation (of
both): Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language,
the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1901). G. A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellen-
istisch-römischen Welt (J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]: Tübingen, 1908 41923); English Translation: Light
from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-
Roman World (New York/London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908). Especially Licht vom Osten / Light
from the Ancient East became a bestseller and one of the most sold theological books ever.
 2 Situating the Cordoba-School in History XXIII

the colloquial form of late Greek, and of the popular colloquial language in particu-
lar.”⁹ In the wake of this discovery about the Greek of the New Testament, Deissmann
concluded that a new lexicon of New Testament Greek would be indispensable.¹⁰
Some years later he reflected programmatically on the future task of the lexicography
of the Greek of the New Testament¹¹ and outlined the contours of a future lexicon of
New Testament Greek.¹² Deissmann clearly formulated his main requirement for an
adequate lexicography of the Greek of the New Testament: ¹³

The first main task of the future lexicon will be to place the New Testament vocabulary in living
connexion with the contemporaneous world. Only in this way can the right place be found for
every word, the place to which it belongs in the complete history of the Greek language, and
only in this way can the points of contact and of contrast be established between the contem-
porary world and the cult-words used in the gospels and apostolic writings.¹⁴

According to Deissmann, New Testament lexicography has the task of contextualiz-

ing the vocabulary of the New Testament in its historical linguistic context, i . e . , of
situating it within the Greek contemporaneous to early Christianity. For Deissmann
this meant especially relating them to the evidence supplied by the contemporary
documentary sources, as he had amply illustrated in Bible Studies and Light from
the Ancient East.
Within this basic framework it was clear to Deissmann that a lexicon has to meet
a number of requirements in order to reach the appropriate standard. Already in his
earliest statement on the issue and reiterated in Light from the Ancient East, he de-
manded that lexicography has to consider the newest results of linguistic research
and “semasiology” (the technical term for “general semantics” at the time).¹⁵ Accord-

 G. A. Deissmann, “The New Testament in the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-
Roman World I-V,” ET 18 (1906/7): 8 – 15, 57– 63, 103 – 08, 202– 21, 305 – 310 (here 59). For an example
of Deissmann disputing the traditional view, cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 198 – 228; idem, The Phi-
lology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908), 39 – 68.
 G. A. Deissmann, Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und
ihre Aufgaben, Vorträge der Theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen 12 (Berlin: de Gruyter 1898), 24 f.
 First published in abbreviated form in ET 18 (1906/07): 308 – 10 (see footnote 9), then in Light from
the Ancient East, 411– 19 (= Licht vom Osten, 294– 301).
 At first, Deissmann intended to compile the dictionary himself. On the lexicographical aspirations
of Deissmann, cf. Gerber, Deissmann, 7– 103, and G. H. R. Horsley, “The Origin and Scope of Moulton
and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, and Deissmann’s Planned New Testament Lex-
icon. Some unpublished letters of G. A. Deissmann to J. H. Moulton,” BJRL 76 (1994): 187– 216.
 On Deissmann’s views on lexicography I refer to my paper “Der verhinderte Lexikograph. Adolf De-
issmanns Beitrag zur Lexikographie des Griechisch des frühen Christentums,” delivered at an Interna-
tional Deissmann Symposium (March 26 – 27, 2013, Berlin). The papers will be published soon by C.
Breytenbach and C. Markschies.
 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 417.
 Deissmann, “Die sprachliche Erforschung,” 24 (= Gerber, Deissmann, 557); idem, Light from the
Ancient East, 218. In his review of the 3rd edition of Bauer’s dictionary he refers to the necessary
new semantic work (“notwendige semasiologische Neuarbeit”) to be done, cf. DLZ 46 (1925): 1108.
XXIV Introduction

ing to him, a dictionary does not primarily have the task of providing word equiva-
lents (i. e., glosses or translational equivalents) but has to present the use of words
in contemporary sources.¹⁶ The goal should be to establish the measure of continuity
and discontinuity that New Testament words reflect vis-à-vis the same words in con-
temporaneous sources.¹⁷ Finally, in some reviews as well as his preface to Trench’s
Synonyms of the New Testament, it should be mentioned that Deissmann emphasized
the lexicographical importance of demonstrating the nature of sense relationships
(“Sinnverwandtschaft”) between words.¹⁸
To summarize: The lexicographical program set out by Deissmann at the begin-
ning of the 20th century contained the following points: (1) the synchronic (and dia-
chronic) contextualization of New Testament Greek within its contemporary linguistic
context; (2) an interdisciplinary approach that takes into consideration developments
in general linguistics and semantics; and (3) lexicographical presentation which fo-
cuses not merely on giving word equivalents but on presenting the use of the
words in contemporary sources as well as on demonstrating their semantic relations
to other words.
New Testament lexicography in the 20th century can be analyzed in terms of
Deissmann’s program. In what follows I shall demonstrate that the various diction-
aries can be judged to have fulfilled the requirements of Deissmann only partially.

2.2 The Realization of Deissmann’s Program in the 20th century

2.2.1 Contextualizing the Vocabulary of the New Testament: James Moulton,

George Milligan, and Walter Bauer
The challenge of contextualizing New Testament Greek lexicographically in its con-
temporaneous context was at first realized by Deissmann’s congenial British collea-
gue James Moulton and by his successor George Milligan in their The Vocabulary of
the New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. ¹⁹ Al-

 “Zur Konstatierung der Wortgleichungen … bedarf es keines Lexikons … Das Lexikon hat ganz an-
dere und kompliziertere Aufgaben; es muss das griechische Wort in der Geschichte seines Gebrauches
vorführen unter Benutzung besonders der örtlich und zeitlich naheliegenden Sprachdenkmäler …”
Deissmann, Die sprachliche Erforschung, 17 (= Gerber, Deissmann, 552).
 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 417. It should not be overlooked, however, that Dei-
ssmann also considered it a task of New Testament lexicography to establish the diachronic place
of a word within the semantic development of meaning; cf. e. g., Deissmann, Light from the Ancient
East, 417– 18.
 In Deissmann’s preface to R. C. Trench, Synonyma des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1907) he develops a view which comes close to later concepts of word fields.
 Published in fascicles from 1914– 1929 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930). On this work, cf. C.
Hemer, “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan,” NovT 24 (1982): 97– 123; G. H. R. Horsley, “Origin and
Scope,” 187– 216; idem, “The Greek Documentary Evidence and NT Lexical Study: Some Soundings,”
In Linguistic Essays. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5, ed. G. H. R. Horsley (Grand Rap-
 2 Situating the Cordoba-School in History XXV

though strictu sensu not a dictionary, Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary constitutes
the first systematic attempt to contextualize the New Testament vocabulary in its con-
temporaneous linguistic context.²⁰ It is the characteristic feature of the Vocabulary
that it quotes the immediate context in which a word is encountered in the particular
documentary source (often supplemented with an explanatory comment).
The realization, however, of Deissmann’s lexicographical program belongs with-
out doubt to Walter Bauer.²¹ Bauer used the lemma-structure of a dictionary by Erwin
Preuschen (1910) and over many decades systematically incorporated an enormous
amount of references (usually not quotes) from Classic, Hellenistic, and Roman
Greek into his dictionary of New Testament Greek.²² In addition, he included referen-
ces to most of the documentary material gathered by Deissmann in his Bible Studies
and Light from the Ancient East, and by Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary.
Bauer also supplied some new material, though not comparable to the quantity of
literary evidence he gathered.²³ By the time that the 5th edition of Bauer’s dictionary
was published, Deissmann’s challenge of contextualizing the New Testament vo-
cabulary within (contemporary) Ancient Greek had become consensus among New
Testament scholars, so much so that the concept of a particular “biblical” Greek is
scarcely supported anymore.²⁴

2.2.2 Allowing Linguistics to Enter: Johannes (Jannie) P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida
As we have seen, Deissmann’s lexicographical program required not only an ap-
proach that considers developments in general linguistics and semantics and that

ids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989), 67– 93, esp. 92– 93; idem, “Moulton, James Hope (1863 – 1917),” In
Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, ed. Stanley E. Porter (London/New York: Routledge,
2007), 230 – 31.
 One should also mention the dictionary of H. Ebeling, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum
Neuen Testament (Hannover/Leipzig: Hahn, 1913, 31929). This was the first dictionary that systemati-
cally referred to the newly discovered documentary evidence. Deissmann acknowledged it to be a
step in the right direction, was indignant, however, that Ebeling had not acknowledged him as pro-
prietor of the enterprise (see Deissmann’s review in DLZ 20 [1913]: 1246 – 49). Cf. also Lee, History,
141– 43.
 Deissmann reviewed Bauer’s dictionary twice and in both instances was very positive: DLZ 46
(1925): 1105 – 09; DLZ 58 (1937): 520 f. In Deissmann’s last publication before his death he assessed
it as follows: “Sein Erscheinen ist ein hocherfreuliches Ereignis … Denn dank der Sachkenntnis
und dem eisernen Fleiße Walter Bauers besitzen wir nun ein ganz auf den gegenwärtigen Stand
der Forschung gebrachtes lexikalisches Hilfsmittel zur Erschließung des Urtextes unserer heiligsten
Urkunde” (p. 520).
 W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen
urchristlichen Literatur (Gießen/Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann/de Gruyter, 21928 31937 41952 ET 1957 51958,
nachgedruckt 1963, 1971, 1976, ET 21979). Main points: NT Greek borrow mainly from LXX, the words have
a 'deeper Christian sense' than their contemporary secular use, and
 Cf. Horsley, “Greek Documentary Evidence,” 92 f. the apostolic fathers agree.
 But see N. Turner, Christian Words (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), which restates the traditional
viewpoint. For criticism, see the discussion by Horsley, “Greek Documentary Evidence,” 75 – 77.
Main point: "all groups make specialized used of common vocab. That doesn't make their
vocabulary "sacred" or linguistically "isolated" or "unique" in any broad sense. NT Greek is still
common Hellenistic Greek (not a new Jewish-Christian dialect), as Louw-Nida affirm.
XXVI Introduction

provides not only word equivalents, but one that is sensitive to semantic differentia-
tion and attempts to describe the semantic relations between words. On all these
points Bauer’s dictionary failed to meet Deissmann’s requirements.²⁵ Only after an
urgent plea by James Barr²⁶ could biblical scholars start applying general linguistics
and semantic theory to their analysis of the meaning of New Testament vocabulary.²⁷
Nearly three decades after Barr’s plea, two leading scholars in this field—Johannes
(Jannie) P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida—published a completely novel dictionary on
New Testament Greek based on modern semantic theory.²⁸ The most significant fea-
tures of the dictionary include the following: (1) Semantic categories (object, entity,
abstract, relation) constitute the organizational basis of the dictionary; (2) words are
categorized not alphabetically but on the basis of shared, distinctive, and supple-
mentary semantic features in semantic domains and sub-domains; (3) taking their
cue from the Oxford Latin Dictionary, the lexical meaning of words are provided
through short lexical definitions based on the distinctive semantic features of the
particular word; and (4) there are no references to literary or documentary paral-
lels.²⁹
If one evaluates LNTSD with respect to Deissmann’s lexicographical program, it
is fairly clear that Louw and Nida’s approach meets some of those requirements that
Bauer did not meet. Louw and Nida show their ability to perform lexicography within
a theoretical framework taken from general linguistics/semantics, and especially of
presenting lexical meaning by relating words to each other. On the other hand, their
text completely refrains from Deissmann’s main requirement of situating and pre-
senting the New Testament vocabulary in its contemporary linguistic context.

 Cf. the discussion of Bauer’s lexicographical accomplishment by Lee, History, 143 – 54, who con-
vincingly demonstrates that Bauer did not reformulate the semantic content of the lexemes but took
over the semantic structure of Preuschen’s dictionary. Interestingly, Deissmann explicitly excuses
Bauer from this: “Mit Bewußtsein hat er nur, und das ist zurzeit ja völlig verständlich und entschuld-
bar, auf die an sich notwendige semasiologische Neuarbeit verzichtet,” DLZ 46 (1925): 1108.
 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).
 E. g., E. A. Nida, “The implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship,” JBL 91
(1972): 73 – 89; J. P. Louw, Semantiek van Nuwe Testamentiese Grieks (Pretoria: Beta Pers, 1976; ET:
1982); E. A. Nida, J. P. Louw, and R. B. Smith, “Semantic Domains and Componential Analysis of
Meaning,” In Current issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. R. W. Cole (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1977). M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985); J. P. Louw, ed., Lexicography and Bible Translation (Cape
Town: Bible Society, 1985).
 J. P. Louw, and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Do-
mains, 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988).
 For a short introduction to the main features of the dictionary, cf. Louw and Nida, vi–xxiii. Cf. the
critical appraisal by Lee, History, 155 – 65, also by J. Peláez in this volume (§§ 45 – 68).
 3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project XXVII

2.2.3 An Unfulfilled Vision: A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary

Parallels
Approximately at the same time that Louw and Nida worked on their dictionary, Aus-
tralian scholars commenced a project in which they sought to produce a new version
of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament with a Lexicon of the New
Testament with Documentary Parallels. ³⁰ Although this extremely promising project
unfortunately seems to be paused, it deserves mention here, since it sought to realize
important aspects of Deissmann’s lexicographical vision. First, it should be observed
from the very beginning that the scholars were concerned to take cognizance of de-
velopments in general linguistics and semantics.³¹ Gregory Horsley and John Lee ex-
plicitly situate their prospective lexicon in the tradition of the OED, OLD and LNTSD,
that is, as part of the lexicographical “school” relying on lexemic definitions to pres-
ent meaning instead of using translational equivalents or glosses. They differ, how-
ever, from Louw and Nida in that they aspire to formulate definitions as substitution
equivalents. ³²
The most important feature of Horsley and Lee’s prospective lexicon would have
been the presentation of documentary parallels (incl. translations), which would il-
lustrate the definition of meaning provided for a particular New Testament word. Ar-
guably this would have constituted the closest approximation of Deissmann’s under-
standing of the lexicographical contextualization of the New Testament vocabulary in
its contemporary linguistic context.³³

3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project

The commencement of the Cordoba-Project can be dated to the mid-seventies of the

last century, when the Institución San Jerónimo para la Investigación Bíblica (later:
Asociación Bíblica Española) called for bilingual dictionaries for the Old and New
Testament to be composed in Spanish. Whereas L. A. Schökel was commissioned
to publish a Hebrew-Spanish dictionary of the vocabulary of the Old Testament
and decided to produce a bilingual dictionary in classical style,³⁴ Juan Mateos decid-
ed upon a new kind of dictionary in which the meanings of the words used in the

 Cf. Hemer, “Moulton and Milligan”; G. H. R. Horsley, and J. A. L. Lee, “A Lexicon of the New Testa-
ment with Documentary Parallels. Some Interim Entries. Part 1 and 2,” FNT 10 (1997): 55 – 84; idem,
FNT 11 (1998): 57– 84 (cf. 60 – 64 for a short description of their proposed lexicographical method).
Preparatory work was published by G. H. R. Horsley in the Series New Documents Illustrating Early
Christianity, 5 vol. (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1981– 89).
 Cf. e. g., G. H. R. Horsley, Linguistic Essays, NDIEC 5 (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989),
esp. 117– 34.
 Horsley and Lee, “Interim Entries 1,” 61. The revised 3rd edition of the English translation of Ba-
uer’s dictionary by F. W. Danker (BDAG, 2000) also adheres to the definitional approach.
 Horsley and Lee, “Interim Entries 1 and 2,” passim.
 L. A. Schökel, Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Espagñol (Madrid: Institución San Jerónimo, 1990).
XXVIII Introduction

New Testament should be established on the basis of the insights of modern research
in linguistics and particularly semantics. In the same year as the 6th revised edition of
Bauer’s dictionary, published by Kurt and Barbara Aland, and J. P. Louw and Eugene
Nida published their semantic domain lexicon (LNTSD), Juan Mateos published his
Método de análisis semántico. ³⁵ In his text, Mateos presents a novel theory for estab-
lishing the meaning of the Greek vocabulary of the New Testament. In the wake of
this he founded a seminar group at the University of Cordoba called Grupo de Aná-
lisis Semántico des Córdoba (GASCO), which systematically applied the method to the
analysis of the vocabulary of the New Testament, resulting first in the publication of
a monograph by Jesús Peláez in which he illustrates the methodology to be applied
in making DGENT.³⁶ Since the turn of the century, the Group—at first under the aus-
pices of J. Mateos and then, after his death in 2003, of J. Peláez—published five fas-
cicles of the preparatory semantical analysis for DGENT (᾿Aαρών – βωμός).³⁷

3.1 Scholarly Ancestry of DGENT

If one reads through Mateos and Peláez’s books it quickly becomes clear that their
theory of semantic analysis is heavily dependent on particular forerunners, with re-
spect to both general linguistics and semantics as well as to lexicography. Generally
speaking, the theoretical roots of DGENT can be found in linguistic structuralism,
particularly in French Structuralism, but also in American Structuralism. The termi-
nology used in the theory betrays the heritage of French Structuralism. Particularly,
the categories “seme,” “classeme,” and “sememe” are clearly borrowed from French
Structuralists, such as A. J. Greimas and B. Pottier (but also E. Coseriu).³⁸ Especially,

 J. J. Mateos, Método de análisis semántico. Aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de
Filología Neotestamentaria 1 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1989), in this volume Part II, chaps.
3 – 7 (§§ 69 – 306).
 J. Peláez, Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de Filología
Neotestamentaria 6 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1996), in this volume Parts I and III, chaps.
1– 2, 8 – 11 (§§ 1– 67; 307– 437).
 Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT). Análisis semántico de los vocablos,
Fasc. 1– 5 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2000 – 2012). According to J. Peláez, the sixth fascicle
is in preparation and should be published this year. Members of the Group published a number of
other works relevant to New Testament lexicography: cf. e. g., I. Muñoz Gallarte, Los Sustantivos-
Hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Classificación Semántico (Doctoral Thesis, Universidad Complutense
de Madrid/ Universidad de Córdoba, 2008); D. Romero González, El adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento.
Clasificación semántica (Doctoral Thesis, Córdoba, 2010); Godoy, P., Diccionario geográfico del Nuevo
Testamento (Universidad de Córdoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2010); L. Roig Lanzilota, Diccionario de
Personajes del Nuevo Testamento (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2011).
 A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structural. Recherche de méthode (Paris: Larousse, 1966), cf. idem. Struc-
tural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983); B. Pottier, Linguis-
tique génerále (Paris: Klincksieck, 1974), cf. idem, Lingü ística general: teoría y descripción, Biblioteca
 3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project XXIX

for a fundamental tenet of his theory on semantic analysis—the distinction between

nuclear meaning and contextual meaning, that is, between the meaning a word has
independent of the various contexts in which it appears (= the so- called semic nu-
cleus) and the particular meaning a word takes on due to the context in which it ap-
pears (sememes)—Mateos is indebted to A. J. Greimas.³⁹
Another fundamental feature of the theory behind DGENT is the semantic theory
of componential analysis, which was advanced both by French structuralists like
Greimas and Pottier, but also by American linguists like J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor
and, particularly, by E. A. Nida.⁴⁰ The theory of componential analysis holds that
the meaning of a lexeme can be analyzed or decomposed in terms of a set of general
or basic components of meaning or semantic features (or semes), of which some (or
all) also contribute to the meaning of other words. This theory constitutes the basis
of the procedure of semic development, which is at the heart of the method of analysis
developed by Mateos and Peláez. Finally, the dependence on Eugene Nida’s under-
standing of lexical meaning should be noted: Mateos not only adopts Nida’s concept
of semantic classes (object, abstract, event, relation),⁴¹ but he is particularly indebted
to Nida’s concept that many lexemes relate simultaneously to several semantic
classes.
Juan Mateos’s particular contribution to a theory of lexical meaning consists in
the effective linking of Greimas’s concept of a nuclear and contextual meaning
with Nida’s concept of semantic classes on the one hand, and in linking the theory
of componential analysis with Nida’s concept of semantic classes. Over and above
this indebtedness to structuralist theory, Mateos and Peláez were heavily influenced
by the South African classicist and lexicographer J. P. Louw with respect to lexico-
graphical method.⁴² Louw severely criticized the reliance of traditional New Testa-
ment lexicography, particularly in Bauer’s dictionary, on translational equivalents
(“semantic glosses”) to indicate meaning and introduced the definitional approach
as an alternative strategy to indicate the lexical meanings of ancient Greek terms.

románica hispánica 246 (Madrid: Gredos, 1977); E. Coseriu, Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingü ística General,
Biblioteca Románica Hispánica (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1962).
 Mateos is also indebted to Greimas for the particular way he implements the concept classeme. He
thereby extended Greimas’s concept of classeme, which Greimas applied to gender only, to pertain
also to number, tense, aspect, and voice. In some structuralist models, “classeme” rather designates
clusters of semantic features or semes.
 J. J. Katz, Semantic Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); J. A. Fodor, Semantics: Theories of
Meaning in Generative Grammar (New York: Crowell, 1977); E. A. Nida, Componential Analysis of
Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures (New York/Paris: Mouton, 1975); idem, Exploring Se-
mantic Structures (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1975).
 In the theory of Mateos, these consist of entity, attribute, event, and relation classes. He further-
more adds the class “determination,” which pertains to aspects of reference and deixis.
 J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982); idem, “How
Do Words Mean, If They Do?” FNT 4 (1991): 125 – 42; idem, “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicogra-
phy,” FNT 6 (1993): 139 – 48.
XXX Introduction

This approach was adopted by the Cordoba-School, thereby becoming heirs of Louw
and Nida and continuing into the 21st century that strain of lexicographical thought
inaugurated by Deissmann, which does not conceive the primary task of New Testa-
ment lexicography to consist in providing translational equivalents for the words in
the relevant source language.⁴³

3.2 Characteristic Traits of the Cordoba-Model

3.2.1 The Aim: To Define Lexical Meaning Methodically

“We view the lexicographer’s primary task to consist of explaining, viz. defining the
meaning of words … This will consist … in describing the meaning of each lexeme
abstractly … by means of a paraphrase that may be semantically equivalent to the
lexeme.”⁴⁴ The theory and method of semantic analysis developed in Cordoba serves
the lexicographical purpose of formulating definitions to present lexical meaning in
the context of a bilingual dictionary. The particular contribution of the Cordoba-
School to New Testament lexicography (and to lexicography in general!) therefore
consists in the development of a scientifically controlled procedure to define lexical
meaning systematically for a bilingual dictionary on the New Testament vocabulary.
Taking their cue from Louw and Nida, the Spanish authors assume lexical mean-
ing consists of a particular set of semantic features: “[W]e adopt the definition of
meaning offered by Louw and Nida. Meaning consists of a lexeme’s ‘set of distinctive
features’ (semantic components or semes) … The meaning is not another word, but is
expressed in a definition that is clearly formulated and joins together a word’s se-
mantic features.” The meaning of a word is not another word, but “a statement
about semantic features and their range … Determining and explaining or specifying
these semes (i.e., semantic features, DdT) is the crucial task for establishing the re-
lationship between a word and its meaning. This meaning is expressed by presenting
a lexeme’s semantic features and their inherent hierarchy.”⁴⁵ The Cordoba-model
presents a method for determining the distinctive semantic features of words and
to explain, viz. define its lexical meaning in terms of these features.⁴⁶

 Although Lee, History, 27n6 is correct in holding that a definitional approach cannot be attributed
to Deissmann, it should however be noticed that he was critical of the use of translational equivalents
as a sufficient means to describe meaning. See also above § 2.1.
 Peláez; cf. in this volume § 5. See also § 9.
 Peláez, cf. in this volume §§ 21, 32.
 Mateos formulated clarity, functionality and efficiency as requirements for an appropriate method;
cf. in this volume § 76.
 3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project XXXI

3.2.2 A Two-Tiered Approach: Distinguishing Semantic Levels

One of the most fundamental and distinctive features of the Cordoba-model concerns
a distinction between two levels of meaning, which correspond to the structuralist
distinction between langue and parole, between language (as abstract sign-system)
and speech (as actual language usage). J. Peláez explains: “To determine a word’s
meaning one must operate at two levels: the semiotic level (which corresponds to
the study of the term itself, i . e . , langue) and the semantic level (the study of a
term in context, i . e . , parole).”⁴⁷ Accordingly, word meaning should be described
(or defined) on two levels: “There is thus a lexical meaning (of the word itself) and
other contextual meanings (of the word in various contexts) … The lack of distinction
between lexical and contextual meaning seems to be the primary shortcoming of the
present lexicographical landscape.”⁴⁸ Lexical meaning can be considered the mean-
ing carried by a word independent of the particular contexts of speech in which it
occurs. It is thus the meaning that a word alwaysMonossemy?
contributes to discourse, irrespec-
tive of the particular or actual context. It should therefore be considered a lexico-
graphical construct abstracted from all available occurrences in language use (and
therefore belongs to the level of langue). In the Cordoba-model it is called semic nu-
cleus or semic configuration. ⁴⁹ Contextual meaning concerns the meaning(s) a word
reflects in context of actual language usage and might either correspond to its lexical
meaning or differ from it because of additional or changed semantic features due to
context. In the terminology of the Cordoba-model, the technical term for contextual
meaning is sememe. ⁵⁰ For the lexicographical praxis this implies that meaning of
words should be described in terms of lexical and contextual meaning.⁵¹

3.2.3 Basic Constituents: Semantic Class and Seme

Two fundamental categories—the concepts “semantic class” and “seme”— comprise
the building blocks of this theory and are constitutive for understanding the lexical
meaning in the Cordoba-model. The combination of these constituent elements
yields the meaning of lexemes.
(1). Semantic class: It is assumed that language corresponds to a universal, intui-
tive perception of reality, breaking it down into entities (things) and events (states,
actions, processes), both of which may possess particular attributes (e. g., quality,
quantity). These aspects of reality are related to each other in different ways (e. g.,

 Peláez, cf. in this volume §§ 14– 17.

 Peláez, cf. in this volume § 20 (italics added, DdT); see also § 35.
 Cf. Mateos, § 206.
 On contextual meaning, see also 3.2.7 and in this volume §§ 87– 89, 207– 11, and esp. 297– 306 (=
chap. 7), 377– 409 (= chap. 10). Cf. also the Glossary s.v. semic configuration and sememe at the end of
this volume.
 In the Cordoba-model, translational equivalents (semantic glosses) correspond to contextual
meaning.
XXXII Introduction

temporally, by cause and effect, in space, through participation, etc.), constituting a

network of relations between them.⁵² In languages these aspects of reality are named
and classified by means of words. These could also be used to actualize, situate, and
objectify the aforesaid aspects of reality in time and space, therefore constituting a
further semantic class (called determination in the Cordoba-model). Five semantic
classes are therefore distinguished: Entity, Event, Attribute, Relation and Determina-
tion. The central tenet of the Cordoba-model is that the meaning of every word can be
described in terms of these five categories.⁵³ Each word can be said to refer (primar-
ily) to one of these five aspects of reality and can therefore be semantically classified
as belonging to a particular lexemic class (entity/event/attribute lexeme, etc.). The
Cordoba-model, however, uniquely differentiates between lexemes with simple and
complex structure: Whereas lexemes with simple structure denote a particular item
from the class referred to, lexemes with complex structure denote primarily an
item from a particular class, but simultaneously denotes an item or items from anoth-
er class (or other classes).⁵⁴
(2). Seme: The second fundamental constitutive element of the Cordoba semantic
theory is the concept of “seme.” Semes are defined as elementary units of meaning
constituting a lexeme’s meaning. Theoretically, semes are elemental, basic, or atomic
semantic features that cannot be broken down into simpler features. Nevertheless,
due to the inherent impractibility of such a concept, semes in the theory refer to clus-
ters of semantic features that can be used to describe the inherent semantic features
constituting a lexeme’s meaning (in the Cordoba-model usually referred to with ab-
stract nouns, e . g . , “humanity,” “rationality,” etc.⁵⁵). Each seme is therefore a carrier
of meaning, viz. is an elementary meaning-bearing unit that can contribute to the
meaning of diverse lexemes. Accordingly, the meaning of a lexeme (or: its definition
of meaning) is formulated with respect to a specific set of semes. A lexeme’s mean-
ing, however, does not consist of isolated semes but of a set of semes conjoined and
arranged in a particular constellation.
The dual set of constituent elements (i. e., semantic class and seme) corresponds
to a two-tiered procedure for determining the lexical meaning of a word. First, a kind

 On this, cf. e. g., J. Lyons, Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 2:438 – 52.
 In this Mateos and Peláez follow Louw and Nida, who distinguish the “semantic categories” ob-
ject, entity, abstract and relation; cf. § 2.1 above. As was the case with Louw and Nida, they emphasize
that semantic classes and grammatical classes (or: “parts of speech”) are not congruent, since, for
example, many nouns do not signify an entity, but an attribute or event. For more examples, cf. Ma-
teos, §§ 95 – 100 in this volume, cf. esp. the so-called abstract lexemes §§ 148 – 71. A summary by Pe-
láez can be found in §§ 310 – 18.
 Cf. e. g., the adjective/adverb “big,” which denotes an attribute and is therefore an attribute lex-
eme of simple structure. The comparative adjective/adverb “bigger” connotes primarily the same
quality/attribute as well as the relation of comparison and is therefore an attribute lexeme of complex
structure referring to two semantic classes. Cf. in this volume §§ 101– 71 (= chap. 4).
 Cf. the catalogue of semes at the end of this volume. On the concept of seme cf. §§ 84, 353, and the
Glossary s.v. seme.
 3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project XXXIII

of semantic framework (known as “semantic formula”) is established with reference

to the five semantic classes (cf. below 3.2.4). Next, a particular set of semes is iden-
tified for each element in the formula in order to establish the particular lexeme’s
“structured semic nucleus” or “nuclear configuration” (cf. 3.2.5). On this basis, the
lexical meaning can be defined (cf. 3.2.6).⁵⁶

3.2.4 A Frame for Meaning: Semantic Formula, Denotation, and Connotation

One of the characteristic features of the Cordoba-model are the many diagrams,
which appear on nearly every page of the Análisis semántico as well as in the mono-
graphs of Mateos and Peláez in this volume. These diagrams are graphic representa-
tions of so-called semantic formulas. A semantic formula is formulated in terms of
the semantic classes to which the particular entities, attributes, actions, states, proc-
esses and relations etc. belong and which a lexeme calls to mind (i. e., which it de-
notes/connotes). The arrangement of the elements of the formula corresponds to the
particular configuration of the entities, events, relations and determinations under-
lying the lexeme.⁵⁷
Semantic formulas usually consist of two parts: one part comprising the seman-
tic elements, viz. the semantic classes denoted by the lexeme (in the diagrams con-
tained in rectangular boxes) and a part comprising the connoted elements, viz. se-
mantic classes (in the diagrams the arrows and letters to the right of the
rectangular boxes). Denotation refers to semantic elements (in this case: the semantic
classes) both necessary and sufficient to define the meaning of a lexeme. Connotation
concerns semantic classes necessarily associated with or implied by a lexeme (e. g.,
relations of presupposition, agent, purpose, etc.), but which do not constitute an in-
tegral part of the meaning of a lexeme.⁵⁸ Many lexemes share the same semantic for-
mula, viz. the same configuration or arrangement of semantic classes. Such paradig-
matic configurations signify that the relevant lexemes have common semantic
structures (i. e., features) and perhaps constitute a set of semantically related lex-
emes. When the shared features not only pertain to the semantic classes but also
to (some of) the semes involved, it becomes possible to identify semantic domains.

3.2.5 Specifying Meaning: Semic Development

The semantic structure of denoted semantic classes and connoted relations (i. e., the
semantic formula) constitutes the “syntax,” i. e., the basic structure of a lexical def-
inition. In order to be able to formulate such a definition of meaning, the semantic

 Cf. Mateos, §§ 206 – 14; Peláez, §§ 319 – 30.

 Cf. on semantic formulae, Mateos, §§ 74, 101– 71 (= chap. 4), Peláez, §§ 319 – 31.
 Cf. esp. Peláez, §§ 320 – 28.
XXXIV Introduction

framework of the formula is furnished with the semantic features (semes) specific to
the particular lexeme. This is called “semic development.”
Before considering semic development, it is first necessary to introduce another
important concept of the model, namely the concept of “semantic category.” Seman-
tic categories concern semantic information in part drawn from the grammatical cat-
egories of gender, number, mode, tense, aspect, and voice. These are considered ge-
neric semes, which transport fundamental aspects of meaning related especially to
entities (number, gender) and to events (mode, tense, aspect, voice).⁵⁹
Semic development comprises the furnishing of all denoted and connoted seman-
tic elements of the semantic formula with the appropriate semes, starting with the
already mentioned generic semes and subsequently with so-called specific semes.
Specific semes concern those semantic features necessary to identify the concept re-
ferred to by a lexeme (e. g., for οἶκος: building, location, demarcation, coveredness,
self-containment, suitability; cf. § 226). They are identified by comparing the partic-
ular lexeme to semantically related lexemes, that is, to lexemes belonging to the same
semantic domain, thereby establishing both common and distinctive semantic fea-
tures.⁶⁰

3.2.6 Defining Meaning: Formulating Lexical Definitions

As we have seen, the purpose of the Cordoba-model is to define lexical meaning in
terms of distinctive semantic features (called “semic nucleus”).
This semic nucleus is constructed by establishing a particular configuration of
denoted and connoted semantic classes (semantic formula or semic configuration)
and by furnishing them with appropriate semes (semic development). Definitions
of meaning are formulated so that it explicitly reflects every semantic element con-
tained in the semic nucleus. Two examples may suffice to explain this:⁶¹ (1) The lex-
ical meaning of ὄχλος is defined as: “A large (A) group of human beings (Ent) in the
same place (R)” (§ 224). This reflects the semic nucleus comprised of the denoted se-
mantic classes entity (semes: plurality, humanity = “a group of human beings”), rela-

 Cf. Mateos, §§ 172– 203 (= chap. 5.1); Peláez, §§ 332– 39. Generic semes related to semantic catego-
ries are: 1. (in)-animate, (non)-person, divine/human/animal, masculine/ feminine (= “gender”); 2.
individual/singular/distributive, partial/total/corporate/virtual; collective, (non)-quantifiable;
(non)-qualified (= “number”); 3. (un)-reality, (im)-possibility; (un)-certainty; (im)-probability (=
“mode”); 4. (a)-temporality, (non)-contemporaneousness, retro-/prospectivity = past/future, (non)-si-
multaneousness = prior/posterior (= “tense”); 5. stativity/dynamism, (non)-relative, (non)-resultative,
(non)-aoristic/(non)-process (= “aspect”); 6. (non)-agentivity, (non)-subjective affecting, (non)-recep-
tive (“voice”).
 Cf. Mateos, §§ 220 – 96 (= chap. 6), where many examples are given for all kinds of lexemes; see
also Peláez, §§ 354– 76 (= chap. 9), where semic development is illustrated with reference to collective
entities, and §§ 412– 37 (= chap. 11), where it is illustrated with reference to semantically closely re-
lated lexemes.
 Many examples are provided in chaps. 6 – 7 (Mateos), 9 – 11 (Peláez) in this volume.
 3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project XXXV

tion (semes: location, simultaneousness = “in the same place”), and attribute (seme:
quantity = “large”). (2) The lexical meaning of ἀγαθοποιέω is defined as: “A benefi-
cial (A) action (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent 1) for (R2) another
[human individual] (Ent2)” (§ 251). This reflects the semic nucleus comprised of the
denoted semantic classes event (semes: dynamism, activity = “an action”) and attrib-
ute (seme: beneficiality = “beneficial”) as well as the connoted semantic classes en-
tity (twice, with identical semes: individuality, humanity = “human individual”) and
why not 'number' for 'individual'?
relation (twice: 1. semes: agentivity = “performed by”; 2. semes: transitivity, affectiv-
ity = “by”).

3.2.7 Establishing Contextual Meaning

When the lexical meaning of a lexeme (which should be considered an abstract con-
struction corresponding to langue) has been defined, the determination of the contex-
tual meanings (i. e., the sememes) follows suit (cf. 3.2.2).⁶² In the Cordoba-model, it is
assumed that context often alters lexical meaning. Such alterations affect either the
semic configuration represented in the semantic formula or the semic development
(or both), generating variant meanings due to contextual factors (sememes). In order
to identify sememes, all occurrences of a lexeme should be analyzed in order to es-
tablish the extent to which the contextual usage of a lexeme deviates from the lexical
meaning. Subsequently, the required changes to the semic configuration of the se-
mantic formula or to the semic development are to be determined and the appropri-
ate variant meaning(s) defined. It should be noted that the Cordoba-school is ex-
tremely reluctant to allow for polysemy; even serious differences in the usage of a
particular lexeme is explained as contextual variants of a nuclear meaning rather
than resorting to polysemy.

3.3 The Cordoba-Model in Light of other Semantic Theories

The Cordoba-model is rooted in a specific strain of structuralist semantics, in partic-

ular it depends heavily on componential analysis (3.1). Some aspects of the Cordoba-
model could be viewed as an attempt by Juan Mateos to compensate for some of the
shortcomings of componential analysis. Particularly, the connection of componential
analysis, the concept of semantic classes, and the theory of nuclear meaning gener-
ated a novel way of presenting meaning as a configuration of semantic features
based on semantic classes and their mutual relations. Some aspects of the semantic
formula- concept seem to approximate, and even anticipate, important aspects of
meaning in other semantic theories. In the following I want to point out a few of
them.

 Cf. Mateos, §§ 87– 90, 215 – 17, 297– 306 (= chap. 7); Peláez, §§ 377– 411 (chap. 10).
XXXVI Introduction

In particular, the importance of connotation as an integral part of the semantic

formula and therefore of lexical meaning should be mentioned in this connection.
Especially in the case of event lexemes, which connote notions of (in)-transitivity
and subsequently different subject- and object-relations,⁶³ the theory approximates
other theories, esp. semantic field theories, which consider syntagmatic relations
and collocational restrictions to be an integral part of lexical meaning.⁶⁴ Whereas
the configuration of connoted relations explicate typical syntagmatic sense relations,
the semic development of the involved entities as subject and (indirect) object re-
stricts the number of entities, which could enter into that particular syntagmatic
“slot.”
This links up with another aspect of semic development: Since semes in the
theory are not restricted to elementary carriers of atomic semantic features but are
used in the sense of complex clusters of semantic features (e. g., “humanity,” “ani-
mality,” “territory,” “habitation,” “construction,” etc.), they in part resemble seman-
tic concepts which play an important role in other theories. As an example, I refer to
the concept of paradigmatic sense relations in some semantic field-theories:⁶⁵ Seman-
tic fields are often structured by relations of hyperonomy and hyponomy, in which a
hyponym entails the meaning of a superordinated lexeme. When in the Cordoba-
model a lexeme’s semic development contains semes like “humanity,” “animality,”
“building,” etc., the particular lexeme is thereby marked to be a hyponym of those
lexeme(s) denoting the particular (complex) seme as well as to be a co-hyponym of
all other lexemes comprising that seme. Obviously, this is constitutive for defining se-
mantic domains (or fields) and sub-domains.
Another aspect should be mentioned in this context: The complex semes used in
the Cordoba-model can be viewed as referring to units of encyclopedic knowledge
contained in the meaning of a word. The semes of “angel,” “building,” “death,” “de-
liberation,” “government,” for example, clearly refer to complex encyclopedic con-
cepts, which clearly resemble that which is referred to as “frames” in frame seman-
tics.⁶⁶ This is even more the case if one considers some of the semic configurations
offered by the Cordoba-school: For example, in the case of οἶκος (cf. § 226) it is postu-
lated that—apart from the specific semes of the denoted entity (building, location,
demarcation, coveredness, etc., which all seem to refer to complex encyclopedic no-
tions!)—the lexeme connotes a complex set of relations, rendered in the lexical def-
inition as “constructed by people for the habitation by people.” This comes very
close to the kind of semantic information that modern frame theories assume to
be a constitutive aspect of lexical meaning. In this sense, J. Mateos anticipated

 Cf. Mateos, §§ 115 – 33 (= chap. 4.3), 244– 71 (= chap. 6.2).

 Cf. e. g., Lyons, Semantics, 1:250 – 67.
 Cf. e. g., Lyons, Semantics, 1:291– 317.
 Cf. on frame theory, S. Löbner, Understanding Semantics (Routledge: New York, 22013), 265 – 324;
D. Busse, Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium (Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2012).
 4 Conclusion XXXVII

some of the developments in semantic theory in the years to come.⁶⁷ Although other
points of contact to other semantic theories could be named, these should suffice for
the illustrative purposes of this introduction. But they do demonstrate sufficiently
that the Cordoba-model links up quite well with some of the recent developments
in other strains of modern semantics.

4 Conclusion

It must be emphasized that the Cordoba-model truly constitutes a pioneering enter-

prise: For the first time in the history of the lexicography of not only New Testament
Greek but in general of Ancient Greek (if not perhaps of all ancient languages!) a
theory for describing lexical meaning is offered, which is based on modern linguistic
principles and is attentive of the utmost complexity of the object under considera-
tion. Although many critical questions could be addressed about the theory and se-
rious shortcomings could be identified, it will for many years remain the solitary
benchmark in theNot field. In particular, it will help scholars grappling with the problem
for much longer, with Chris' grammar.
of describing or representing lexical meaning of Greek words to acknowledge the
complexity of the task, remind them that lexicography could accordingly only be
done with reference to general linguistics and semantic theories, and lead them to
ask the right questions and to attend to the appropriate problems, thereby refraining
from simplistic—and therefore inappropriate—solutions.

 It should be noted that definitional approaches in lexicography are prone to depend heavily on
the encyclopaedic knowledge of the dictionary’s users. Cf. e. g., the definition of Louw and Nida for
ναῦς in their lexicon: “a larger ocean-going vessel,” which presupposes encyclopaedic knowledge
pertaining both to “ocean” and “vessel.” Considering the pivotal role of semantic definition in the
Cordoba-theory (cf. 3.2.1), it could very well be that this had prompted Mateos to develop his concept
of semic configuration (semantic formula) in the way he did.
Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología
(1996)¹TN
The project of a Greek-Spanish dictionary of the New Testament is longstanding. In
1974, what was then called Institución San Jerónimo para la Investigación Bíblica and
now Asociación Bíblica Española proposed that two biblical dictionaries be com-
posed, a Hebrew-Spanish Dictionary and a Greek-Spanish dictionary. These projects
were respectively directed by professors Luis Alonso Schökel and by myself, Juan Ma-
teos. We had previously translated the Nueva Biblia Española (Madrid, 1975) and for
this project we each gathered a team of young colleagues from among our students at
the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome.
Concerning the project Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento
(DGENT), I perceived at the onset that it was ill advisable to undertake the work
as a team before the group of colleagues first acquired a sufficient familiarity with
the texts under investigation. Thus, we began with a grammatical analysis of the
texts, which served as the basis for the production of commentaries. The fruit of
this work was the publication of a commentary on the Gospel of John (1979), another
on the Gospel of Matthew (1981), and another on the Gospel of Mark (I 1994²TN, as
well as the annotated translation of the New Testament (1987).
Once the study of the texts was underway, the need for developing a method of
analysis that was both linguistically and semantically informed became apparent. I
had the privilege of developing such a methodology and publishing this in 1989 as
the first volume in the series “Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria,” in conjunction
with the journal Filología Neotestamentaria. The work was published with the Span-
ish title Método de análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento. ³TN
After publishing my methodology, I organized several introductory courses in
Cordoba to draw attention to this text and to attract collaborators. The result of
these courses was the creation of a group of investigation called GASCO (Grupo de
Análisis Semántico de Córdoba), which constitutes a permanent seminar with the pur-
pose of understanding and applying the method. The group, coordinated by myself,
currently consists of Jesús Peláez (Doctor of trilingual biblical philology), Carmen Pa-

 Translator’s Note: Cf. Jesús Peláez, Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testa-
mento, Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 6 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1996), 11– 13.
 Translator’s Note: This probably refers to Juan Mateos and Fernando Camacho, Marcos. Texto y
Commentario (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1994). Further commentaries were published on Mark
by Juan Mateos and Fernando Camacho, El Evangelio de Marcos. Análisis lingüístico y commentario
exegético I-II.III (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1993, 2008; 2nd ed. 2009).
 Translator’s Note: Cf. Juan Mateos, Método de análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo
Testamento, Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 1 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1989). In
this book, Part II, chaps. 3 – 7.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-006
XL Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996)

dilla (Doctor of Greek Philology), Rufino Godoy |11-P (Doctor of Theology), Julio Cuen-
ca, Luis Domingo, and Angel Trujillo (graduates in Classical Philology).
The present volume qualified Jesús Peláez for the chair of Greek Philology (New
Testament Philology) at the University of Cordoba. The monograph⁴TN is indebted to
the contributions of the previously mentioned group of semantic analysis in Cordo-
ba. The contents of Peláez’s chapters are as follows:
Chapter I: “Dictionary and Meaning,” examines different kinds of dictionaries
and looks at various theories about the concept of “meaning” and the method of de-
termining it.
Chapter II: “The Method of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament,” ex-
amines three important dictionaries of New Testament Greek. After discussing their
method of analysis, the author highlights their strengths and weaknesses.⁵TN
Chapter III: “Steps for the Composition of DGENT based on Semantic Classes,”
begins with the classification of lexemes according to their dominant semantic
classes in order first to determine the difference between semantic and grammatical
classes. Then, after introducing the semantic formula of lexemes (i. e., whether the
formula is simple or complex), the semic development of the formulas based on se-
mantic categories is discussed. This naturally requires a discussion of grammatical
and semantic categories. The criteria for proceeding with the semic development
of the formulas are explained, which then leads to the definitions of the lexemes.
The chapter then illustrates the method by analyzing various nouns.⁶TN
Chapter IV: “Contextual Meaning (Sememes),” establishes the different mean-
ings of a term that arise due to context. Contextual influence is concretely investigat-
ed by applying the theory to the analysis of four nouns.⁷TN
Lastly, chapter V: “Analysis of Similar Lexemes,” seeks to demonstrate the accu-
racy of the proposed method by analyzing five terms with similar meanings. By com-
posing definitions, the lexeme and its different senses or sememes are established. In
this way, the similarities and differences between the terms can be appreciated.⁸TN
In later volumes, studies will be published that will offer various introductory
materials for the dictionary’s production. Among the first to come to fruition will

 Translator’s Note: In this volume, Part I, chaps. 1– 2, Part III, chaps. 8 – 11.
 Translator’s Note: Chap. I, “Dictionary and Meaning” remains chap. 1 in this volume and carries
the same name; chap. II, “The Method of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament” remains
chap. 2 in this volume but has been renamed “A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the
New Testament.”
 Translator’s Note: The lengthy chap. III has been split into two chapters in this volume. Chap. III
A corresponds to chap. 8 and has been renamed “Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes”; chap III
B corresponds to chap. 9 and is now entitled “Method: Semic Development.”
 Translator’s Note: Chap. IV corresponds to chap. 10 in this volume and is now called “Method:
Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes).”
 Translator’s Note: Chap. V corresponds to chap. 11 in this volume and now bears the name,
“Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions.”
 Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996) XLI

be the classification of the nouns of the New Testament based on semantic classes.⁹TN
|12-P This study will make use of grammatical classes and will proceed from the letter
A. It is our desire that both the method proposed in this volume and the materials of
later publication might be a point of scholarly attention. We eagerly welcome sugges-
tions that can improve our proposal.

Juan Mateos¹⁰TN
Director of DGENT
(Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento) |13-P

 translator’s note: Cf. I. Muñoz Gallarte, “Los sustantivos-hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasi-
ficación semántica” (PhD diss., Complutense University of Madrid, 2009); J. Peláez, and I. Muñoz Ga-
llarte, La clasificación semántica de los sustantivos en el Nuevo Testamento. I. Sustantivos Entidad,
attributo, Relación y Determinación; Sustantivos Hecho (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, in process).
 Translator’s Note: J. Mateos was born in 1917 in Ceuta, Spain, and died in 2003 in Malaga,
Spain, at the age of 86.
PART I New Testament Lexicography:
A Critical Introduction
(Jesús Peláez)
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning¹TN
§ 1. The need to compose a Greek-Spanish dictionary of the New Testament stems
from the absence of a dictionary in Spanish dedicated to this period of the Greek lan-
guage. As a result, Spanish speaking scholars of the New Testament face the linguis-
tic challenge of trying to base their philological studies on bilingual dictionaries in
languages other than their own. A tool is thus needed to give Spanish speakers direct
access to the Greek of the New Testament. This does not imply that dictionaries of
classical Greek ignore the Greek of the New Testament: such dictionaries often men-
tion the peculiar meanings of certain terms in the New Testament. Nevertheless, for
obvious reasons the Greek of the New Testament in these dictionaries is not dis-
cussed systematically and extensively, but in a brief manner. Given the Greek lan-
guage’s long period of evolution (from Homer to Hellenistic and then Patristic
Greek), one cannot expect more from these dictionaries. A more detailed treatment
would simply be impossible.

1.1 The Concept of Dictionary

§ 2. At the beginning of our study we ought to clarify what we understand by “dic-

tionary.” María Moliner defines this as “a book in which the words of a language or of
a particular corpus are arranged alphabetically and explained or given their equiva-
lence in another language.”² A similar definition is given by F. Lázaro Carreter: “a
book that, by means of a general alphabetical ordering, contains and explains the
meanings of all the words of a language or maps them out with the equivalents of
one or several other languages.”³ The double possibility expressed in these defini-
tions—the dictionary as an explanation of the meaning of words or as |15-P a reposi-
tory of translational equivalents—is alluded to by A. Schökel, author of the Diccionar-
io Bíblico hebreo-español,⁴ a project parallel to ours except that it deals with the
Hebrew language. Discussing the possible ways of organizing a bilingual dictionary
of the Hebrew Bible, he marked out two:
a) To define or describe the semantic content or the function of each term in a
meta-language.
b) To offer words or expressions in the target language that correspond to the var-
ious meanings and uses of each Hebrew term.

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 15 – 28 in the original text of Peláez.
 M. Moliner, Diccionario de uso del español, 2 vols. (Madrid: Gredos, 1977), s.v. “diccionario.”
 F. Lázaro Carreter, Diccionario de terminos filológicos, Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 6 (Madrid:
Editorial Gredos, 1977), s.v. “diccionario.”
 Published as fascicles beginning in 1990 by la Institución San Jerónimo, Valencia; in a single vol-
ume, Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español, ed. A. Schökel (Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1998).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-007
4 Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning

Additionally, as a third way he then adds, “The author of a bilingual dictionary is

prone to combine the two tactics in varying degrees.”⁵ In his dictionary, however,
Schökel did not follow this third option. Rather than beginning by describing the
meanings of words and lexemes, he places a series of Spanish words at the front
of the entry next to the Hebrew term. For example, next to the lexeme bayit
(“house”) appear:

palacio, mansión, hogar, taller, sala, habitación, cárcel, prisión, burdel, castillo, establo, corral,
harén, residencia, posada, albergue, mausoleo [palace, mansion, home, workshop, room, habi-
tation, jail, prison, brothel, castle, stable, corral, harem, residence, inn, lodge, mausoleum].

None of these terms, however, represent the meaning of the Hebrew word. They are
translational equivalents in diverse contexts. The meaning of bayit could be descri-
bed as “a covered building that demarcates an open and accessible space construct-
ed to be inhabited.”
§ 3. A more technical, albeit shorter, definition of “dictionary” is offered by A. J. Grei-
mas, who in part inspired the methodology that we will present in the pages that fol-
low. Greimas understood dictionary as the stock of lexemes |16-P (and eventually of
paralexemes)⁶ of a natural language arranged in a conventional order (normally al-
phabetically), which, taken as “titles,” have definitions or para-synonymous equiva-
lents.⁷ A more complete definition is provided by J. Dubois:⁸

A dictionary is a cultural object that presents the lexicon of a language (or of several languages)
in an alphabetical form, providing certain information for each term (pronunciation, etymology,
grammatical category, definition, construction, examples of usage, synonyms, idioms). Such in-
formation is intended to allow the reader to translate from one language to another or to fill gaps
that keep one from understanding the text in one’s own language. The dictionary also tries to

 Cf. L. Alonso Schökel, “Sobre diccionarios bilingües,” In Text, Methode und Grammatik, Wolfgang
Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, and T. Seidl (Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag,
1992), 89.
 We understand the term “lexeme” as “each independent lexical unit that has its own semantic nu-
cleus.” “Paralexemes” are “lexemes formed by a syntagm whose total meaning does not result from
adding each individual component.” They are, therefore, semantic units whose meaning transcends
that of the lexemic components from which they are comprised (e. g., the paralexeme υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου); cf. § 80. A lexeme is a unit of the lexicon (at the language level, langue), while a word
and a word’s specific usage are units of the vocabulary (at the speech level, parole). A word’s specific
usage refers to each time a word is used, while word represents a particular unit as a component of
the lexicon (of all the words in the New Testament). Accordingly, we can say that the number of words
in the New Testament (approximately 5,440) is clearly less than the number of specific usages of the
words. See A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés, Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary, trans. Larry
Crist and Daniel Patte (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 628.
 Greimas and Courtés, Semiotics, 122.
 J. Dubois et al., Diccionario de Lingüística (Madrid: Alianza, 1973), 194. [Dictionnaire de linguistique
(Paris: Larousse, 1973)].
 1.1 The Concept of Dictionary 5

give a complete description of the means of expression and to expand the cultural knowledge of
the reader.

§ 4. From these definitions of “dictionary” it can be easily deduced that we are con-
cerned with a dictionary of terms or language (i. e., with the linguistic use of words),
as opposed to an encyclopedic dictionary, which focuses on the concept, idea, or
thing that a word represents. Yet, the border between these two kinds of dictionary
is not clearly defined and it must be admitted that a dictionary of language is, to
a certain degree, encyclopedic, and vice versa.⁹
The authors we have cited conceive of two ways of presenting definitions in their
dictionaries: (1) words can be listed and their meaning(s) explained (which tends to
be the case, in a more or less systematic manner, in monolingual dictionaries); and
(2) words can be listed in one language followed by their translational equivalents in
another language (which is common in bilingual dictionaries). We prefer to adopt the
definitions provided by Moliner and Lázaro Carreter (mentioned above) by changing
the disjunctive “or” to the copulative “and,” in which case “dictionary” would be de-
fined as “a book that contains an alphabetically organized set of words of a lan-
guage,¹⁰ explains their meaning(s), and, in the case of a |17-P bilingual dictionary,
also presents their translational equivalents in another language.”¹¹
§ 5. In DGENT we therefore adopt the third alternative proposed by Schökel. We com-
bine the two tactics, in the first place giving the definition of the lexeme except when
it refers to an obvious entity, in which case the definition is not necessary (e. g.,
“dog,” “cat,” “apple,” etc.). We view the lexicographer’s primary task to consist of
explaining, viz. defining the meaning of words (which is not always an easy task).
This will consist, above all, in describing the meaning of each lexeme abstractly
(semiological level, langue) by means of a paraphrase that may be semantically
equivalent to the lexeme.

 Cf. J. and C. Dubois, Introdution à la lexicographie: le dictionaire (Paris: Larousse, 1971), 13 – 14. This
work in general is very useful since it offers information about the various kinds of dictionaries and
how they are organized and prepared, and also about other theoretical questions such as homonymy,
polysemy, synonymy, paraphrase and its lexicographical treatment.
 Although the alphabetical organization of words is not a requirement for a dictionary, we consider
it practical. One of the inconveniences of the dictionary of Louw and Nida, which we will discuss
later, is a direct result of the authors’ decision to organize the words based on semantic domains.
This immediately forces the reader to resort to an alphabetical index in the second volume in
order to find the pages in the first volume where the word is discussed; cf. J. P. Louw and E. A.
Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1988).
 An encyclopedic dictionary will also systematically describe those terms.
6 Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning

Excursus: Definitions of Technical Terminology

Having spoken about “dictionaries,” it will be helpful to distinguish this term from others, such as
“lexicon” or “vocabulary,” which are frequently used without distinction. A lexicon is a book that con-
tains the inventory of all the lexes (lexes = lexeme, paralexeme/set phrase) of a natural language
from a certain time period.¹² According to T. Lewandowski,¹³ lexicon differs from vocabulary, the latter
being the exhaustive list of the words of a corpus. |18-P Lexicon can have other meanings. In contrast to
dictionary, it can evoke two kinds of works:¹⁴ a book that serves as the list of terms employed by an
author, by a scientific discipline, or by a technology, and, on the other hand, a compact bilingual dic-
tionary that parallels the lexical elements of the two languages being compared. As can be seen, the
term “lexicon” has several meanings and is sometimes confused with “vocabulary.” Lexicon is there-
fore reserved in this volume for language (langue) and vocabulary for speech (parole). The units of
langue are lexemes while the units of parole are words and their usage (“their usage” designates
each appearance of a certain word). Nevertheless, as a technical linguistic term, “lexicon” does
not imply a book but all items that form the language of a community, of a human activity, of a speak-
er, etc.
The term “lexicography” not only refers to how a dictionary is constructed but also to its method of
linguistic analysis. “Lexicography” is, moreover, |19-P as ambiguous as the term “lexicographer,”
which can refer to a linguist who studies lexicography and to the editor of a dictionary. The science
of lexicography and the practice of lexicography, however, are differentiated, as are also the linguist
studying lexicography and the author who produces a dictionary. For its part, “lexicology” is defined
as the scientific study of words.¹⁵

 Greimas and Courtés, Semiotics, 241.

 Cf. T. Lewandowski, Linguistisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols. (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer Verlag,
1979), 437.
 J. Dubois et al., Diccionario de Lingüística, 389 ff.
 It is helpful to define other terms that we will refer to in the following pages. If not otherwise stat-
ed, we take these definitions from the work of J. Dubois et al., Diccionario de Lingüística.
Sign: In Saussure’s terminology, sign appears as a kind of synonym for concept. In effect, the
linguistic sign is the result of the combination of the signifier and the signified, or put somewhat dif-
ferently, between an acoustic image and a concept.
Signifier: The acoustic image, that is, the phonological shape of the series of sounds that consti-
tute the material shape of the sign. Between sign and signifier there is a relationship of presupposition
(see presupposition below).
Signified: Can designate the action (i. e., the signified as a process) or the result of its significa-
tion (i. e., that which is signified); thus, it can be paraphrased as “the production of meaning” or as
“meaning produced” (cf. Greimas and Courtés, Semiotics). The term “meaning” can be reserved for
what comes before the semiotic production. Here, however, “signified” will be defined as “meaning
articulated.” “Signified” is also used as a synonym for “semiosis” (the act of signifying) and is inter-
preted as the meeting of signifier and sign (constitutive of the sign). But it is better to define signified
as “the determination or the comprehension of the relations (sense articulated).” It may correspond
with reference.
Reference: Is the function whereby a linguistic sign (i.e., word) refers to an object (i. e., referent),
real or imagined, of the non-linguistic world, and not in and of itself, but through the specific formu-
lations of a given culture. In this way there is a direct union between sign (i.e., concept) and referent,
but an indirect union between signifier (i. e., word) and referent. It is common to designate the refer-
ential relation as the denotation of a sign.
 1.1 The Concept of Dictionary 7

§ 6. One question remains to be answered, namely, why a bilingual dictionary ought

to explain the meaning of words before suggesting their translational equivalents in
the target language. Two reasons can be given. First, a word in a target language is
not the meaning of a word in the original language, but is rather a translational
equivalent, as is outlined below (cf. §§ 9, 21). Meaning and translational equivalence
are different concepts. Second, before suggesting translational equivalents, the dic-
tionary ought to explain the meaning of the words. Doing so will help avoid the con-
fusion of having to select a translational equivalent from among a series of words,
which, as the series continues, strays further and further from the meaning that
headed the series. Confusion can be avoided when the dictionary is more extensive
and specialized and when meanings are arrived at through morpho-syntactical and
contextual criteria. When the definition of a lexeme is not provided, confusion is like-
ly to arise.
§ 7. Let us look at some examples. For the lexeme δίδωμι, the manual dictionary of
J. M. Pabón¹⁶ lists the following translational equivalents:

“to give” (something, acc, or from something, gen; to someone, dat), “to offer” (ὁμήρους “hos-
tages”; δ. λόγον “to give account” [ἑαυτῷ] or “to let someone speak”; δ. δίκην “to pay the pen-
alty” or “to give an account”; δ. ἀκοήν “to give or lend the ear”; δ. χάριν “to grant” or “to give
free reign”; δ. πιέειν “to give something to drink”); “to offer in sacrifice”, “to sacrifice,” “to ap-
pease,” “to ascribe,” “to grant,” “to award”; “to concede,” “to admit” (in a discussion); “to give
permission for,” “to permit”; “to hand over” (κυσίν “to the dogs”; ἀχέεσσι “to the pains”; τοῖς
δεινοῖς αὑτοὺς διδόναι, “to expose themselves to the dangers”); or “to entrust” (in marriage, as a
companion, etc.); “to pardon” (δέονται δοῦναι σφίσι ἄνδρε “they ask that the life of the men be
spared, that they pardon them”).

Referent: Is that to which a linguistic sign refers in non-linguistic reality and also the specific human
experiences (that which is referred to). The existence of a relation between sign and extra-linguistic
reality ought not to be confused with the existence of the referent; a word can refer to something that
does not exist (e. g., centaur).
Translation: To translate is to say in another language (target language) that which is said in an
original language while preserving the semantic and stylistic equivalents. For Greimas and Courtés
(Semiotics, a. l.), it is “the cognitive activity that enables a given saying to be rendered as another
saying that may still be considered equivalent.”
Usage: A group of grammatical rules that are relatively established and used by the majority of
speakers in a certain time-period and in any form of communication. A dictionary of usage is a uni-
lingual dictionary whose nomenclature or series of words correspond to the common lexicon of the
body of social groups that constitute the linguistic community.
Implication: When given two propositions, implication means that if the first is true, the second
must also be true. When the truth of the second proposition implies the truth of the first, double im-
plication exists.
Presupposition: Refers to the relation between two linguistic items such that the presence of the
one in the chain of speech is the sine qua non for the presence of the other. Additionally, the presence
of the determinant necessarily involves the presence of a name. It can be unilateral or reciprocal.
 J. M. Pabón, Diccionario manual griego-español (Barcelona: Vox, 1967).
8 Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning

The words from this list are not in and of themselves meanings of δίδωμι. Rather,
they represent meanings that the verb acquires in specific contexts (the author of
the dictionary is conscious of this, as is seen in the various parentheses). The verb
δίδωμι actually means “an act whereby a personal agent |20-P causes something he
or she possesses to become the possession of a recipient, normally personal” (cf.
§ 263).
§ 8. Let us provide another example. If one knows in advance that the Greek term
κωλύω means “to cause (voluntarily or involuntarily) something not to happen,”
then it can be translated as “to deprive,” “to avert,” “to impede,” “to prohibit,”
“to hinder.” Depending on context, the term can be expressed by one of these trans-
lational equivalents. Although κωλύω can be translated in certain contexts as “to
prohibit,” one should not assume that this is its meaning or that it can always be
translated as such. A phrase like the one in Rom 1:13, “I want you to know, brothers,
that I have planned to visit you many times, καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο,” cannot
be translated as “I was prohibited,” but rather as “I was hindered until the present.”
The generic meaning of κωλύω (“to cause [voluntarily or involuntarily] something
not to happen”) is present whenever the term is used and is translated as “to
avert” or as “to deprive,” “to impede,” “to prohibit,” “to hinder.” In all of these
cases something is impeded in one way or another from being accomplished.
§ 9. The lexeme εὐλογία presents a similar example. The term can be defined as “re-
markable skill at verbal expression.”¹⁷ In context it can be translated as “to speak
well,” “eloquence” (which does not appear in the New Testament), “gab,” “flattery
(misleading talk),” (Rom 16:18), “praise” (Acts 5:12– 13), “approval,” “support”
(Rom 15:29), “thanksgiving,” “blessing” (Jas 3:10), “promise” (Heb 12:17), “promised
gift” (2Cor 9:5a), “gift” (Heb 6:7). The description of a lexeme’s meaning helps one
choose the most appropriate translational equivalent in each context from those
that are available. At the same time, one avoids the error of substituting each of
the translational equivalents for the lexeme in any context.

1.2 What Do We Mean by Meaning?

§ 10. Given that the dictionary ought to explain the meaning of words, we ought to
ask ourselves what we mean by “meaning”—which is one of the most ambiguous
and controversial concepts in the theory of |21-P language.¹⁸ The authors C. K.
Ogden and I. A. Richards, in a work entitled The Meaning of Meaning, collect no
less than sixteen definitions of meaning (twenty-three if each subheading is count-

 Cf. J. Mateos, “Análisis de un campo lexemático. Εὐλογία en el Nuevo Testamento,” FNT 1 (1988):
5 – 25.
 See S. Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1962), 54 ff., who we follow and will summarize.
 1.2 What Do We Mean by Meaning? 9

ed).¹⁹ Since the publication of their work, many new uses of “meaning” have been
added to this formidable fount of ambiguity,²⁰ and in the opinion of some scholars
the term has become useless for scientific purposes. The ambiguity can be reduced,
however, by another relatively untapped method, namely, by limiting our attention to
word-meanings using the theory of J. D. Fodor.²¹
§ 11. Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought in current linguistics. The
analytical or referential (componential) school tries to capture the essence of mean-
ing by determining its main components, while the operational school studies words
as they are used. This strand is less interested in meaning and more in the concrete
usage of words.

1.2.1 Analytical or Referential Theory

§ 12. For the followers of analytical theory, including S. Ullmann, three factors always
come into play for meaning: name, sense, and thing. “Name” (“signifier” according
to Saussure) is understood as the word’s phonetic shape, the sounds that constitute
it, and other acoustic features such as accent. “Sense” (“sign” according to Saussure)
is the information the name communicates to the hearer. “Thing” implies the extra-
linguistic feature or event being spoken about. |22-P This explanation from Ullmann
borrows aspects of Ogden and Richards’s basic triangle:²²

 C. K. Ogden and A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon
Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 4th ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1936), 186 ff.
 See C. C. Fries, “Meaning and Linguistic Analysis,” Language 30 (1954): 57– 68, especially 62 ff.
 See Janet Dean Fodor, Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar (New York: Crowell,
1977). A bibliography about the term “meaning” prior to 1962 can be found in Ullmann, Semantics,
55n3.
 Plato seems to adopt the idea of correspondence of “name” and “thing” (without “reference” as
the intermediate term). The investigation about the things themselves is, for him, a pium desiderium.
“Name” is used by Plato as a teaching instrument and classification of being. Nevertheless, this is not
to say that Plato did not accept the existence of “reference”: Gorgias (482e ff.) makes it clear that he
recognized the triple plane of “name,” “that which is considered” (reference) and “thing”; cf. F. Ro-
dríquez Adrados, “Sobre nombre y cosa en Platón,” In Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y de
Teoría Literaria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1987), 89 – 94; cf. idem, “La teoría del signo en Gorgias de Leonti-
nos,” In Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1987), 61– 69.
10 Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning

The essential characteristic of this diagram is that it distinguishes between three

components of meaning. According to this interpretation there is no direct relation-
ship between words and the things they “represent.” Rather, a word “symbolizes” a
“thought or reference,” which in turn “refers” to the feature or event being spoken
about. According to Ullmann,²³

for a linguistic study of meaning, the basic triangle offers both too little and too much. Too much
because the referent, the non-linguistic feature or event as such, clearly lies outside the lin-
guist’s province. An object may remain unchanged and yet the meaning of its name may change
for us if there is any alteration in our awareness of it, our knowledge about it, or our feelings
towards it. The atom is the same as it was fifty years ago, but since it has been split we
know that it is not the smallest constituent of matter, as its etymology suggests…. The linguist
will therefore be well advised to confine his attention to the left-hand side of the triangle, the
connexion [sic] between the “symbol” and the “thought or reference.”

As can be seen, Ullmann prefers not to utilize Saussure’s terminology (“signifier” and
“sign”), but instead chooses more simple and ordinary terms: “name” (sound),
“sense” (the information that the noun communicates to the hearer), “thing” (the ref-
erent of Ogden and Richards, i. e., the event or non-linguistic feature being spoken
about). For Ullmann, “meaning” is the “reciprocal and reversible relationship be-
tween the sound and sense” (certainly a somewhat old fashioned definition, since
the scholastics stated vox significat mediantibus conceptibus).
§ 13. On the other hand, Ogden and Richards’s system does not go far enough. It ex-
plains how a word affects the listener but it seems to neglect the speaker’s point of
view. |23-P The direct relationship between name and thing, suggested by L. Bloom-
field,²⁴ is unsustainable because in the majority of cases the speaker’s imagination
or mental concept is present, but not the situation or the reality that was experi-
enced. This becomes clear when something remote is being talked about. Someone

 Ullmann, Semantics, 56.

 L. Bloomfield, Language (New York: Henry Holt, 1933), 141. A study about Bloomfield and his
school can be found in Claus Heeschen, Grundfragen der Linguistik (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972),
chap. 4: “Bloomfield und die Distributionalisten.”
 1.2 What Do We Mean by Meaning? 11

describing an earthquake that took place from far away does not connect the sense
with the thing, but with the concept that he has of the thing/event (earthquake). The
same occurs with abstract terms (e. g., “justice”) or unreal entities like “centaur,”
“unicorn,” “satyr,” “fairy,” “nymph,” etc., whose concepts do not “refer” to external
realities.
§ 14. Ullmann’s theory provides a foundation for componential analysis. Since a
word’s meaning has to do with a concept (i. e., with a “thought” or “reference”),
one will try to identify the semantic features that comprise this concept and make
communication possible. Such is the task of componential analysis and in the fol-
lowing chapters a method will be proposed for carrying out this analysis. But one
must also consider that the meaning of a word does not depend solely on the “recip-
rocal and reversible” relationship of name and sense, since some words are associ-
ated with others. The study of this multi-faceted relationship enables the precise
meaning to be determined in each case. Context, therefore, comes into play, as em-
phasized by operational theory, which is explained in what follows.

1.2.2 Operational or Contextual Theory

§ 15. The most nuanced and provocative formulation of operational theory was pro-
posed by L. Wittgenstein.²⁵ Before him, S. Chase expressed, “The true meaning of a
word must be found by observing what a person does with it, not what he says about
it.”²⁶ Wittgenstein went one step further, claiming that the meaning of a word is not
merely established by observing its usage, but that the meaning of a word is its usage
in language. Wittgenstein successfully defined meaning in contextual terms (i. e., em-
pirically). In this sense operational theory is not an alternative but the legitimate
complement to |24-P analytical or referential theory, explained above.²⁷ Lexicogra-
phers and semanticists should heed this theory’s warning: a word’s meaning can
only be ascertained by studying its usage.
§ 16. The contribution of operational theory is essential for the lexicographer’s task.
Any definition of a word’s meaning depends on how it is applied. For lexicographers
and semanticists, operational theory ought to be balanced by referential theory. More
than simply two theories or methods (analytical or operational), these are two phases
of semantic investigation whose mutual relationship ultimately corresponds to the
relationship that exists between langue and parole: operational theory deals with
meaning in speech (parole), referential theory with meaning in language (langue).

 L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed., eds. P. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G. An-
scombe, P. Hacker, and J. Schulte (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953).
 S. Chase, The Tyranny of Words (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959), 7, cited by Ull-
mann, Semantics, 64.
 Cf. Ullmann, Semantics, 67.
12 Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning

The investigator ought to begin by gathering an adequate sampling of contexts²⁸ and

then by analyzing them with an open mind, allowing the meaning or meanings to
emerge from the contexts themselves. Once this phase is completed, one is ready
to move to the “referential” phase and to formulate the meaning or meanings accord-
ing to what has been identified.²⁹

1.3 The Practice of Bilingual Dictionaries

§ 17. If we look at the definition of “dictionary” given above, a first glance demon-
strates that the majority of bilingual dictionaries do not explain the meaning of
words or do not |25-P explain them in a systematic manner. They normally substitute
words (in Greek) with words in the target language that are more or less equivalent;
rarely do they offer a definition. This is due to a concept of “dictionary” that is out of
date or lacking a method for determining meaning. To determine a word’s meaning
one must operate at two levels: the semiotic level (which corresponds to the study of
the term itself, i. e. langue) and the semantic level (the study of a term in context, i. e.,
parole).³⁰

1.4 How Do Words Mean, If They Do?

§ 18. Since dictionaries contain words, we ought to pause briefly to pose a question
formulated by J. P. Louw in an article entitled “How Do Words Mean, If They Do?”³¹
Along with E. A. Nida, Louw co-authored a Greek-English dictionary of the New Tes-
tament (cf. our analysis in §§ 45 – 68). It will be helpful to summarize his article:

 Cf. F. Rodríguez Adrados, “Sintaxis y Diccionario,” In F. R. Adrados, Nuevos estudios de Lingüís-

tica General y de Teoría Literaria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1988), 132. He gives a catalogue of the different
kinds of contexts that can help determine the meaning of a word. These include extra-linguistic con-
text, context concerning the type of language and linguistic level, general context, distant context,
syntactic context, and context based on the subclasses of words.
 F. R. Adrados thus states, “The first principle that ought to occupy one’s attention is that linguis-
tic units only exist on the abstract level. In actual language, for example, a word does not exist except
within the syntagm, which only exists within the oration, etc. Therefore, the sense of the word in the
phrase depends on its context in it (more than on extra-verbal context or other data). In the sense of
each word there is a part that is syntactically determined, since, having two words related with each
other, we have syntax, order, or arrangement. Essentially this ‘syntax’ does not really differ from con-
ventional syntax, which starts from the relation of subject, verb, etc.” (“Reflexiones sobre semántica,
sintaxis y estructura profunda,” In Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y Teoría Literaria [Barcelo-
na: Ariel, 1988], 116).
 A third level focuses on the various lexemes that appear in a certain context in order to discover
their mutual relations and the main point of the text (the level of discourse).
 Cf. J. P. Louw, “How do Words Mean, If They Do?” FNT 4 (1991): 125 – 41.
 1.4 How Do Words Mean, If They Do? 13

Among the various aspects of language, the strongest convictions and, at the same time, the
most incorrect ideas are held about the use of words. Perhaps the most incorrect is the belief
that language is primarily a matter of isolated words and their meanings. Such an idea has
been especially dominant in biblical studies, where exegesis focused upon words has dominated
until the present. In such exegesis, there is much talk of “hidden” or “real” meanings or of the
“richness” of a word in the original biblical language, as if this were an exclusive or privileged
phenomenon of the biblical language.³²

§ 19. Greek and Hebrew words are often explained in dictionaries in one of two ways:
either by etymologies or by translational equivalents. The method based on etymol-
ogy involves going back through the history of words in order to find their “original”
or “real” meaning. Similarly, words are divided into subcategories and meaning is
assigned to each category in order to arrive at the “real” meaning. The second meth-
od, which is based on translational equivalence, |26-P was inspired by the penchant of
bilingual dictionaries to represent a term’s meaning through a list of words in anoth-
er language, reinforcing the notion that a word’s meaning in one language can be
adequately expressed through one or various words in another. This is mistaken,
since a word’s range of meanings in one language is not covered by its “equivalents”
in another. If the Greek χάρις is explained by the word “grace,” the reader is expected
to guess how the meaning or meanings of “grace” correspond to the Greek χάρις.
Such an explanation is precisely what the dictionary should provide. Lists of trans-
lational equivalents invite the reader in each instance to consider all the possible
“meanings” of a word in its various contexts, since it is assumed that all of the equiv-
alents must be viewed as various representations of the Greek term’s meaning. This
leads to the assumption that since the term has features of all these equivalents, it
means something more “elevated” or more “profound.” Unwary interpreters might
be led to a search for a “basic meaning” or “Grundbedeutung,” and thereby to an
etymologized form of meaning. As J. Barr expressed, this amounts to an “illegitimate
totality-transfer.”³³
§ 20. In summary, meaning is actually the content and information of communica-
tion. Meaning is accomplished by means of extra-linguistic signs and by many
other signs, among which one of the most complex is the system of signs of natural
languages. Meaning is primary; signs or words are secondary. No language coins a
word and then finds a meaning to associate with it. When something new appears
in a linguistic community, this new meaning is either expressed with a word that al-
ready exists or a new word is created. Isolated words are therefore not the primary
elements of language or of communication or even of semantics; they are signs
among many others, both verbal and nonverbal. On the verbal side, concrete mean-
ing does not depend solely on the word itself but also on the context in which it is
found. There is thus a lexical meaning (of the word itself) and other contextual

 Louw, “How do Words Mean?” 141.

 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).
14 Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning

meanings (of the word in various contexts). Dictionaries often do not distinguish be-
tween these, but rather consider the contextual meanings as meanings of the word
itself. The lack of distinction between lexical and contextual meaning seems to be
the primary shortcoming of the present lexicographical landscape.
§ 21. For our study, we adopt the definition of meaning offered by Louw and Nida.
Meaning consists of a lexeme’s “set of distinctive features” |27-P (semantic components
or semes).³⁴ Determining and expressing or specifying these features is crucial in
order to establish the relationship between words and meanings. The meaning is
not another word, but is expressed in a definition that is clearly formulated and
joins together a word’s semantic features. Hence, in our view, each entry in the dic-
tionary should first provide a definition of the lexeme’s meaning, followed by a list of
translational equivalents. The translational equivalents account for variations in the
lexeme’s meaning, which arise due to the addition or subtraction of semantic fea-
tures in contexts.
§ 22. Summary: This study is not concerned in the first place with theoretical issues of
meaning but primarily with how the meaning of words can be determined in order to
produce definitions of meaning for a dictionary. This question will be treated in parts
two and three in order to show the steps for producing the dictionary. Before turning
to these questions, it is important to take a look at already-existing dictionaries in
order to explain why we do not adapt these, but rather construct our own. We ob-
serve that these dictionaries either lack a method or fail to apply a method consis-
tently. In the following pages it should be kept in mind that this study does not spe-
cifically treat Greek dictionaries in general or the numerous thematic dictionaries.
Nevertheless, their lexicographical tradition will not be ignored by us. In looking
at these dictionaries, two aspects in particular have held our attention, namely,
the method followed, especially by F. R. Adrados in the Diccionario Griego-Español,
and the analysis of the portions specifically dedicated to the New Testament con-
tained in these dictionaries. |28-P

 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, xvi. Although the authors provide this definition, they do
not indicate how they make the semic description of lexemes in their dictionary.
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on
the Greek of the New Testament¹TN
2.1 Introduction

§ 23. The lexicographical material related to the Greek of the New Testament offers a
broad and diverse panorama, including dictionaries of various kinds, vocabularies
and indexes of words, concordances and statistics about frequency. Within this ma-
terial there are three main dictionaries available to New Testament scholars.²TN The
first of these is F. Zorell’s dictionary³ of the canonical books of the New Testament,⁴TN
which excludes primitive Christian literature. The second edition was a reworking of
Preuschen’s dictionary, first published in 1910, and draws from the insights in the
dictionaries of Bauer, Preisigke, and Moulton and Milligan. The third edition adds
a 40-page bibliographic supplement. The fourth (1990) then updates the bibliogra-
phy.
W. Bauer’s dictionary is another primary lexicographical resource on New Testa-
ment Greek. This dictionary was originally a reworking of Preuschen’s. There is an
English translation and adaptation by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker.⁵ The first Eng-
lish edition (1957), bearing the same title, was completed by W. F. Arndt and F. W.
Gingrich based on the fourth revised edition of Bauer. Having already published
this first edition of BAG, Bauer completed preparations for the fifth German edition,
which became available as nine fascicles (1957– 58). The second English edition
(1979) lost an editor (W. F. Arndt) and gained a new one (F. W. Danker). In the new
edition, a large part of the material introduced by Bauer in the fifth German edition
is utilized and new material that the American editors gathered themselves is added.
An index of BAGD was prepared by J. R. Alsop.⁶ |29-P This index contains the biblical
passages, cited by books, chapters, and verses, in order to facilitate the search for
information about specific passages.

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 29 – 64 in the original text of Peláez.
 Translator’s Note: Perhaps this was the case in 1996 when Peláez composed his text; since then,
however, several other dictionaries of the New Testament have been published, including BDAG,
DGENT, and Danker’s Concise Greek-English Dictionary (2009).
 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (Paris: Lethielleux, 1990).
 Translator’s Note: Although Zorell’s dictionary is not well-known in German or English speaking
contexts, it is still one of the dictionaries of choice in Spain. Professor Peláez therefore convincingly
demonstrated that the discussion of Zorell should remain in the English version.
 Cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der früh-
christlichen Literatur, 6th ed., eds. K. Aland and B. Aland (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988); F. W.
Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
 J. R. Alsop, ed., An Index to the Revised Bauer, Arndt (Danker), Gingrich Lexicon of the New Testa-
ment and other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-008
16 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

§ 24. A third important dictionary of New Testament Greek was composed by J. Louw
and E. A. Nida.⁷ In this dictionary the lexemes are organized based on semantic do-
mains. The first volume contains an introduction and the semantic domains (the
Greek words are divided into 93 domains) and the second volume contains the in-
dexes (Greek-English, English, and biblical citations), which refer to the domains.
As a dictionary the text of Louw and Nida is awkward. The distinct meanings of a
word are often placed in various semantic domains so that in order to grasp the
meaning(s) of a word one must begin by consulting the index and then the various
entries where the corresponding meaning is found.⁸
§ 25. Three other dictionaries that complement those just cited should also be men-
tioned. With respect to primitive Christian literature, G. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lex-
icon rounds the Bauer series and LSJ.⁹ However, Lampe’s dictionary does not consid-
er all of the Greek apocryphal texts. For biblical citations and allusions to the
Fathers, one can consult the index (composed with the aid of a computer) of J. Allen-
bach et al.¹⁰ The first of Allenbach’s volumes extends from Christian origins to Clem-
ent and Tertullian, the second volume contains texts from the third century, the third
volume contains Origen, and the fourth volume contains Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril
of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius. Another invaluable resource is J. H. Moulton and G.
Milligan’s The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. ¹¹ Although now considered some-
what outdated, there is no other substitute for it. A new edition is being prepared by
the Australian scholars G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. L. Lee, who are editing the publi-
cation New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, |30-P from which five volumes
have currently appeared.¹²TN Volume 5 of New Documents has various cumulative in-
dexes of the previous volumes, including biblical passages, words, grammar, ex-
cerpts from Church Fathers and Jewish writers, and also other cited and referenced
works. The editors of this series intend to pave the way for Moulton and Milligan’s
new edition, a project that they announced in an address presented to the 9th con-
gress of the “Fédération internationale des associations d’études classiques” (FIEC,

 J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon. The abbreviation “L&N” refers to the diction-
ary of Louw and Nida. When the authors of this dictionary are referred to, their last names are written
(i. e., Louw and Nida).
 See the review of this dictionary by D. A. Black in FNT 1 (1988): 217– 18.
 Cf. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961); H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and
H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).
 J. Allenbach et al., eds., Biblia patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littéra-
ture patristique, 4 vols. (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975 – 87).
 J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the
Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1957).
 G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. L. Lee, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the
Greek Inscriptions and Papyri. Translator’s Note: This project has not yet been completed. Volumes
1– 4 were published between 1976 – 79 and their corresponding fifth volume containing indexes and
linguistic essays in 1989; volumes 6 – 9 were published between 1980 – 87 and the corresponding
tenth volume in 1992. The editorship passed to S. R. Llewelyn in 1983 and to J. R. Harrison in 1992.
 2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990) 17

in 1989).¹³ This new dictionary will complement BAA¹⁴TN and others, such as LSJ and
DGE. Another lexicographical aid to the study of New Testament Greek was com-
posed by F. Preisigke.¹⁵ For the fourth volume, begun in 1944, three fascicles have
appeared (1958, 1966, and 1971).¹⁶TN An independent volume, a dictionary of non-lit-
erary Greek texts of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions, has been published by W.
Rübsam.¹⁷ This work is very useful for the study of the Greek New Testament.
The present chapter will focus on the three primary dictionaries already men-
tioned (Zorell, BAA, and L&N), which deal directly with the lexicon of the New Testa-
ment and are not theological by nature.¹⁸ The criteria employed for discussing the
first two dictionaries (Zorell and BAA) have been drawn from the study of the entries,
since the authors do not explain the methodological principles that guided their
work. L&N is the only dictionary of the three that dedicates the first pages to meth-
odological questions.

2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990)

§ 26. The fourth edition of Zorell’s dictionary has an updated |31-P bibliographic ap-
pendix. The new bibliographic references are indicated in the body of the dictionary
with an asterix in the margin. The purpose of the dictionary, whose first edition ap-
peared in April of 1930, is to help with the interpretation of the text of the New Testa-
ment according to the editions of Tischendorf (1849), and Westcott-Hort (1881), and

 Their address was titled, “A New Dictionary of the New Testament Illustrated from Inscriptions
and Papyri.”
 Translator’s Note: There is some disagreement about the proper abbreviation for the sixth ed-
ition of the Bauer dictionary. Peláez refers to this edition alternatively as Bauer6, Bauer, and Bauer-
Aland. BAA is the common abbreviation in German speaking-contexts and the one I have used in this
text. In his introduction to BDAG, Danker uses the abbreviation BAAR (p. vii; “R” stands for Viktor
Reichmann, who assisted the Alands in the revision). For his part, John Lee prefers the abbreviation
BRAA; cf. Lee, History 147.
 F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschrif-
ten Aufschriften Ostraka Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten; expanded edition by E. Kiessling, 3 vols.
(Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925, 1927, 1931).
 Translator’s Note: three supplemental volumes of Preisigke’s dictionary were published in
1971, 1991, and 2000.
 W. Rübsam, ed., Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, Supplement 3 (Amsterdam: Hak-
kert, 1966 – 69).
 The special lexicons, which are not dictionaries proper, will not be a part of our investigation.
These include G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10
vols. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933 – 79) (ET: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; 1964–
76); H. Balz and G. Schneider, eds., Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 3rd ed., 3 vols.
(Stuttgart: W. Kolhammer, 2011), which complements TWNT; I. Coenen, E. Beyreuther, and H. Bieten-
hard, eds., Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, 2nd ed. (Wuppertal: SCM R. Brock-
haus, 2014).
18 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

also taking into consideration the editions of H. von Soden (Göttingen, 1913) and H. J.
Vogels (Düsseldorf, 1920), F. Brandscheid (Freiburg, 1901) and M. Hetzenauer (Inns-
bruck, 1904) combined with the textus receptus. Zorell, therefore, cites the various
findings of these seven editions of the New Testament. For the author, the language
of the New Testament is the koine of the time (idioma commune illius aetatis), as
demonstrated by F. Preisigke’s lexicon of the papyri. For reasons of space, however,
Zorell did not gather lexical material from the papyri for his dictionary.
In the preface to the third edition, published twenty-nine years later (1959), M.
Zerwick affirms that Zorell’s dictionary is a classic in its genre and, referring to the
dictionary of W. Bauer (1957, which we will discuss later), says that comparisons be-
tween the two works ought not to be made, since Bauer’s incorporates primitive
Christian material in addition to the New Testament. Zerwick, however, adds that
Zorell’s dictionary “far exceeds Bauer’s when it comes to didactic because it introdu-
ces the user to the semantic evolution of the words, and thus to their internal work-
ings.” In the prolegomena of Zorell’s dictionary, various aspects relating to the spell-
ing of consonants, vowels, and accents are examined, a list of acronyms is given, and
a bibliographic appendix is added in the third edition. Given that Zorell does not ex-
plain the methodology employed in the preparation of his work, this must be de-
duced, as has been said, from the study of the entries. The following characteristics
can be observed in the dictionary:
1. The lexicon of the New Testament is the focus, so that it clearly limits itself to
the text of this corpus. There are, however, forays into earlier Greek (homeric and
classic, biblical [LXX]) when the meaning of the word in classical Greek has evolved
into a specific usage in the New Testament, or simply to support the meaning pro-
posed for the New Testament with citations of classical authors. This is true, for ex-
ample, with the entry ἀγών, ῶνος, ὁ:

ἀγών, ῶνος, ὁ primitus conventus praesertim aurigarum et pugilum ad ludos publicos [first a
gathering especially of chariot drivers and boxers for public games]; dein ludorum certaminum-
que locus (Hom. ss.) [then the place of conflict of the games]; hinc certamen, etiam metaphorice
[here conflict metaphorically]: ἀγὼν λόγων, τῆς ψυχῆς, etc. In epistulis Pauli: servorum Christi
inter aerumnas, obstacula, contradictiones ad consequendem seu efficiendum id quod |32-P debent
labor ac contentio [In Paul’s epistles: of Christ’s servants in the midst of sorrows, obstacles, con-
tradictions for the attainment or accomplishment of that which they ought to labor and con-
tend]: ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι 1Thess 2:2 (cf. Acts 17:5 ff.), etc.

In the New Testament the lexeme is found only in a metaphorical sense. With less
frequency this dictionary refers to later Christian Greek. An example of how Zorell
shows the semantic evolution of a specific lexeme can be seen in the entry for
ἅγιος, where part of the term’s meaning in the profane writings passes to the LXX
and thereby into the New Testament. A similar path can be seen in ᾅδης: first the
classical and Old Testament meanings are given in order to arrive at the New Testa-
ment. See, additionally, among various terms: ἀγρεύω, αἵρεσις, αἰών, δαιμόνιον,
ἐκκλησία, παραβολή, παράδεισος, παράδοσις, εὐλάβεια, and ἐνέργεια.
 2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990) 19

2. Zorell’s dictionary is for didactic purposes and its author is concerned not only
with collecting data, but also with explaining it in an accessible manner. For exam-
ple:
a) If the word is a composite, he separates the prefixes from the root-forms with a
dash: ἄ-γαμος, ἀνα-ζητέω.
b) When Zorell thinks that the reader (whom he does not assume to have an ex-
cellent knowledge of Greek) might have difficulty with specific forms (both for nouns
and for verbs), he does not hesitate to give the corresponding form, even if it comes
from a regular paradigm, nominal or verbal: cf. ᾅδης, ου, ὁ; dat. ῃ, acc. ην, voc. η;
ἀδικέω, aor. ἠδίκησα, aor. pass. ἠδικήθην; a fortiori when clearly irregular forms are
discussed: cf. αἴρω (ex. ἀείρω), fut. ἀρῶ, aor. 1st ἦρα; impf. ἆρον, perf. ἦρκα, pass.
ἦρμαι, etc. The same procedure occurs with adjectives by indicating whether they
have two or three sets of endings, although in these cases it is somewhat confusing,
since certain adjectives are treated as substantives. This is the case with Zorell’s entry
for γερασηνοί, ῶν, οἱ, perhaps because it always appears as a substantive in the New
Testament (cf. e. g., ἀσιανός, ἑβραῖος, κορίνθιος).
c) The etymology of the word is often provided in parenthesis if it is known.
Thus,

ἄλευρον, ου, τό (from ἁλέω to grind), farina [flour];

ἀκυρόω (from ἄκυρος 2): sine auctoritate [without authority] [τὸ κῦρος], invalidum [weak], irri-
tum reddo [useless], rescindo [annul];
αἰσχρολογία, ας, ἡ (from αἰσχρο-λόγος qui turpia dicit [one who speaks immoral things]) verbo-
rum obscenitas [foul language];
αἰχμάλωτος, ώτου, ὁ (from αἰχμή, lancea, porro bellum, pugna [spear, then war, battle];
ἁλίσκομαι “capior” [“to be captured”]) qui in bello capitur, captivus; [one who is captured in war,
captive];
ἀ-μετα-κίνητος, ον, qui loco dimoveri non potest, inmovilis, incommutabilis, firmus [one who can-
not be moved from a place, immoveable, unchangeable, firm];
ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ (ἄρσην, κοίτη), mas qui cum mare concumbit, cinaedus [a man who sleeps
with a man, an effeminate man];
αὐτόπτης, ου, ὁ (αὐτός ὄψις), qui ipse vidit eventum, testis oculatus [one who has himself wit-
nessed an event, an eye-witness].

d) If considered necessary, the meaning of the word is explained. The definitions

are often formulated accurately and |33-P seek to identify objects, states or processes,
places, institutions, functions, etc. Thus,

ἄμωμον, ου, τό, planta quaedam aromatica quae sec. antiquorum testimonia in India, Media,
Armenia, Assyria crescebat, cujus ex fructibus pretiosum unguentum conficiebatur [a certain ar-
omatic plant, which, according to ancient testimony, grew in India, Media, Armenia, Assyria,
from whose fruit costly lotion was made];
σαγήνη, ης, ἡ sagena: rete quoddam grande multis simul piscibus capiendis aptum [a large net
able to hold/catch many fish at the same time];
20 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

ἅλων, ωνος, ἡ: area, locus rotundus in campo ubi frumentum triturabatur; metonymice, ipse
acervus frumenti in area congestus [the round place in a field where grain was threshed; meton-
ymously, a pile of grain in a storage area];
γάγγραινα, ης, ἡ gangraena, partis alcs. (humani corporis) mortificatio et exstinctio, proveniens
a magnitudine inflammationis quae neque digeri neque in pus mutari potuit sibique conjunctas
partes in affectionis consortium pertrahens et ne ab ossibus quidem abstinens, quae vitioso hu-
more perfuse imbutaque, quo caro circumposita madet, putrescunt emoriunturque [Gangre,
death and destruction of certain parts (of the human body) due to a severe inflammation that
can neither be removed nor changed in time and draws other parts into its own state and
does not spare the bones; [this inflammation] is moist and damp because of its infectious dis-
charge, causing the flesh around it to become moist, rotted, and dead];
λέπρα, ας, ἡ, lepra, morbus asperrimus contagiosus, insanabilis, qui totum corpus pervadit
cuiusque tres species occurrunt (lepra maculosa, tuberculosa, anaesthetica) [a highly contagious
and incurable disease that pervades the whole body and has three varieties (spotted leprosy,
swollen leprosy (cf. Wikipedia, article “leprosy”), invisible leprosy)];
λειτουργία, ας, ἡ, ministerium [religious service], servitium quod a singulis in commune bonum
ecclesiae confertur [service offered by a person in a community on behalf of the group];
συνέδριον, ου, τό: summum Judaeorum concilium et tribunal, ex 71 viris constitutum, sacerdo-
tibus, senioribus, scribis, ad quod inter alia pertinebant causae criminum majorum [The highest
council and tribunal of the Jews, comprised of 71 male priests, elders, and scribes, responsible,
among other things, for the cases of major crimes].

However, Zorell does not systematically explain meanings but only does so with
words whose definitions are normally provided in encyclopedic dictionaries.
e) After indicating one or several Latin equivalents for each term, he often adds
the equivalent in a modern language:

ἀσκός, οῦ, ὁ, uter (Schlauch, outré, wine-skin) in quo vinum asservatur [in which wine is kept]);
ἄμωμον, ου, τό, planta quaedam aromatic … cissus vitiginea (germ. weinartige Klimme) (an In-
dian spice-plant);
γόμος, ου, ὁ, onus mercium navi impositum [the goods of a cargo ship]: cargaison; Fracht;
γράμμα, ατος, τό; scriptum; (1) litterae figura scripta: Buchstabe [letter]; (2) alqd. litteris exara-
tum, scriptum: Schreiben, Schriftstück [a piece of writing];
ἔκπαλαι, adv. jamdiu: seit langer Zeit; depuis longtemps [for a long time] (Philo, Plut. pap.), etc.

f) If the meaning of a term coincides with classical usage, Zorell indicates that an
author or authors used it: εἰρηνικός, ή, όν, ad pacem pertinens [pertaining to peace]
(Xen. LXX, POx. al.), or the point of time from which it first appears: ἐκλύω (Aristot.
ss. LXX). He also shows the form in which it appears in classical Greek or in the Pap-
yri if this differs from New Testament usage (see, e. g., ἅλων).
g) When classical and New Testament usage differ, Zorell begins by indicating
the meaning in classical Greek in order to show the distinct meaning of the term
in the New Testament. Zorell then seeks to identify the point of time from which
the alternate meaning was employed. If there is a citation from the Old Testament,
Zorell provides the Hebrew term |34-P in parentheses (see, e. g., the entry αἰχμάλωτος);
in other cases, the Aramaic (see, e. g., the entry Γολγοθά) or the Syriac (see, e. g., the
entry ᾿Aλφαῖος).
 2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990) 21

h) For the explanation of the lexemes he frequently gives abbreviated biblio-

graphic details, which are cited in full form in the dictionary’s introductory pages:
ἀββᾶ Dalman, WJ 157; ᾿Aβραάμ cf. Bandas 97 ff., 324 ff., ἀμνός, cf. Expositor 1910 II,
173, 266; παραβολή, cf. Fonck, Parabeln, 256 ff., etc.
i) Certain signs at the beginning, during, or at the end of the entries indicate if
the word appears for the first time in the LXX (*), in Hellenistic authors (X), in the
New Testament (+), if it is exclusively in the New Testament (++), or if it is found
in the LXX and the New Testament and writers closely related with these, such as
Philo or the Fathers (*+). At the end of an entry, the number 1 indicates that the
term is a New Testament hapax legomenon, an asterisk indicates that it only appears
in the places previously mentioned in the entry, the up or down arrows indicate that
the term is derived etymologically from that which precedes or follows. With quota-
tion marks (“…”) the version of the Vulgate is indicated. Zorell thus arranged the en-
tries in a manner that reflects his didactic purposes. The author wants to communi-
cate his thoughts in an understandable manner by making the reader’s task as easy
as possible.
§ 27. The dictionary’s limitations arise from the time it hails. Published in 1930 and
never updated except for the bibliography, Zorell’s dictionary can be classified as
a traditional dictionary whose entries were structured by grammatical categories
and usage rather than by semantic categories. He does not describe meaning (except
when it pertains to encyclopedic knowledge) and limits himself to giving translation-
al equivalents in context. Without utilizing a methodology for determining the mean-
ing of the lexemes, Zorell lacks a firm standard for the analysis of contexts. An ex-
ample may illustrate this. When discussing the lexeme λαός, οῦ, ὁ, which he
translates as “plebs, vulgus, populus [folk, people, populace],” he uses the following
structure:
1. Sensu satis universalis, ut nostra vocabula die Leute: les gens: people; vulgus:
a) homines congregati in templo [people gathered in a temple];
b) vulgus, homines inter quos alqs. vivit [people, men, among whom someone
lives];
c) vulgus commune (opp. primores, magistratus); [common people, opp. fore-
most, public officials]
d) plebs (opp. sacerdos) [folk, opp. priest]
2. homines ejusdem stirpis, natio [people of the same lineage, nation]
3. populus, plebs Dei = multitudo hominum Dei addictorum ac subjectorum [pop-
ulace, people of God = a group of people joined and subject to God] |35-P
a) populus Israel [people of Israel]
b) christiani [Christians]
c) beati, cives Ierusalem novae [the blessed, the citizens of the new Jerusalem]

At first glance, the entry seems to be well (and clearly) structured. It proceeds from
the generic to the specific. However, a look at the details shows that Zorell has not
sufficiently analyzed the contexts where the lexeme appears, since he provides inco-
22 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

herent meanings. The author distinguishes between people, common people, Jewish
people, people of Israel, and Christian people. However, in some of the biblical texts
where he assumes the meanings of 1a–c, λαός actually refers to the Jewish people
and ought to be mentioned in 3a (cf. Matt 4:23; Mark 11:32 [v. l.]); Luke 1:10 alludes
to some of the Jewish people, but Zorell refers to this verse in 1d—whose general title
is plebs, vulgus, populus—without further specification. Additionally, Zorell has not
considered an important meaning of λαός when referring to gentile people; cf.
Rom 9:25 – 26 (cf. Hos 2:23) and 1Pet 2:10 (cf. Hos 1:6).
Despite his apparent clarity, Zorell can be imprecise due to the lack of a consis-
tent standard for contextual analysis. Let us consider φυλή, ῆς, ἡ, another example
in which the analysis of context is incomplete. The single Latin translation given by
Zorell is tribus [tribe]. The entry’s brief content is as follows: populus Israel in duode-
cim tribus dividebatur [the people of Israel divided into twelve tribes], but Zorell has
omitted a meaning: figuratively, the expression αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is applied to Chris-
tian people in Jas 1:1. Zorell places this text within the second group (“populus Isra-
el”).
§ 28. A feature that occasionally detracts from his work is Zorell’s recourse to theo-
logical conceptualization for specific entries. For example:

ἀμνός, οῦ, ὁ ‘agnus,’ quia ipse victimae instar ad delenda hominum peccata mortem sacrifica-
lem obiturus erat, ‘Dei’ nempe quem Deus designavit, misit, sibi ad expiationem mundi eligit
(cf. Expositor 1910 II 173. 266) [‘a lamb’ that was about to die a sacrificial death to remove peo-
ple’s sins, ‘of God,’ that is to say which God marked out, sent, and chose to expiate the world];
παράδεισος, ου, ὁ (§ 2b) domicilium iustorum beatorum: (Luke 23:43), ubi prob. limbus patrum
[the dwelling of the blessed and righteous, probably near the forefathers];
πέτρα, ας, ἡ (§ 1Cor 10:4) |36-P : Christus preexistens, i. e., Verbum Dei Israëlitas per desertum
comitans et mirabiliter potans dicitur πνευματικὴ ἀκολουθοῦσα πέτρα petra spiritualis comes
itineris [the preexistent Christ, i. e., the word of God accompanying Israel through the desert
and miraculously giving drink, is called πνευματικὴ ἀκολουθοῦσα πέτρα spiritual rock, traveling
companion];
γεέννα, ης, ἡ, Orcus, locus ubi damnati in aeternum igne cruciantur, etc. [place of the dead,
place where the damned are tortured with fire for eternity].

In summary, Zorell’s dictionary is a product of its time, is didactically oriented, is in-

terested in the semantic evolution of the terms, and is focused on the New Testament
but with inroads into other corpora when this is deemed helpful for illuminating the
meaning in the New Testament. However, it is not rigorous in the analysis of contexts
and is led astray by theological bias with relative frequency in its description of lex-
emes. This shows that Zorell’s lexicography reflects the tradition of its era and nor-
mally proceeds, as is the custom in bilingual dictionaries, by proposing translational
equivalents rather than by discerning the lexical meaning (lexeme in abstract) from
the contextual meanings (or sememes).¹⁹TN

 Translator’s Note: In John Lee’s view, Zorell’s dictionary is a tool for Catholics and others to
 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 23

2.3 W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften

des Neuen Testaments, 6th ed. (1988)
§ 29. The sixth edition of W. Bauer’s dictionary, edited by Kurt and Barbara Aland
(hereafter BAA), claims to be an important lexicographical innovation. The last edi-
tion of this dictionary appeared in 1958, with revisions in 1963 and 1971. During this
time, an expanded and adapted English edition appeared under the editorship of W.
F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and later a second edition by F. W. Danker.²⁰ Naturally this
dictionary paralleled Zorell’s in many respects. The novelties offered by BAA from the
previous editions, which the authors spelled out in the dictionary’s prologue (pp.
v – vii), are interesting to note. They include the following:
1. BAA had to establish its reason for using the text of the New Testament as of-
fered in the 26th Nestle-Aland edition and the 3rd edition of Greek New Testament.
Bauer had still used the 21st edition of the Nestle (1952). Moreover, the references
to the biblical texts had to be completed, including even those lemmata claimed
by Bauer to be already complete (marked with double asterisks). At the same time,
it was necessary to revise the discussion of the textual variants, which Bauer had
gathered in abundance, and in each case to provide a (select) attestation of the
manuscripts. This information was deleted in the 6th edition and was substituted
with |37-P v(aria) l(ectio), given that the Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.) provid-
ed an apparatus of the variants. Only when this was not the case is the manuscript
attestation indicated. This procedure seems more reliable. Moreover, this feature
along with more space allowed the gathered variant-readings to increase considera-
bly.
2. A revision (and expansion) of the “remaining primitive Christian literature or
early Christian literature” (including those lemmata marked with single asterisks
that were yet to be completed) was necessary. Given that Bauer (following Preuschen)
had used the 6th edition of Gebhardt-Harnack-Zahn’s “small edition of the Apostolic
Fathers” as his basis for the Apostolic Fathers, it was based on a 100-year-old text
(the 1920 edition was nothing more than a simple reprint of the large edition from
1881). A new collation and annotation of the text was therefore necessary.
3. A new collation and annotation was also necessary for the apocryphal books
of the New Testament. The situation was especially difficult in this field since Bauer
(again following Preuschen) was based almost exclusively on the Antilegomena and

whom Latin was still accessible or desirable. Zorell acknowledges no antecedents in his preface, and
no New Testament lexicons appear in his bibliography in 1911. According to Lee, “Whatever the pre-
cise sources, [Zorell’s] method is just as crude as that of any of his Latin predecessors” (Lee, History,
140).
 W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957); W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich,
and F. W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd
ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979).
24 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

by Klostermann’s Kleine Texte, without considering the new findings of modern edi-
tions. Naturally, one can debate whether or not the apocryphal writings of the New
Testament, and if so which of them, belong to “our literature” (as Bauer was prone to
say). For this, they must have been preserved in Greek and produced before 150 CE,
or at least be traced back to it. But even in the cases where this is debatable (i. e.,
where the date of origin might be the later second century or perhaps even the
early third), there can be no doubt that because of their shared content, the New Tes-
tament Apocrypha belong in the foreground of writings that must be considered
foundational for this dictionary, which extends its focus beyond the scope of the
New Testament. Such has been attempted in the 6th edition. The reader who exam-
ines the 250 newly introduced entries will note that they rely substantially on the
New Testament Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers.
4. On the one hand, citations of ancient Greek authors in the body of the entries
have been considerably expanded, while on the other hand, they are trimmed in the
headers. The long lists of names that are frequently encountered stems from the fact
that in each case Bauer simply added a list of newly consulted ancient authors. When
a word’s meaning remains unchanged after a certain author, it hardly makes sense to
mention all the ancient authors. In such cases, only the first author who attests to a
word and its meaning is mentioned, which is expressed, for example, as “since
Homer.” This provides space in the introduction of the entries, which is used to high-
light the grammatical forms that appear in “our literature” (which includes the LXX).
The LXX is cited much more frequently than in previous volumes. Given the impor-
tance of the LXX for primitive Christian literature, this does not need to be justified.
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament have also been consider-
ably expanded, |38-P which is also true of the second temple literature and the remain-
ing Jewish literature written in Greek.
5. On the basis of the criteria followed in this reworking, most of the translations
proposed by Bauer are left unchanged. Only cautiously are they modernized or cor-
rected. A complete reworking of the translations would have given rise to an entirely
new dictionary.
6. The new material contained in this dictionary constitutes more than a third of
its previous content. That the number of pages in the sixth edition is almost exactly
the same as the fifth is due not only to the fact that many bibliographic notes have
been deleted, but above all due to the new typographic layout.
§ 30. In the following paragraphs, we shall examine the introduction in BAA.²¹ Gen-
erally speaking, a better knowledge of the sources resulted in the dictionary’s 250
(approximately) new entries, as well as new insights in many others. In producing
the work, Kurt and Barbara Aland collaborated with a team of investigators. More
texts of the Apostolic Fathers were included thanks to updated references according

 See J. K. Elliott’s review of this dictionary in FNT 2 (1989): 100 – 02.

 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 25

to Bihlmeyer and Schneemelcher’s new edition.²² Numerous other expansions in-

clude the number of ancient New Testament Apocrypha, the number of papyri,
and the inclusion of seventy newly cited ancient authors (in particular apologists
and church fathers). The dictionary’s typographic layout is easier to read and places
citations of the New Testament in bold face, thereby distinguishing them from cita-
tions of other Christian writers. The bibliography has been updated and many outdat-
ed references have been eliminated. The reader should note that alongside recent
quality editions, there are often older, generally outdated editions of the same
work. Furthermore, the list of papyri and inscriptions are practically the same as
in the fifth edition, implying that additions since 1958 are minimal. As in Zorell,
the Alands do not explain their methodology, so this must |39-P be deduced by an
analysis of the entries. The same is true in BAGD, although several pages are dedicat-
ed to overviewing the history of the Greek dictionaries of the New Testament, the lan-
guage, origin, and characteristics of the New Testament (koine), and various influen-
ces from its environment (LXX, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.).²³TN As has already been said,
BAA preserves the translations of the previous editions, which were modernized with
caution and only occasionally corrected. Therefore, most changes result from the new
material that had been gathered, the bibliography, and the layout, rather than from
technical lexicography. Various other points in this dictionary call for attention:
1. The Bauer dictionary not only covers the Greek of the New Testament but, as
its title states, also the rest of early Christian literature (up to 150 CE).
2. It contains lots of information, with abundant citations of classical authors,
contemporary Jewish writers, and Church Fathers. Although LSJ and Lampe are es-
sential dictionaries for classic and patristic Greek, BAA gathers all that is necessary
from both periods of Greek for New Testament text-critical work and interpretation.
LSJ, with its 2,200 lengthy pages, and PGL, with its lengthy 1,600 pages, provide more
extensive information than the Bauer series. Nevertheless, with respect to the Chris-
tian texts (including the apologists), Bauer is more meticulous and exact than both
of these dictionaries, especially in the sixth edition.
§ 31. What can be said about Bauer’s skill as a lexicographer? From a modern seman-
tic point of view, his method is somewhat outdated. He normally does not explain
the meaning of words but instead prefers to suggest translational equivalents, that
is, he substitutes Greek words with German words that are more or less synonymous.
Additionally, BAA almost exclusively uses syntactical criteria to classify the diverse

 F. X. von Funk and Karl Bihlmeyer, Die Apostolischen Vä ter. Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausg.
von Karl Bihlmeyer. 1. Teil. 3. Aufl.; unverä nderter Nachdruck der mit einem Nachtrag von Wilhelm
Schneemelcher versehenen 2. Aufl (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1970).
 Translator’s Note: The Alands do not explain their methodology. Bauer, however, did so in the
second through fourth editions of his dictionary. Beginning with the fifth edition, his methodological
introduction was excised for reasons of space and cost. A slightly corrected English translation is
found in BAG and is reproduced in BAGD, xi–xxvii and in BDAG, xiii–xxix.
26 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

meanings of a lexeme, and often the proposed meanings are unclear, poorly formu-
lated, and repeat other meanings.
J. P. Louw (in an article already cited several times in this text)²⁴ has looked at the
entry for κατισχύω and explained how this verb’s treatment provides an example of
the lexicographical method employed in the Bauer dictionaries. BAGD²⁵ begins with
|40-P valuable information about the word’s appearance in Greek literature, followed
by a syntactic explanation, namely, that it is used intransitively (i. e., it does not take
a direct object in the accusative). Three glosses or translational equivalents are then
given for κατισχύω: “be strong, powerful, gain the ascendancy.” The majority of the
dictionary’s readers will probably assume that these glosses are “meanings” of
κατισχύω—perhaps basic meanings—because meanings are then arranged in two
paragraphs: (1) used in the absolute: “be dominant, prevail, be able, be in a posi-
tion”; (2) used with the genitive: “win a victory over.” Based on this entry, the reader
might be led to assume that all these equivalents or glosses are meanings of κα-
τισχύω and that, based on the context, one of them ought to be chosen, taking
into account that BAGD classified them by their syntactical usage based on (a)
whether they are absolute or followed by an infinitive, or (b) governing the genitive.
A methodological error is detected in this approach, since BAGD does not account for
the difference between meaning and translation.
§ 32. If, using the treatment of κατισχύω as our basis, we continue analyzing Bauer’s
methodology, it becomes difficult to see how “to be strong, powerful” and “to gain
the ascendancy” are to be understood. Do they represent three translations of a
basic meaning or of different meanings? In what sense should “to be strong” (κατι-
σχύω) be understood? Does this speak of physical or moral strength? Can “powerful”
be understood as a synonym of “strong” in some of the cited texts? Even if this is the
case, “to gain the ascendancy” seems to indicate a different meaning that could be
based upon authority or influence, intellectual capacity, or the possession of many
material resources. In any case, the translation “to be strong” does not fully capture
the meaning of κατισχύω, since the English term “strong” can have various meanings
that do not correspond with the Greek term. As Louw aptly put it, the meaning of a
term is not another word, but a statement about semantic features and their range
(for our own method, we prefer to call these “semes” rather than “semantic fea-
tures”). Determining and explaining or specifying these semes is the crucial task
for establishing the relationship between a word and its meaning. This meaning is
expressed by presenting a lexeme’s semantic features and their inherent hierarchy.
§ 33. Often Bauer’s subdivisions do not represent distinct meanings. His work is not
structured according to a unified principle, since he uses various criteria for the lex-
emes and for the |41-P classification of a lexeme’s different meanings. This can be

 Louw, “How Do Words Mean?” 137 ff.

 Although Louw comments on Bauer’s methodology according to the English edition of 1979
(BAGD), this does not change our evaluation of his methodology at all because in this aspect the ed-
itors left Bauer’s original methodology unaltered.
 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 27

seen, for example, in the discussion of the lexeme ἐσθίω. Bauer proposes two se-
memes or contextual meanings:
1) to eat
a. with accusative of thing
b. with prepositions, to denote the thing of which one partakes:
i. with ἀπό τινος: ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων (Matt 15:27)
ii. with ἔκ τινος: ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου (1Cor 11:28)
c. used with other prepositions: ἐ. μετά τινος (Matt 9:11)
d. used in the absolute (Matt 12:1)
e. ἐσθίω and πίνω appear together frequently
i. to receive support (1Cor 9:4)
ii. to eat a meal (Luke 5:30)
iii. ἐσθίω and πίνω with a negation to signify fasting: οὔτε πίνων οὔτε
ἐσθίων (Matt 11:18)
iv. eating and drinking as ordinary, daily activities (Luke 17:27)
2) to consume, devour

The classification does not work uniformly. The numbers 1a–c are classified accord-
ing to the case that governs the verb or the preposition that accompanies it; in 1d the
absolute use of the verb is highlighted; in 1e the passages that form binomial phrases
with πίνω or co-occurrences are given; the sub-classifications i and ii do not add any-
thing to the previous; iii indicates that the two verbs with negation are used to signify
fasting. Lastly, eating and drinking are described as daily activities. Perhaps such
subdivision was not necessary, since ἐσθίω signifies eating in all of the passages—
at times indicating what is eaten, with whom one eats, the action of eating, refraining
from eating, or eating every day. It would have been sufficient to give the two mean-
ings represented in parts 1: “to eat,” and 2: “to consume,” “devour,” in a figurative
sense applied to fire, which consumes everything. In other words, the categories used
by Bauer are often irrelevant from the semantic point of view. Simply dividing and
subdividing does not add information and can actually cause the reader to consider
these different meanings.
§ 34. Something similar occurs in the entry for ἥκω. Bauer organizes the entry in the
following manner:
1) Of persons:
a. with mention of the starting point
b. with mention of the goal
c. used in the absolute
d. as a religious expression
i. of the coming of a deity |42-P
ii. of the coming of the worshiper to the deity
2) Used impersonally
28 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

In each case ἥκω simply means “coming or arriving (if the destination is indicated).”
The specific contexts do not change the meaning because they all refer to the same
lexical sense, which we can describe as “the completion of a movement towards a
place, exerted by a personal subject.”
§ 35. The lack of distinction between lexical and contextual meaning can be consid-
ered the basic shortcoming of current lexicography in general and, as a consequence,
of the various dictionaries, large and small, of the Greek New Testament. As such,
this is also a weakness of the Bauer series. However, it would be unjust to criticize
the traditional dictionaries on this point. They were written at the time when these
problems were not recognized and the primary goal of lexicography was not the de-
scription of lexical meaning, but of usage. The dictionary of Louw and Nida, which
we shall soon examine, seeks to explain the difference between lexical and contex-
tual meaning and does not replace Bauer’s dictionary. There is room for various
kinds of dictionaries. The Bauer series—especially BAA and even the English version
by Danker (BDAG)—is and will remain a valuable instrument. Nevertheless, it ought
to be used according to what it is: a dictionary of usage that seeks to offer transla-
tional equivalents accompanied by grammatical information.

Excursus: The Third English Edition: BDAG²⁶ (A. Bowden)

§ 36. After its publication in 2000, reviewers of BDAG quickly recognized and praised
the dictionary’s significant contributions to the field of New Testament lexicography:

“It can be said in advance that BDAG will become the standard dictionary for researchers and
students in the English speaking world. One can only hope that the dictionary will find a
place alongside BAA in every New Testament library in the German speaking world.”²⁷

“In my view, for the future, BDAG will be the work to consult where formerly one would have
consulted BAGD, and it will be consulted with much more profit.”²⁸

 Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early
Christian Literature. Third Edition (BDAG), based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch
zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6 ed., eds. Kurt Aland and
Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Ging-
rich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). Because BDAG appeared several
years after Peláez’s monograph, I have composed the following analysis.
 David S. du Toit, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature, by F. W. Danker, TRu 68.3 (2003): 385 (my translation).
 Terry Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3109.pdf. This re-
view was republished as “A Review of BDAG,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays
in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 53 – 65. I
refer to Robert’s RBL review.
 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 29

“Danker has done [an immense service] for scholars and students alike by again bringing the
English version of the lexicon up-to-date … That is the fate of the lexicographer, [namely] to van-
ish nearly as a person and a scholar behind his work. Extensive use of the tool is the best tribute
we can pay to the fine scholars who have produced it.”²⁹

“[BAGD] was a fixture on the shelves of exegetes of the NT for a generation. The new Danker is a
worthy replacement, which makes some changes … which clearly improve the tool. Other
changes could have been made to bring the old warhorse even further up to date, but scholars
and students will still find investment in this book worthwhile.”³⁰

“[BDAG] is without doubt the best tool of its kind that exists in any language, and the present
edition is decidedly superior to the earlier ones.”³¹

“All the work of the twentieth century, and with it all the previous centuries, may be regarded as
summed up and encapsulated in … BDAG.”³²

The following sections will overview general features and strengths of BDAG, while
also considering aspects that could be improved.

§ 37. The Origins of BDAG

Although BDAG was published in 2000, the dictionary has a complex family tree con-
sisting of previous English editions that were offshoots of German dictionaries, and
at the top of this tree stands, not Grandfather-Bauer (1928), as some might expect,
but rather Great-grandfather Preuschen (1910).³³ In this way, BDAG is comparable
to many other Greek lexicons, since, although a large number of changes and addi-
tions have been made, the text is related to predecessors.³⁴ Walter Bauer’s 1928 revi-
sion of Preuschen’s dictionary transformed the lexicon into a text that critics greeted

 Hans-Josef Klauck, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Chris-
tian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3111.pdf.
 Harold W. Attridge, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Chris-
tian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3112.pdf.
 Jerker Blomqvist, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature, by F. W. Danker, Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2001): http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/
2001– 06 – 01.html.
 Lee, History, 178.
 See Peláez’s overview of the history of the Bauer-dictionaries in section 2.1. I reiterate certain as-
pects here, since the history exposes BDAG to criticism.
 BDAG’s history is described in greater detail by J. Lee, History, 6. For reviews of Lee’s text, see
David S. du Toit, review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by John A. Lee, TRu 70.4
(2005): 504– 07; Tobias Nicklas, review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by John A.
Lee, RBL 7 (2004): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3244_3806.pdf; Andy Naselli, “John Lee on NT
Lexicography,” Andy Naselli: Thoughts on Theology, 2 Dec 2015, http://andynaselli.com/john-lee-
on-nt-lexicography. Naselli admits that Lee’s description of Bauer’s lineage was “the most interest-
ing” and “fascinating” part of the book for him. Naselli also states that “Lee’s historical survey is
stunningly detailed and quite convincing. … I’ve taken lexicons for granted. I knew they must
have been a lot of work to create, but I did not appreciate them like I should.”
30 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

enthusiastically.³⁵ The fourth edition of the (Preuschen‐)Bauer dictionary was trans-

lated into English in 1957 by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich.³⁶ BAG was replaced in
1979 by BAGD—an English translation by W. Gingrich and F. Danker of the fifth edi-
tion of Bauer.³⁷ A sixth German edition of the Bauer series was published in 1988 (see
2.1 above). BDAG is more than simply a translation of BAA. Rather, the dictionary is a
significant revision of BAGD that also includes content from BAA.³⁸

§ 38. General Features of BDAG

With a total of 1,108 pages, BDAG is 200 pages longer than BAA. These figures, how-
ever, do not account for the lengthy front matter in BDAG (77 pages in BDAG com-
pared to 24 in BAA).³⁹ The front matter in BDAG consists of Danker’s brief introduc-
tion to the dictionary (pp. v–xi), which is followed by an English translation of
Bauer’s essay “An Introduction to the Lexicon of the Greek New Testament” (pp.
xiii–xxix) and then by various lists of abbreviations (pp. xxxi–lxxix). The alphabe-
tized composite list of all abbreviations in the dictionary is particularly helpful
(pp. lix–lxxix), since it spares the reader from having to wade through various
lists of confusing abbreviations.
In his introduction Danker explains that “students can count on completeness of
citation [of the New Testament or the Apostolic Fathers or both] of all except the most
common words appearing in the main text of the 27th edition of Nestle” (p. x). If a

 When Bauer’s revision of Preuschen was published as a one-volume work, Bauer’s name was
prominent, while Preuschen was written underneath Bauer in smaller print (Lee, History, 14n13). Pre-
uschen’s name was dropped in Bauer3 (1937). “Then when BAG (1957) appeared, it was easy to get the
impression that the book was by Arndt and Gingrich. Though Bauer’s name was mentioned on the
title page, the names of Arndt and Gingrich are far more prominent, and on the spine of the book
they appear alone” (Lee, History, 10).
 Prior to the 1957 publication of Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer’s translation of Grimm-Wilke had
reigned supreme in the English speaking world since 1886; cf. J. H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lex-
icon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2005).
 Blomqvist (review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [by Danker], 2) makes the fol-
lowing observations: Although Arndt and Gingrich are credited as the translators of Bauer4, they also
added entries and included further bibliographic material from North American scholars. The second
English edition (BAGD) was prepared by Gingrich and Danker, because Arndt had died in 1957. BAGD
included an improved typography, as well as references to previously unavailable textual witnesses,
to texts from the Judean desert, and to extra-biblical material. After Gingrich’s death in 1993, Danker
shouldered sole-responsibility for the revision of the third edition.
 See John T. Fitzgerald, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3108.pdf.
 As Sydney Landau indicates, readers and reviewers often judge dictionaries by their size, and not
by a thorough examination of their contents; see Landau, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicog-
raphy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 266. Size, however, does not necessarily indi-
cate value.
 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 31

word occurs in the LXX or second temple literature, this is always indicated. Danker
deliberately preserves Bauer’s bibliographical data, much of which had been excised
in BAA in an inconsistent manner. Thus, while numerous lemmata in BAA record
cross-references to excised material, Danker retains this bibliographic material and
adds to it in many instances (p. ix). Danker also expands certain bibliographies, es-
pecially when he seems to have a particular interest in a word.⁴⁰ Bibliographies of
lemmata related to women are significantly increased (cf. e. g., γυνή, γαμέω,
προστάτις). BDAG shows an awareness of recent methodological developments, as
it mentions the omniscient author (s.v. ἀνάστασις), narrative criticism (s.v.
ἄνωθεν), gender issues (s.v. γυνή), and rhetorical criticism (s.v. Φαρισαῖος).⁴¹

§ 39. New Structure of the Lemmata

A new structure of the lemmata in BDAG, augmented by a new typography, fosters

clarity. In similar fashion to BAA, BDAG employs a print layout that fosters readabil-
ity. The definitions of meanings and the references to biblical passages are written in
bold. This feature makes it easier to locate a lexeme’s definition(s) and their corre-
sponding biblical occurrences.⁴² Unlike BAA, BDAG does not make use of small
print for references to secular Hellenistic literature, which fosters a smooth general
layout. A lexeme’s definitions of meaning are marked with Arabic numerals (1, 2,
etc.), followed by a definition in bold roman and then by translational equivalents
(i. e., glosses) in bold italic. Subsets of meaning are marked by the traditional use
of lettering (a, b, α, β, etc.) and are printed in italics, as are the translations of refer-
ences.

§ 40. Definitions

As the previous paragraph explained, BDAG makes use of “extended definitions” as

well as “glosses.” These definitions are placed at the beginning of the entries, fol-
lowed by the glosses that were previously found in BAGD.⁴³ Ideally, a definition is
a clear and succinct statement of the area of meaning covered by the word, including

 Abraham J. Malherbe, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3110.pdf.
 Hans-Josef Klauck, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).
 In Danker’s own words, “This revision makes … use of bold roman typeface to highlight the
meanings of words in their functional usage … Extended definitions are given in bold roman and
may be followed by one or more formal equivalents in bold italics. The user of the lexicon can explore
such equivalents for translation of passages that follow, but within the boundaries of the definition”
(BDAG, viii).
 For example, the lemma for ἐπιθυμία (BDAG, 372) offers two definitions: Œ a great desire for
someth., desire, longing, craving; the bold functions as a definition, and the bold italics as glosses.
This meaning is subdivided and verses are provided, and then a second definition is suggested:  a
desire for someth. forbidden or simply inordinate, craving, lust.
32 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

any fuzziness. Clarity is essential, brevity is required.⁴⁴ The use of definitions to de-
scribe the meaning of lexemes is an improvement over the gloss approach, since def-
initions sharpen the general lexical analysis. According to Lee, the description of lex-
ical meaning by definitions “is the only method that offers a prospect of accurate
description of meaning, and the one long recognised (sic) as such among lexicogra-
phers … But it is the harder path, because it forces the lexicographer to spell out pre-
cisely what the word means …; definition by gloss is child’s play by comparison.”⁴⁵
Prior to the innovative use of definitions in the dictionaries of Louw and Nida and
Danker, bilingual dictionaries (including New Testament dictionaries) commonly
provided series of translational equivalents for the various lexemes. Lee explains,

Essentially the same method has been used by all lexicons of ancient Greek to the present day …
New Testament lexicographers had no reason to proceed any differently … Criticism of the gloss
method in New Testament lexicography has been slow coming. It made its appearance only in
the last few years of the twentieth century, thanks mainly to the work of Johannes P. Louw and
Eugene A. Nida.⁴⁶

Surprisingly, Danker offers very little information about the manner in which he con-
structed his definitions. He merely states that “this revision builds on and expands
Bauer’s use of extended definition” (p. viii). Danker acknowledges that Louw and
Nida’s “forward linguistic thrust has left its mark,” which can be seen in “verbal ech-
oes” (p. xi).⁴⁷ Nevertheless, Danker credits Bauer as the innovator of these extended
definitions.

§ 41. Neutral Language

Danker seeks to use inclusive language and to avoid ideology in his analyses (cf. the
entries for ἀδελφός and Ἰουδαῖος). He warns against translating terms such as ἐπί-
σκοπος and διάκονος with meanings they assumed in ecclesiastical evolution, but
which were absent in the New Testament (p. viii). Malherbe draws attention to the
interesting example of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. BAGD (1979) translates this as “the
Son of Man, the Man” and then focuses on Jewish eschatological expectations
(p. 835). BDAG explains that the literal translation of the phrase would be “the

 Lee, History, 21. Lee continues, “The definition should be a substitution equivalent, that is, a
phrase that when placed into any of the contexts conveys the same meaning as the word itself;
this ‘fit’ is the test of the definition” (p. 21).
 Lee, History, 21.
 Lee, History, 16, 19.
 The definitions in BDAG have been explored in more detail by both John Lee and Terry Roberts,
who bring attention to the seemingly independent composition of BDAG’s definitions. The definitions
share some similarities to the definitions in L&N: In some cases, there is direct overlap, abridgements,
expansions, and slight rewordings. For specific examples, see Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lex-
icon of the New Testament (by Danker). Roberts explains, “I do not wish to imply that L[&]N (sic) has
been any more than an influence on BDAG.”
 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 33

son of man,” but then clarifies, “in our lit. … the Human One, the Human Being”
(p. 1026). This illustrates how Danker does not shy away from personal interpretation
and exhibits an intention not to offend some people in academic circles who might
be dissatisfied with the traditional “Son of Man.”⁴⁸ Similarly, the translation of
ἀδελφότης in BDAG is changed from “brotherhood” to a group of fellow-believers,
a fellowship. The term ἀδελφότης only appears in 1Peter, a letter that explicitly de-
scribes the church as a brotherhood rather than a fellowship (i. e., κοινωνία, which is
not used in 1Peter). Perhaps Danker’s change overlooks the importance of a family
metaphor.

§ 42. Problems Arising from BDAG’s History

As explained above, BDAG derives from Bauer’s German dictionary, which was a re-
vision of Preuschen’s 1910 dictionary. Although each edition in this series incorpo-
rates revisions and expansions, they preserve largely intact both good and bad qual-
ities of the work from which they descend. This is true not only of BDAG, but of most
New Testament dictionaries. As Lee explains, “the whole history of New Testament
lexicography is one of reliance on predecessors and transmission of older material
with varying degrees of revision. If all were well with the tradition, there would be
no cause for concern … But this is hardly the case.”⁴⁹ What specifically about Preu-
schen—the parent of Bauer/BDAG—causes concern? Rather than incorporating (new)
documentary material, Preuschen cited no outside evidence of any kind. Preuschen
omitted references from the LXX and did not incorporate the new insights from the
massive influx of papyrological findings. Therefore, when Bauer undertook the revi-
sion of Preuschen, he focused on amplifying the literary parallels, but not on revising
the glosses. Although Bauer expanded the literary parallels significantly, his coverage
of the documentary evidence rested on Moulton and Milligan.⁵⁰ Nevertheless, Bauer
claimed to write a completely new book (“ein völlig neues Buch,” Nachwort, 1928).
Lee, however, questions this claim:

Bauer has put back the evidence from parallels that Preuschen had stripped out. … This is the
general nature of Bauer’s revision. He takes Preuschen’s entry and expands it with useful addi-

 Malherbe, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).

 Lee, History, 11. Using the example of πλήν, Lee demonstrates how easily a mistaken assertion
from 1856 regarding the lexeme’s supposed colloquial usage entered into Preuschen in 1910 and
has not been doubted since. This has happened in numerous entries, which implies that modern dic-
tionaries, including BDAG, are dependent on predecessors, and sometimes perpetuate views that are
doubtful or wrong. In Lee’s opinion, “we quickly reach the position that all entries in today’s lexicons
should be regarded with suspicion until proved reliable. It is not that everything in them is likely to
be wrong, but that they may contain faulty material that has been simply handed on and not ade-
quately tested” (p. 9).
 Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
34 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

tional information that is expected in a major lexicon, but the statement of meaning is generally
the same or only slightly adjusted.⁵¹

Each new edition in the Bauer series (e. g., BAA, BAG, BAGD, BDAG) has expanded
the supporting evidence and secondary opinions⁵² of modern scholars. The corpus
has been expanded, variant readings have been accounted for. However, “the seman-
tic content of the underlying work of Preuschen was preserved with little modifica-
tion. It did not occur to Bauer or his successors to question the fundamental method
or consider whether a complete overhaul might be needed. Only with BDAG (2000)
has such questioning begun, though with limited consequences. Preuschen’s work
lives on.”⁵³ Danker can thus be credited with implementing a new method of indicat-
ing meaning, but the bulk of the remaining content corresponds to the (Preuschen‐)
Bauer series.

§ 43. BDAG Offers Too Much Information

The continued expansion of information from Preuschen to Bauer to BDAG has led to
an overload of information in many of the entries. In his introduction, Danker ex-
presses no qualms about this increase of information: “Bauer received some criticism
for proliferation of references to Greek literature, but contemporary biblical study en-
dorses his judgment, and the present edition increases the coverage, … Indeed, in
some instances the heaping of references is necessary to discourage risky assump-
tions” (p. ix). Danker hints that this will characterize future editions of the diction-
ary.⁵⁴ However, one could also ask whether the amount of information in BDAG has
reached a state of excess. John Lee argues that with a century of accumulation be-

 Lee, History, 144, emphasis added.

 Ironically, although H. Attridge is very positive of BDAG, his main point of contention relates to
the bibliographic material, which he feels could have referred to more recent works in a deeper, more
consistent manner. Accordingly, “The next generation of NT lexicons … should utilize a new template,
preserving the wealth of primary lexical material found in Danker, but seriously reconsidering the
extent and character of modern secondary literature cited to support lexical decisions” (cf. Attridge,
review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [by Danker]).
 Lee, History, 151. Elsewhere, Lee comments, “there has not been a … reassessment of the decisions
on the splits and definitions … BDAG stands (with some exceptions) on the foundation that goes back
to Bauer and Preuschen and beyond” (p. 167).
 Danker also hints at the direction his dictionary will take in the future, which, essentially, in-
volves the multiplication of references to primary evidence: “Future revisions of this lexicon will
probably feature inclusion of lexemes from early Christian pseudepigrapha that are not found in
the present text … [L]imited references are presently made to the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
(Aa). Increased acquaintance especially with lectionaries will also provide a fund of terms that
can enrich the vocabulary base. A major development will most certainly be the bestowal of greater
attention on idiomatic usage” (p. x).
 2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary 35

hind it, BDAG has reached “a state of severe overload.”⁵⁵ The entries have reached
massive proportions (e. g., ὄνομα contains six columns and twenty subdivisions), in-
corporate mini-essays (e. g., σύζυγος, φοβέω), and have gathered too much informa-
tion of various types and degrees of reliability and usefulness.⁵⁶

§ 44. Another Look at the Definitions⁵⁷

Danker’s composition of definitions is a feat that rightfully deserves recognition. As

Lee explains, “Those who have attempted it know that constructing definitions is an
extraordinarily difficult and subjective task, and it is all too easy to find fault with
others’ efforts.”⁵⁸ Danker no doubt anticipated this, as indicated in his introduction:
“… the publication of any new lexicon creates a crop of instant lexicographers. And
this is as it should be. [As S. Johnson noted], ‘Every other author may aspire to praise;
the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recom-
pense has been granted to very few.’” (p. vii).
As Roberts observes, it is important to pay careful attention to Danker’s terminol-
ogy, because he does not define all lexemes. When Danker regards a lexeme’s mean-
ing as obvious, he offers an English gloss. Danker explains, “When a formal equiv-
alent [i. e., gloss] is sufficient to convey the meaning, … this meaning stands in bold
italics without extended definition” (p. viii). Commenting on this distinction between
definition and gloss, Roberts states “I regard it as a methodological shortcoming for
BDAG, having set up this distinction [between definition and gloss], to have failed to

 Lee, History, 170. Many of Lee’s criticisms have been repeated by David Hasselbrook in his lecture
“A Proposal for the Form and Content of the Next Generation of Printed New Testament Lexicons”
(LMU, Munich, Dec 2012), 1– 15. Hasselbrook argues that BDAG has reached “the maximum overload
state” (p. 1), continues “to amass references to primary Greek sources” (p. 1), and provides a “sheer
mass of information” (p. 2). Hasselbrook questions the helpfulness of many of the definitions (p. 4).
The Bauer series illustrates a “lumping together of ‘main text’ and ‘footnote’ matter, making for
strained reading” (p. 9). “There are instances where valuable secondary scholarly work is either
not referenced or not adequately assessed … [but] amending the situation would be quite an under-
taking” (p. 14). See also David S. Hasselbrook, Studies in New Testament Lexicography: Advancing to-
ward a Full Diachronic Approach with the Greek Language, WUNT 2/303 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2011).
 Lee concludes that lexicographers are “impelled by a general desire … to squeeze in as much as
possible of all the main types of information. The outcome now seen in a major lexicon like BDAG is
the best that could be expected under the circumstances, but it is hardly satisfactory … [M]any entries
are overloaded to the point of impenetrability” (History, 131). Lee illustrates this with BDAG’s entry for
βιάζω, which fills over a column and offers four possible senses and a short introduction to guide the
reader, all for two occurrences in the New Testament.
 For much of this section, I am indebted to Terry Roberts’s review of BDAG in which Roberts fo-
cuses his attention “squarely at this aspect [sc. the definitions] of the lexicon.” I respectfully present
aspects of Danker’s definitions, knowing that their composition constitutes an extremely laborious
and painstaking task.
 Lee, History, 160.
36 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

provide for each sense of each entry a single definition.”⁵⁹ After scanning BDAG,
Roberts estimates that sixty percent of entries contain one or more definitions.
To justify his use of glosses in certain cases, Danker discusses the lexeme of
γαμέω, “to marry,” in the introduction (p. viii). Roberts finds this example an unfor-
tunate one: “The gloss marry is ambiguous (it could mean: ‘join in marriage’ – of a
celebrant; ‘give in marriage’ of a parent; ‘take in marriage’ – of a spouse).”⁶⁰ In var-
ious entries of BDAG, there are examples of lexemes that are assigned several glosses
without a definition (cf. e. g., καπηλεύω: trade in, peddle, huckster). Roberts poses a
fair question when he asks which gloss, if any, is taking the place of a clear defini-
tion?⁶¹ With other lexemes, a gloss includes a detail in brackets without additional
information (cf. e. g., πρίζω, saw [in two]). Other entries in BDAG make use of surpris-
ing pairings of definitions with glosses (cf. e. g., πόρνη  a political entity hostile to
God, prostitute, whore).⁶² After noting “hundreds of occurrences” of glosses without
definitions, but very few definitions unaccompanied by a gloss, Roberts concludes
“that BDAG has not yet shaken loose from the lure of the gloss; that the role of
the definition is not yet fully appreciated and distinguished from that of the gloss,
and that entries without a gloss have been deliberately shunned.”⁶³ Lee concurs:
“It is too early to say that the reign of the gloss is over. It retains its hold on German
Bauer, and its effects will take time to eradicate even from BDAG.”⁶⁴
These observations lead to a second question, namely, which method did Danker
employ for composing the definitions in BDAG? Despite the use of definitions in
BDAG, the basic lexical analysis of BAGD seems to have been preserved. In Roberts
view, “to a large degree, the definitions have been superimposed on a pre-existing
sense structure driven by glosses.”⁶⁵ As has already been stated, BDAG formulated
definitions for about sixty percent of the entries, but relied on glosses for the remain-
ing forty percent. The lexemes in BDAG with definitions have been formulated out of
and grafted on to older glosses. The combination of definition plus gloss is not a bad
method, but “the grafting of new definitions on to the existing glosses found in BAGD
has not produced a good result.”⁶⁶ The definitions “thus reflect Bauer’s—or more
often Preuschen’s—lexical analysis,”⁶⁷ which was based on glossing. Without
doubt, the composition of definitions is a grueling task, but Danker’s apparent reli-
ance on previous glosses has resulted in definitions with uneven quality.

 Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).

 Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).
 Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).
 Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).
 Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).
 Lee, History, 19.
 Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker).
 Lee, History, 169, emphasis in original.
 See Lee, History, 166 – 67, who continues: “The number of meanings, the glosses or headings as-
signed to them [in BDAG], and the criteria of analysis remain by and large as before.”
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 37

Conclusion: several features of BDAG make the dictionary an important tool in

the field of New Testament lexicography. An improved typography, a helpful intro-
duction, comprehensive lists of abbreviations, and, most notably, extended defini-
tions make the dictionary a user-friendly and linguistically-sound lexicon. On the
other hand, several features of the dictionary call for careful reflection. BDAG’s con-
nection with the Preuschen-Bauer tradition implies that much of the textual referen-
ces, interpretive decisions, and translational equivalents have been left untouched.
Although Danker’s definitions mark an important progress in the field of New Testa-
ment lexicography, they are used inconsistently, show a reliance on glosses from ear-
lier editions, and occasionally do not clarify the sense of lexemes.

2.4 J. P. Louw, E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament based on Semantic Domains (1988)
§ 45. The first volume of L&N begins with a preface, followed by an introduction and
bibliography, with the terms of the Greek New Testament sorted into ninety-three se-
mantic domains. The second volume contains three appendices (Greek-English, Eng-
lish, and the biblical citations). According to Louw and Nida, their dictionary is in-
tended for those who translate the New Testament into various languages, but it is
also useful for biblical scholars, pastors, and theological students. Because of its
methodology, it can also be of interest to linguists and lexicographers. |43-P The fol-
lowing analysis is divided into two parts: the first summarizes the ideas contained in
the dictionary’s preface and introduction, while the second offers critique.

2.4.1 Unique Aspects of the Dictionary

§ 46. Unlike Zorell and Bauer, Louw and Nida explain their guiding principles (cf. pp.
iv–xx). We now present a brief summary of the content of these pages in order to give
an idea of what the authors sought to accomplish.

2.4.1.1 The Composition of the Dictionary⁶⁸

§ 47. In the preface of the first volume, Louw and Nida explain the steps they fol-
lowed to produce the dictionary. In the first place, the lexical meanings of the
New Testament lexemes were classified into domains and subdomains. This was
done based on the dictionary edited by Barclay M. Newman that accompanies the

 Cf. L&N, 4– 5.
38 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

third edition of The Greek New Testament. ⁶⁹ Next, these meanings were verified and
other meanings were added by means of a careful study of New Testament concor-
dances and dictionaries. Third, the definitions and notes were prepared. The notes
are of two kinds: some, designed for translators of the New Testament, are included
in the text; others, of interest for linguists and lexicographers, appear in footnotes.
Lastly, the work’s cross references and indexes were composed. According to the au-
thors, this introduction has a double purpose, namely, to help utilize the dictionary
in an effective manner and to facilitate the understanding of the principles that guid-
ed its production. The introduction is divided into four parts whose main ideas we
explain in the following sections.

2.4.1.2 Primary Characteristics of the Dictionary⁷⁰

§ 48. The dictionary’s introduction affirms that it is unique for two reasons: first, for
having been organized by semantic domains |44-P and second, because of how the do-
mains are structured and the data is presented.⁷¹ According to Louw and Nida, the
main characteristics of their dictionary include:
1. The textual base for this dictionary is the entire vocabulary of the third edition
(text and apparatus) of the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible So-
cieties.
2. To classify the terms, they differentiate between words with unique referents
(proper names of people and place), words with class referents (common nouns, ad-
jectives, verbs, etc.), and markers (usually prepositions and particles that show the
relation between lexemes, phrases, and clauses).⁷² The lexical elements that desig-
nate class referents belong to three main classes: objects (domains 1– 12; we prefer
the term “entity” rather than “object”), events (domains 13 – 57), and abstracts (do-
main 58 – 91, we prefer the term “attribute” rather than “abstract”). Relations or Rela-
tionals (i. e., pronominal and deictic expressions that point to or represent objects or
entities, and to a lesser extent, events/deeds or attributes; cf. domain 92) also con-
stitute a domain. In L&N, three kinds of semantic features (i. e., “semes”: shared, dis-
tinctive, and supplementary features) form the basis for the various semantic do-
mains. The shared features are those elements of meaning that a group of lexemes

 Cf. B. Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, Revised Edition with the Greek-English Dictionary by
Barclay Newman, 5th ed., ed. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research, UBS (Stuttgart: Deut-
sche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
 Cf. L&N, 6 – 8.
 The dictionary edited by W. E. Vine et al., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words: With Topical Index (Nashville/Atlanta/London/Vancouver: Thomas Nelson, 1996)
groups the words in the second part (which contains the New Testament vocabulary) by semantic af-
finity, but without qualifying these as domains.
 These markers are called “‘function’ words” and many of them are described as “relations” (do-
main 89) or “discourse markers” (so, καί and δέ; domain 91).
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 39

have in common. The distinctive features are those that separate meanings from each
other. The supplementary features are those that may be relevant in certain contexts
or may primarily play a connotative or associative role. Within the domains or sub-
domains, the more general meanings are treated before the specific meanings. Louw
and Nida note that due to the limited vocabulary of the New Testament it is not al-
ways possible to proceed consistently from general to specific meanings. The same
applies for attempting to establish strict, logical binary contrasts in order to classify
sets of meanings more comprehensively, since these meanings are related with each
other in diverse ways and involve various different dimensions that constitute com-
plex groups or constellations.⁷³ |45-P
3. Concerning the form and organization of each entry, the authors consider it
important to list the irregular forms if these carry a new meaning or if they are irreg-
ular enough to make them difficult to identify morphologically. When, for example,
the meaning of the middle voice cannot be easily deduced from the active, the verbal
lexeme is given in both forms: for example, ἀποπλανάω (“to cause someone to def-
initely go away from one’s beliefs or views”) and ἀποπλανάομαι (“to no longer be-
lieve what is true, but to start believing what is false”). If a verb is found in the
New Testament only in the middle voice, this appears in the dictionary only under
the middle voice and not under the active (e. g., ἀποτίθεμαι).
4. According to the authors, one of the advantages of this dictionary is that the
different meanings are marked with letters. The most common, unmarked meaning is
listed first (letter a), followed by the next most common and proceeding to the pe-
riphery meanings. According to the authors, however, the order of the list is not par-
ticularly important, given that the meanings sometimes form multidimensional
groups or constellations, making it difficult to establish an order of priority or hier-
archy among them.
5. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of this dictionary is the fact that the
meanings are explicated through definitions and not simply by translational equiv-
alents. For example, ἐρημόομαι is defined as “to suffer destruction, with the implica-
tion of being deserted and abandoned.” Its translational equivalents are “to be de-
stroyed,” “to suffer destruction,” “to suffer desolation.” Another example can be
provided: if παρίσταμαι is translated as “to stand near,” this phrase does not indicate
whether this nearness is friendly or hostile, so that it would be helpful to describe
the verb as: “to be near or alongside someone, either with friendly or hostile intent.”
Context will indicate which of the two attitudes apply in each case. A meaning’s
exact definition sometimes requires a fuller description of the distinct characteristics
and an explanation about how a term’s meaning differs from others. This is the case
with πόλις (as distinct from κώμη, “village,” and κωμόπολις, “town”), which is de-

 See physical impact (domain 19), where κολαφίζω (19.7), ῥαβδίζω (19.8), μαστίζω and μαστιγόω
(19.9) comprise the common item of physical impact, although each lexeme refers to its own partic-
ular instrument with which the blow is given: the fist, a stick, a whip.
40 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

fined as “a population center of relatively greater importance due to its size, econom-
ic significance, or political control over a surrounding area (it is possible that forti-
fication of walls and gates also entered into the system of classification of a πόλις, in
contrast to other terms for population centers).” |46-P
6. This dictionary often contains “multiple entries,” meaning that various lex-
emes appear in the same entry and are given the same definition, since they belong
to the same semantic domain. For example, in 15.78 the following words appear to-
gether: ἀπαντάω, ἀπάντησις, ὑπαντάω, ὑπάντησις: “to come near to and to meet, ei-
ther in a friendly or hostile sense.” Domain 23.20 contains ἀριστάω, δειπνέω, ἄρτον
κλάω (an idiom, literally “to break bread”): “to eat a meal, without reference to any
particular time of the day or to the type of food involved.”⁷⁴ Sometimes, as with ζάω,
ζωή, ψυχή in 23.88, Louw and Nida do not give definitions but only translations that
are more or less applicable to each of the lexemes: “to be alive, to live, life.”
7. The dictionary offers suggestions that can be important for translators, espe-
cially when an action or gesture can have a symbolic meaning that differs in various
cultures. For example, in the biblical era “to beat the breast” symbolized repentance
(cf. Luke 18:13), while in other cultures it is a symbol of pride. In certain languages
the equivalent for the biblical expression would be “to strike the head” or “to grasp
the abdomen.” Another case is presented when the noun for an object or animal
does not appear in the target language because the animal or object does not exist
in the country where the language is spoken, for example, a lamb among the Eski-
mos.⁷⁵TN

2.4.1.3 Justification for This Kind of Dictionary⁷⁶

§ 49. In the introduction, Louw and Nida devote several pages and many examples to
justify the expediency of a dictionary based on semantic domains. The reasons they
give are the following:
1. Existing dictionaries do not explain the meaning of words, but substitute
words from one language with words from another. A word, however, does not ex-
plain the meaning of a word in another language but is merely a translational equiv-
alent. It is therefore necessary to define the meaning of lexemes.
2. A more serious problem in other dictionaries is the unsystematic and some-
times confusing manner in which different meanings are discussed. The authors

 Cf. also 12.37: πνεῦμα, δαιμόνιον, δαίμων, διάβολος, “an evil supernatural being or spirit”; 13.2:
ἔχω, φορέω, “to be in a particular state or condition”; 13.4: εἰμι, ὑπάρχω, “to be identical with”;
57.142: ἀλλάσσω, μεταλλάσσω, “to exchange one thing for another”; 57.186: πωλέω, πιπράσκω,
ἀποδίδωμι, “to dispose of property or provide services in exchange for money or other valuable con-
siderations.”
 Translator’s Note: Although the term “Eskimo” is sometimes considered offensive and is some-
times replaced by the term “Inuit,” the author’s original terminology is maintained.
 Cf. L&N, 8 – 11.
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 41

use the example of λόγος in BAGD |47-P in which its classification of meanings is
based on a diversity of criteria and on a failure to distinguish between meaning
and reference.
3. According to L&N, other dictionaries do not offer a systematic treatment of idi-
oms, since these are included within the entries of the main lexemes. Thus, βρόχος is
translated in Bauer’s dictionary as “noose,” and βρόχον ἐπιβάλλω as an idiom (and
is first given its literal meaning: “to put or throw a noose on someone”) and then its
figurative meaning is defined as “to catch or restrain him,” that is to say, “to impose
restrictions.” See, similarly, the expression δίδωμι δόξαν τῷ θεῷ, which appears
under δόξα. In contrast, L&N treats idioms and expressions independently.
4. The main reason for undertaking a dictionary of this nature was to bring to-
gether the terms that are closely related semantically and that are often considered
partial synonyms because the ranges of their meaning tend to overlap. The character-
istics and unique semes of each of the terms can only be discovered in this manner.
In general, according to Louw and Nida, a word’s different meanings are relatively far
apart. On the other hand, there are a number of instances in every language in which
the related meanings of different words are very close. This is the case with νοῦς,
καρδία, ψυχή, συνείδησις, φρήν, and πνεῦμα as psychological faculties.
5. Another advantage of this kind of dictionary, at least according to Louw and
Nida, is that different parts of speech can be classified together. So, for example,
εὐχαριστέω and εὐχαριστία (verb and noun) both mean “to express gratitude for ben-
efits or blessings.” The lexemes can be translated depending on contexts as “to
thank, thanksgiving, thankfulness.”
6. In grouping meanings on the basis of shared features, it is essential that de-
rivatives be treated as closely as possible to their semantic roots. For example, ὕβρις,
ὑβριστής, and ὑβρίζω are all discussed together. Sometimes this procedure leads to
surprising results, but the authors give the following justification:

For some persons it may seem strange that derivatives are classed together with their bases. For
example, ἀργυροκόπος (2.5), defined as “one who makes objects out of silver,” is to be found in
Domain 2 Natural Substances, Subdomain G Metals, even though ἀργυροκόπος clearly designa-
tes a |48-P person and may be best translated in English as “silversmith.” One could argue that
the semantic base of ἀργυροκόπος is really -κοπος, but the structural element -κοπος, meaning
“one who does something with something,” is so highly productive (though it has various forms)
that it seems far better to treat ἀργυροκόπος as an extended derivative of ἄργυρος (cf. p. xix).

7. Positive and negative lexemes appear within the same domain when they share
certain semantic characteristics, even though the semes of positivity or negativity dis-
tinguish them. Therefore, in domain 65 appear not only καλός, ἀγαθός, and χρηστός,
but also κακός and πονηρός.
42 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

2.4.1.4 How to Use the Dictionary⁷⁷

§ 50. Regardless of whether a reader wants to find a Greek word, the English trans-
lation of the Greek word, or a passage of Scripture, in each case the starting point for
using L&N will be the corresponding index in the second volume, that is, the index of
Greek terms (vol. 2, pp. 1– 268), the index of English terms (vol. 2, pp. 269 – 334), or
the index of cited biblical passages (vol. 2, pp. 335 – 75). Each of these indexes point
to the place or places in the first volume where the relevant word or text is discussed.
The authors give a longwinded justification for this manner of presentation, which,
for matters of space, we omit here.⁷⁸

2.4.1.5 Basic Principles of the Analysis and the Semantic Classification

§ 51. Louw and Nida classify lexemes semantically based on the following five prin-
ciples:
1. According to Louw and Nida, strict synonymy does not exist,⁷⁹ since lexical
items never have the exact same meaning in all contexts in which they appear. Al-
though lexemes do not seem to differ in their denotation, they do vary in their con-
notations. The principle of “no synonymy” does not, however, exclude variatio for
rhetorical or stylistic reasons. In this dictionary, even when two or more words can
be included in the same entry, this does not imply that they are completely synony-
mous.
2. The different meanings or connotations of a word are determined by (textual or
extra-textual) context. Thus, the contextual meaning (i. e., “sememe”) of a lexeme
will be generated by the context in which it is found. |49-P
3. Meaning is defined by a set of distinct features (i. e., “semes”). It is essential
not to confuse a term’s meaning with its concrete translation in a specific context.
Thus, ὄρνις means “any kind of bird, wild or domestic,” but in Matt 23:37 it refers
to a hen. Although it can be translated as “hen” in that passage, the meaning of
ὄρνις is more generic, as indicated in the definition.
4. The figurative senses differ from the literal or ordinary meaning in three main
ways, namely, the variety of domains, the degree of awareness of the relationship be-
tween literal and figurative meanings, and the extent of the conventional usage.
5. The different meanings of the same word and the related meanings of different
words tend to be multidimensional and are difficult to sort out, since they more com-
monly constitute irregularly formed constellations than clearly organized structures.
Nevertheless, it is certain that some subdomains can have a clear system of relations
(e. g., terms for kinship, colors, common foods, and certain kinds of plants and ani-
mals). Many subdomains, however, are irregular in form and the relations between

 Cf. L&N, 11– 16.

 Cf. L&N, xi – xv.
 The study of synonymy, homonymy, and polysemy is a main bone of contention among linguists;
cf. Ullmann, Semantics, 141– 258.
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 43

them are complex. Because of this it is impossible to establish a Grundbedeutung, a

basic meaning that should be found in each of a term’s connotations or that can ex-
plain them. With regards to related meanings of different words, some basic kinds
can be established for the various relations of the shared semes. For the classifica-
tion of lexemes, Louw and Nida have grounded their work above all on the charac-
teristics of shared features (i. e., “semes”), distinct features, and supplementary fea-
tures. In a small number of cases, other factors, including the relation of the part
with the whole, were taken into account.

2.4.2 Critique of the Dictionary⁸⁰TN

§ 52. We ought to begin by making an observation about the general character and
method by which L&N was produced. The successive steps (i. e., 1. classification of
the lexemes according to the meanings given by Newman’s dictionary, 2. verification
of these and addition of other new meanings, 3. drafting of the text) are clear at once.
Other aspects, however, are not sufficiently explained for the readers. For
example: |50-P
1. The authors do not explain the method used to verify and determine the mean-
ings of the lexemes because they do not specify the manner for establishing the
semic development. To understand the procedures employed by Louw and Nida
more completely, their work Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament ⁸¹ must
be consulted, where the principles that guided the production of their dictionary
are developed. Chapter 3, “Analyzing the Different Meanings of the Same Lexeme”
(pp. 35 – 79), shows the method followed: one should begin with the texts and use
an inductive method (beginning with the texts themselves) with as little theological
presupposition as possible. When a relatively full and illustrative series of passages
containing the word is classified into groups, one must ask what each group has in
common and what distinguishes the groups from each other. After provisionally clas-
sifying the different meanings, one must then test the classification by observing
how efficiently and fittingly it accords with the rest of the passages.
After this, Louw and Nida limit themselves in Lexical Semantics to illustrating
various analyses that are carried out by different criteria. Thus, they analyze the
term γῆ (pp. 40 – 45) by citing 31 of the 250 passages in which the word appears
in the New Testament, but without indicating the criteria by which they chose
these or if they used information from another dictionary. In dealing with these 31
passages, they begin by establishing the apparent oppositions and by tentatively
identifying five meanings. They then examine contexts to verify the adequacy of

 Translator’s Note: In spite of this critique by J. Pelaéz, a more positive assessment of Nida’s
methodology can be found by J. Mateos in § 73.
 J. Louw and E. A. Nida, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament (Atlanta: SBL, 1992).
44 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

their provisional list of possible meanings. They consider it necessary to verify the
five meanings in other contexts in which γῆ appears in the New Testament and to
compare this lexeme with others from the same domain. Although these steps are
discussed in Lexical Semantics, they are not demonstrated in Louw and Nida’s dic-
tionary, making it impossible for the reader—who does not know the initial criteria
for selecting the passages and does not have the final data of the analysis—to know if
the suggested provisional meanings are definitive and if they exhaust the meanings
of γῆ.
For the term πατήρ (414 times in the New Testament) they draw on 24 examples
in Lexical Semantics (pp. 45 – 50). Again, they construct homogenous sets by the
method of distinct oppositions. In this way they establish eight provisional meanings
without investigating the semantic features that characterize them. This is as far as
the analysis goes. Further examples will illustrate the difficulties. According to the
authors, the term ἐκβάλλω (Lexical Semantics, 51– 57) refers to a movement caused
by an agent or power. Before beginning the analysis, they identify three semantic fea-
tures: (1) the actual movement in space, (2) the agent which causes the movement,
and (3) the entity which undergoes the movement (one could object that only the first
feature or seme is denoted; the |51-P other two are connoted). Of the 81 passages in
which ἐκβάλλω appears in the New Testament, they examine 23 without specifying
the criteria of selection. They find that the proposed semantic features are not veri-
fied in many of the examples. With the term σάρξ (147 times in the New Testament,
most having theological content) a different procedure is followed (pp. 57– 59): they
begin with glosses or English translations and they explore other distinct problems.
Although there is no other further analysis, conclusions are offered. For χάρις (156
times in the New Testament), they choose 18 key contexts (pp. 62– 68), again without
explaining the criteria for selection. Here the procedure is different: The Greek text
and the translations of four English Bibles are given followed by a discussion of
the translations without having performed an analysis of the lexeme. Six provisional
meanings of χάρις are established. As can be seen, there is no unified method for
grasping the meaning of terms. The examples are insufficient and, contrary to the
initial claims, lexical meaning is not distinguished from contextual meanings.
2. Another point left unexplained by the authors is the procedure employed for
preparing the definitions of the lexemes—a step that seems preliminary for organiz-
ing words into semantic domains. Louw and Nida affirm that a definition is con-
structed from the semantic features (i. e., “semes”) that constitute a term’s meaning.
The semic development, however, is not explicated in the work, leaving the manner
in which definitions are obtained unresolved. In order to classify lexemes, Louw and
Nida distinguish between words with single referents (proper names of person or
place), words with class referents (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs), and mark-
ers (normally prepositions and particles that indicate the relation between lexemes,
phrases, and sentences). The terms that signify class referents belong to three main
categories: (1) objects or entities (primarily in domains 1– 12), (2) events (actions, do-
mains 13 – 57), and (3) abstracts (attributes, domains 58 – 91), which include terms
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 45

marking relations. Domain 92 includes pronominal and deictic expressions that pri-
marily point to (or take the place of) objects, and to a lesser degree, to events and
abstracts. Thus, despite the challenges involved in sorting lexemes into their proper
domains, Louw and Nida offer hypotheses about the semantic features of lexemes,
which they do not test rigorously through detailed analyses of the terms. |52-P
3. Another unresolved point is the criteria adopted by the authors for grouping
the lexemes into semantic domains. The dictionary affirms (p. xix) that to a certain
point, some basic kinds of domains based on diverse relations between shared fea-
tures can be established. Some sets of words form clusters in which there are certain
highly significant distinctive features (e. g., the terms for kinship). In other cases,
there are overlapping sets, as is the case with ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, στέργω (although
the last lexeme does not appear in the New Testament). These sets are arrangements
based on various hierarchies of generic or specific meaning, as with ζῷον, θηρίον,
ὑποζύγιον. The sets of opposites include antonyms, such as ἀγαθός/κακός, and
other reversives, such as πωλέω, “to sell,” and ἀγοράζω, “to buy.” Finally, there
are other sets, including numbers, days of the week, months of the year, and periods
of night.
§ 53. In Lexical Semantics (pp. 86 – 105), the following methodological steps are
described: (1) a small group of meanings should be selected that seem to be very
close in semantic space; (2) the type and number of their shared features of meaning
(the basis for their constituting a set) should be specified; (3) the features that sep-
arate meanings from one another should be determined; (4) a distinction should be
drawn between the minimal critical core features (those that are necessary and suf-
ficient) and any additional supplementary features that may be important; (5) the
types of relations between the meanings of any set should be determined, and
these relations include “clustering,” “included,” “overlapping,” “complementary”
(positive/negative, reversive, or role-shifting) and “serial” (infinite, repetitive, and
ranked). These steps, however, are not adequately explicated or systematically ap-
plied by the authors so that the reader is confronted with a gap between the pro-
posed theory and the actual analyses, leading to some confusion. One has the im-
pression of dealing with an intuitive analysis of specific groups of lexemes rather
than with a method that is explained and developed step by step.

Excursus: An Analysis Based on Intuition ⁸²TN

1. The authors begin by presenting a group of lexemes that are closely related because they denote
movement in space by means of the lower limbs (cf. περιτρέχω, εἰστρέχω, κατατρέχω, προστρέχω,
προτρέχω, ἐκπηδάω, περιπατέω). The shared features of these lexemes rather than their common
themes are of importance. Without explanation, the definition of each word is given and a particular
context is considered.

 Translator’s Note: The following excursus continues focusing on aspects that were discussed
in Louw and Nida’s text Lexical Semantics.
46 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

2. The same occurs in the case of γῆ, παράλιος, χεῖλος, αἰγιαλός, ἄμμος, νῆσος, τόπος διαθάλασσος,
for which the common semantic feature is the relation to a body of water. The English examples of
run, walk, skip, and crawl are used in order to illustrate the method. |53-P
3. Next, the authors compare four Greek terms that express different kinds of movement (τρέχω, περι-
πατέω, ἄλλομαι, ὀρχέομαι) and others that express linear movement (πέμπω, συνοδεύω, ἀκολουθέω,
διώκω, σύρω, ἄγω, φέρω). Additionally, the authors discuss verbs of oral utterance and activities in-
volving learning.
4. As a prototype of a group they discuss δίδωμι and show its subset, which consists of δωρέομαι,
μερίζω, μετρέω, κοινωνέω, χαρίζομαι. In each case definitions are provided that have not been ex-
plained. Meanings are given for μερίζω and μετρέω even though these do not affect the meanings
in the subset.
5. Unique problems of analysis are encountered when meanings of words are essentially indefinite in
extent, such as with ἡμέρα, αἰών, γενεά, καιρός, ὥρα, ἡλικία.
6. The authors contend that it is not realistic to look for precise, rigid categories, since language is not
structured like a mosaic with well-defined borders of meaning on a fixed surface. Meanings change,
are expanded or narrowed in different contexts, and fall into disuse due to changes in the culture that
uses them. Another problem arises when the close relationship of several lexemes is masked by dif-
fering translational equivalents. To illustrate this, they point to certain uses of γίνομαι, ἐπιτελέω,
ἐνίσταμαι, εἰσέρχομαι, ἥκω, ἐπακολουθέω, πληρόω, προγίνομαι, πίπτω, a series of lexemes in
which there is only one single distinctive feature of meaning—the specific event or occurrence—rep-
resented by several different lexemes, each of which has supplementary semantic features that dis-
tinguish the corresponding referents.
7. According to the authors, there are some instances which involve more than one layer of inclusion
and which do so only under special conditions. For this they cite several cases, among them ἔρχομαι
in its double sense of “to go” and “to come,” depending on the point of view. There are also clear
differences of meaning based on technical distinctions, which occurs with δικαιοσύνη when its
usage is compared in Matthew and in the letters of Paul.
8. In the case of positive/negative contrasts, they observe that it is very easy to think merely in terms
of polar contrasts, such as small/big, hot/cold, good/bad, without realizing that the contrasts are not
so simple. They continue by discussing “negativized derivatives” with the prefixes α- αν-, such as
δυνατός/ἀδύνατος. Finally, with ἀληθεύω/ψεύδομαι and εὐλογέω/καταράομαι, which refer more to
the content or affect than to the act of speaking.
9. They then discuss special problems with related meanings of different lexemes, such as inclusives
|54-P (θηρίον/λύκος or ἄνθρωπος/ἀνήρ) or religious terms (ἅγιος, καθαρός/ἀκάθαρτος, and μετανοέω).
They also point to the differences of degree (ἀγαθός, βέλτιον/κρείσσων, ἄριστος, etc.).
10. They indicate that in many cases one or more features of meaning (semes) may not always be pres-
ent in every context or that it can be uncertain if a certain feature is relevant. This implies that the
definition should often contain expressions like probably, possibly, normally, or often. As examples,
they give the definitions for ὄχλος/λαός, ἀλώπηξ, πλεονεκτέω/πλεονεξία, ὑπεραίρομαι.
11. Sometimes Louw and Nida find it hard to determine the domain in which certain meanings be-
long, such as with ὄναρ and ἐνύπνιον (“dream”), which can be considered psychological experience
or communication.
12. In the classification of meanings, they consider the most difficult to be: (1) attitudes and emotions,
and (2) moral and ethical qualities and their related behavior.
13. For those who tend to think primarily in terms of syntactic categories rather than in terms of se-
mantic classes, some domains and subdomains may appear completely anomalous. For example, in
the subdomain “purpose” there are nouns, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, idioms, and adjec-
tives (cf. τέλος, εἰς, πρός, ἕνεκεν, ἵνα, εἰκῇ, κατὰ σκοπόν, διώκω, κενός).
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 47

14. The authors classify βούλομαι and βουλεύμαι together as alternative forms of the same lexeme.
This is also true with derivatives like συμβούλαμαι and συμβούλιον and with others that have differ-
ent stems but essentially the same meaning (e. g., ἐκλέγομαι, αἱρέομαι, λαμβάνω).
15. Conscious of the limitations of this kind of dictionary, Louw and Nida conclude by saying that it
would be a grave error to think that such a lexicon, based entirely on the analysis of semantic do-
mains, could provide everything necessary to analyze the meanings of lexemes. For them, it is simply
one way to bring the problems of meaning into focus and must always be combined with the more
traditional treatment of dictionaries based on alphabetical listing and focused on the various ranges
of individual lexemes. Nevertheless, a dictionary based on semantic domains provides a new ap-
proach and new insights, especially concerning the high degree of uncertainty involved in identifying
the boundaries of meanings. Another strength of Louw and Nida’s dictionary is its recognition of a
language’s dependency on its culture.
16. For Louw and Nida, domains are classified based on (1) the existence of shared features, and (2)
the association of entities and activities. So, for example, |55-P they find it helpful to put all bodily
parts together in one domain instead of distributing them into a number of domains on the basis
of form or function. The same is true with the parts of a building.
17. For the authors there are many ways to organize the semantic domains, especially when the differ-
ences are based on somewhat “slippery” categories like values and degrees. The first criterion for
classifying domains, according to them, depends on how coherently the group of meanings reflects
the “world view” of the native speakers. In the New Testament, this is only possible to an extent.

§ 54. Having discussed the book Lexical Semantics, one can appreciate its unique
richness in details related to aspects of meaning while admitting that it lacks a
more general vision. The exposition is particularly lacking regarding (a) the organi-
zation of the primary domains and the aspects that differentiate them from each
other, and (b) the subdomains included in the main domains. Although terms that
are clearly associated can help guide the construction of domains, the semantic
link that guided the association should also be provided.
Given that the authors do not sufficiently answer the three questions posed
above (cf. §§ 52– 54), we have examined this dictionary from different points of
view in order to arrive at a critical appraisal. By way of conclusion, we have analyzed
Louw and Nida’s treatment of the lexemes in semantic domain 11, “Groups and
Classes of Persons and Members of Such Groups and Classes.” In the following sec-
tion we summarize our conclusions on the basis of the previous analysis.

2.4.2.1 Organization of the Dictionary’s Entries

§ 55. One of the most salient and efficient characteristics of L&N is its exclusive use of
semantic criteria for listing the lexeme’s various contextual meanings. On this point,
the dictionary differs radically from the Bauer series, where entries are organized al-
most exclusively based on syntactical criteria. As Lee has shown, Louw and Nida’s
|56-P disregard of syntactic structures is sometimes taken to unacceptable extremes.⁸³

 Throughout these pages we will refer to the article by J. A. L. Lee, “The United Bible Societies’
Lexicon and its Analysis of Meaning,” FNT 5 (1992): 167– 89. J. P. Louw responded to Lee’s objections
with an article entitled, “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography,” FNT 6 (1993): 139 – 48. In this
48 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

For example, ἵνα and ὅπως appear without any mention of the accompanying verbal
mood. Even prepositions are discussed as much as possible without reference to
their corresponding grammatical cases. The dictionary’s scattering of meanings is ex-
treme and the treatment of a preposition like ἐπί can leave the reader exhausted: its
meanings are dispersed in 21 different sections. In only five of them—all in domain
90 (nn. 5, 9, 23, 34, 40)—is the preposition’s case indicated. We have verified this
anomaly with other prepositions and note that the authors only begin mentioning
the cases taken by prepositions in domain 90 (cf. ἀπό, εἰς, ἐκ, etc.).
§ 56. Another example is warranted. The verb εὐνοέω, which only appears in Matt
5:25, is discussed in three different sections. In 30.23 it is defined as “to consider a
view favorably, with the intention of finding a solution”, in 31.20 as “to come to
an agreement with someone,” “to agree to, to agree with”, and in 56.3 as “to settle
a case out of court,” “to settle with.” The translation of Matt 5:25⁸⁴ in domain
31.20 (“go and agree with your accuser quickly”), and in domain 56.3 (“go settle
with your accuser quickly”), does not correspond with the verbal aspect of the imper-
ative or of the participle, which indicate duration and certainly have a conative as-
pect (i. e., “try to bring yourself into agreement with your adversary”; cf. domain
30.23, “consider how to resolve matters with your adversary quickly”).⁸⁵ |57-P

2.4.2.2 Material Cited in the Entries

§ 57. L&N does not treat texts outside the New Testament corpus (i. e., classic, koine,
papyri, LXX). This is a problematic feature, especially with regards to the LXX. But
their treatment of the New Testament can also be questioned. In each entry, often
one or two short texts are cited even though the lexeme appears more often. For ex-
ample, approximately 23 passages are cited for ἄνθρωπος, which appears 548 times
in the New Testament; eight passages are cited for ἀγαθός (104 times in the New Tes-

article Louw discusses the translation of λέγω proposed by Lee (“to give an order”) and also the sense
of the verb θέλω in Matt 26:15 and Mark 6:48 and of λέγω in Luke 9:31. Louw affirms that one of the
more difficult aspects of lexicography is to extract with accuracy the semantic features (that inher-
ently belong to the lexeme) from context in order to distinguish clearly between lexical meaning
and contextual meaning. Perhaps this difficulty is the reason that Louw and Nida’s dictionary
ends up being a dictionary of contextual meanings rather than one of lexical meanings. Louw also
recognizes (p. 143) the difficulty of determining the lexical meaning when he says, “This is indeed
one of the most difficult aspects of lexicography, namely, to extract from contexts those semantic fea-
tures that can be said to be contributed by the lexical item itself. This is easier said than done, be-
cause each demarcation can have fuzzy edges. This is basic to all classification procedures in all sci-
ences and enterprises.” In his article Louw also discusses Lee’s proposals for παρακαλέω, “to
exhort,” in 1Tim 6:2 and Tit 2:15, or “to ask for help,” in Matt 26:53; ἡγέομαι in 1Thess 5:13; ζητέω,
“to discuss, debate,” in John 16:19. Finally, he indicates several cases where Lee’s observations
seem to be sound.
 Cf. ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ.
 In 30.23, ἀντίδικος is translated as “adversary”; in 31.20 and 56.3 less accurately as “accuser.”
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 49

tament), two for ἀγαπητός (61 times in the New Testament) and two for γράφω (190
times in the New Testament). The suspicion arises that Louw and Nida have not con-
sidered all the contexts where the lexemes appear, since the full spectrum of contex-
tual meanings are often omitted. Thus, for example, the contextual meaning “com-
mand” applied to λέγω in Matt 4:3 is not given (“if you are God’s son, tell [=
command] these stones to be changed to bread”).⁸⁶ The meaning of εὑρίσκω is de-
fined as “to learn something previously not known, frequently involving an element
of surprise,” and the translational equivalents “to learn” and “to discover” are given,
but the meaning “to find” is omitted. As is the case in many dictionaries, the entry
for ἀποκρίνομαι omits the contextual meaning “to react” when the verb refers to a
preceding event or to a specific context or situation.⁸⁷ Such omissions come as little
surprise, since Louw and Nida provide a relatively reduced sampling of citations in-
stead of examining all of them and their contexts.
§ 58. Occasionally the analysis of a term is clearly deficient, as in the case of ὄνομα.
The authors discern four contextual meanings (2.175): (a) “name” (33.126), (b) “per-
son” (9.19), (c) “reputation” (33.265), and (d) “category” (58.22). However, they over-
look the contextual meanings of “surname” (“surname” does not appear in the Eng-
lish index) and “title” (but cf. ὀνομάζω in 33.127). In 33.128 the idiomatic expression
ἐπιτίθημι ὄνομα is discussed, which in Mark 3:16 (the only example cited) is translat-
ed “to Simon he gave the name Peter.” Here, however, “Peter” is a surname, analo-
gous to “Boanerges” given to the Zebedees. In 57.102 the text of Phil 2:9—in which
ὄνομα carries the sense of “title” (since it refers to “the Lord”)—is treated under
χαρίζομαι and translated as “he bestowed on him a name.” In the Greek text, the def-
inite article is used so that τὸ ὄνομα must be translated as “he bestowed on him the
name … [Lord].” |58-P

2.4.2.3 Treatment of the Lexemes

§ 59. The scattering of a lexeme’s various contextual meaning into different semantic
domains, without gathering them under one unified entry, results in the dismember-
ment of each lexeme. One must resort to the first index of the second volume to gain
a succinct overview of the lexeme as a whole. It can be claimed that L&N is not a
dictionary of lexemes and their various contextualized meanings, but rather an in-
complete dictionary of contextual meanings, since, as has been demonstrated,
these are sometimes not complete. Consequently, the definitions given to the respec-
tive contextual meanings in the various sections do not indicate the meaning of the
lexeme itself. This implies that contextual meaning is given rather than lexical mean-
ing. Despite the authors’ goal of considering the meaning of a lexeme abstractly as a
starting point, they actually begin and end with the meaning of the lexeme in con-

 Cf. J. L. Lee, “The United Bible Societies Lexicon,” 182, section “A use is not covered.”
 Cf. C. Padilla, “Sobre el verbo ἀποκρίνομαι en el Nuevo Testamento,” FNT 3 (1990): 67– 74.
50 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

text. This illustrates another instance where the praxis of Louw and Nida contradicts
the theory established in the dictionary’s introduction.

2.4.2.4 The Definitions of Meaning

§ 60. Perhaps the most important insight of L&N is its distinction between meaning
and translation, as well as the systematic use of definitions (factually, of each se-
meme) prior to translation. If, as these authors correctly affirm, meaning is constitut-
ed by a set of semes, one might expect them to identify the relevant set of semes be-
fore formulating a definition of meaning. One would also expect them to explicate
the method used to attain the set of semes and the definitions. However, as has al-
ready been noted, this is not the case and it is indeed doubtful that this has been
conducted systematically, since the authors’ definitions are often inexact and some-
what vague.⁸⁸ In spite of this, L&N marks a clear advance in comparison to BAA,
since the latter does not define meaning but only provides translational equivalents
of Greek terms in context.
§ 61. Frequently, Louw and Nida group distinct lexemes together in the same entry
and offer a single definition of meaning for all of them. Thus, the meaning of ἀπαν-
τάω, ἀπάντησις, |59-P ὑπαντάω, ὑπάντησις (15.78), is defined as “to come near and to
meet, either in a friendly or hostile sense”; the meaning of ἀφαιρέω, περιαιρέω,
καθαιρέω, λύω (13.38) as “to cause a state to cease, to do away with, to remove, to
eliminate”; the lexemes ἄνεμος, πνεῦμα, πνοή, πνέω (14.4) are defined as “air in rel-
atively rapid movement, but without specification as to the force of the movement”;
the lexemes ἀποθνῄσκω, θνῄσκω, θάνατος, νέκρωσις, ἐκψύχω (23.99) are defined as
“the process of dying.” Louw and Nida consider this grouping of lexemes to be one of
their dictionary’s advantages. Various grammatical categories can be classified to-
gether in this manner because from a semantic point of view the lexemes belong
to the same category. Although this procedure at first glance seems adequate for cat-
egorizing lexemes semantically, contrary to the claim of the authors we assert that
one definition for a noun and its corresponding verb cannot be maintained. Thus,
to cite another example, the verb εὐχαριστέω and the noun εὐχαριστία (33.349) are
defined as “to express gratitude for benefits or blessings.” Similarly, nouns are some-
times defined as if they were verbs (e. g., ἀπάντησις/ὑπάντησις, νέκρωσις, θάνατος,
εὐχαριστία), or verbs as if they were nouns (e. g., πνέω).
§ 62. Only with difficulty can these lexemes be considered synonyms. Rather, they
belong to the same semantic domain but their semic content is different and there-
fore their meaning should also be defined differently. The lexemes of the first and
second examples above (ἀπαντάω…, ἀφαιρέω) actually refer to actions (events, ac-
cording to Louw and Nida’s terminology), although grammatically they are verbs

 As J. A. L. Lee has shown for γίνομαι, χρή, ὄφελον, ἐκβάλλω, ὑπάγω, etc.; cf. Lee, “The United
Bible Societies Lexicon,” 182– 85.
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 51

or nouns. In the third group, all of the lexemes (with the exception of πνέω, “to
blow”) concern entities with associated action. In the fourth group of examples (ἀπο-
θνῄσκω, etc.), both the nouns and the verbs can denote a process and a state, de-
pending on the context and verbal form. Although the authors discount the existence
of strict synonymy, this confusing procedure of juxtaposing different lexemes in the
same entry and assigning them a single definition invites readers to view them as
synonyms.
§ 63. At times the authors group heterogeneous lexemes together in one entry. This
occurs, for example, in 67.113, where αἰφνίδιος, ἐξαίφνης, ἐξάπινα, ἐξαυτῆς, ἄφνω,
ἄρτι, and παραχρῆμα are listed together and defined as “pertaining to an extremely
short period of time between a previous state or event and a subsequent state or
event: suddenly, at once, immediately.” In parentheses is added, “in a number of
contexts there is the implication of unexpectedness, but this seems to be a derivative
of the context as a whole and not a part of the meaning of the lexical items.” In the
|60-P texts cited by the authors, αἰφνίδιος (Luke 21:34), ἐξαίφνης (Luke 2:13), and ἄφνω
(Acts 16:26) are translated as “suddenly.” In our opinion, however, two kinds of lex-
emes are confused in this case. There are those that connect two events by referring
to a brief temporal interval between them (relation of immediacy). These include
παραχρῆμα and ἐξαυτῆς, which should have been included in 67.53 with εὐθύς
and εὐθέως.⁸⁹ In addition, there are also adverbs that do not connect two actions,
but instead refer to action occurring unexpectedly in a situation or influencing it.
The lexemes αἰφνίδιος, ἐξαίφνης, ἐξάπινα and ἄφνω belong to this category and
the semantic feature “unexpectedness” is not contextual, but lexemic. With regards
to ἄρτι, which connects an action and a temporal specification, the lexeme denotes a
definite time and connotes a speaker.⁹⁰

2.4.2.5 Translational Equivalents

§ 64. The translational equivalents proposed by Louw and Nida sometimes suffer
from imprecision. Moreover, although Louw and Nida stress the difference between
translating and interpreting a text, they sometimes lose sight of this, as can be dem-
onstrated by a few examples. When discussing the idiomatic expression ἐπικαλεόμαι
τὸ ὄνομα τινος ἐπὶ τινα (11.28), two passages are cited where this phrase is thought to
appear. In the first case, however, (Acts 9:14, πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομα
σου), the complement ἐπὶ τινα does not actually appear and simply means “to call
upon someone’s name.” Louw and Nida translate this as “[to put in prison] all

 The interpretation of εὐθύς in the texts cited by Louw and Nida (67.53), Mark 1:29 and 1:21b, is
flawed because it does not correctly identify the antecedent and the consequent that are brought to-
gether by the adverb; cf. J. Mateos, “εὐθύς y sinónimos en el Evangelio de Marcos y demás escritos del
Nuevo Testamento,” In Cuestiones de Gramática y Léxico, Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 2 (Madrid:
Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977), 105 – 39.
 Cf. J. Mateos and J. Peláez, “El adverbio ἄρτι en el Nuevo Testamento,” FNT 8 (1995): 84– 94.
52 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

those who are your people (literally, ‘all those upon whom your name is called’),”
even though this passage does not deal with “calling/invoking someone’s name
upon another,” but simply with “calling upon the name of God.” In the other case
(Acts 15:17), the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ’ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά ἐπ’ αὐτούς (lit-
erally translated as “all the nations upon whom my name has been called”) the
translations “all the nations who belong to me” or “all the nations whom I have
called |61-P to be my own” are suggested. A more literal translation, however, would
be “all the nations that already bear my name.” Often L&N seems rather to offer a
theological interpretation instead of a translation. If the objective of a dictionary is
to propose translations that correspond to the Greek text, then it is difficult to accept
Louw and Nida’s suggestion for Acts 9:14, “to put in prison all those who are your
people” (δῆσαι πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου). This is not a translation
but rather an interpretation or contextual deduction that is unnecessarily distant
from the text.
§ 65. In similar fashion, in Domain 11.15 they translate αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί as “all of the
people of God.” In 11.13 they propose translating the expression υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας as
“people of God’s kingdom, God’s people.” Translating υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας as “God’s
people” could be a conclusion based on exegetical analysis, but it cannot serve as
a translation. As an idiomatic expression, this paralexeme could be translated as
“citizens” or “recipients of the kingdom,” that is, those who belong to the kingdom
or would be taken up into it. Similarly, they suggest translating υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός as
“sons of the light, people of God.” The translation “sons of the light” is slavishly lit-
eral and betrays the sense, but “people of God” is truly unfortunate because it con-
fuses exegesis with translation and eliminates any connection with the extremely im-
portant symbol of light. The phrase would be better translated simply as “those who
are illuminated, those who are in the light.” “People of God” is offered as a possible
translation for terms as distinct as λαός (11.12), υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός / τῆς ἡμέρας, τέκνα
φωτός (11.14), αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί (11.15), οἱ ἅγιοι (11.27). We do not deny that in specific
contexts these terms can refer to the people of God, but translation and reference—as
Louw and Nida rightly say in the introduction of the dictionary—should not be con-
fused.
§ 66. The translation given by Louw and Nida in 11.18 for Phil 3:15, “all of us who are
initiated into this faith should have this same attitude” (ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρο-
νῶμεν, cf. Col 1:28), seems inexact. As the authors noted in the same discussion, the
most probable meaning for τέλειος is “mature, grown up, one who has achieved a
goal” (cf. 88.100) that was “begun” (cf. 1Cor 2:6; 3:1– 2). A more appropriate transla-
tion would therefore be “all mature [Christians] should have this way of thinking.”
The fact that the dictionary’s primary target group is translators of the New Testa-
ment could explain why the authors are more interested in exegesis and interpretive
clarification of terms and phrases than in supplying mere translations. |62-P
 2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary 53

2.4.2.6 Lexemes and Paralexemes

§ 67. In contrast to other dictionaries, Louw and Nida examine paralexemes (phrasal
lexemes) as if they were lexemes (e. g., υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός, υἱοὶ τῆς ἡμέρας, 11.14) and
sometimes include idiomatic expressions and possible set phrases (e. g., ἐπικαλεόμαι
τὸ ὄνομα τινος ἐπί τινα, 11.28) as lemmata. It would rather have been advisable to
supply paralexemes under their predominant term (as is traditionally done), or at
least to supply references to the subdomain(s) where they are located. Another
flaw of Louw and Nida’s dictionary is that idiomatic expressions are the only type
of phrases dealt with, which they assign to a corresponding domain, often distinct
from the domain of the predominant lexeme.

2.4.2.7 Practicability
§ 68. This dictionary’s practice of distributing contextual meanings over distinct en-
tries proves to be an obstacle for the user, as has already been noted. In order to un-
pack a lexeme’s various contextual nuances and meanings, the reader must first con-
sult the indexes in the second volume, which supply the particular locations of the
lexemes within the semantic domains. One then has to consult the first volume and
look up the meaning at the corresponding locations. For example, the distinct mean-
ings of λαός are found in the following domains and subdomains:

a: nation .
b: people of God .
c: crowd .
d: common people .

While the three primary contextual meanings are found in semantic domain 11,
“Groups and Classes of Persons and Members of Such Groups and Classes,” a fourth
is found in domain 87, “Status.” For the contextual meanings of ὀφθαλμός the reader
must turn to twelve different entries, including some referring to idiomatic expres-
sions; sixteen in the case καρδία, eleven for ὡς, sixteen for ψυχή, thirteen for
λόγος. The number of entries increases in the study of prepositions: there are
forty-two entries for εἰς and twenty-five for ἐκ. As a consequence, the dictionary is
not easy to use. To improve the usability, it would have been better to combine
two aspects: (1) to gather all the contextual meanings in one entry, as it is done in
traditional dictionaries, and (2) to refer from here to a second |63-P volume dedicated
to the organization of the semantic domains. Without doubt, it is instructive to see
how a lexeme’s different contextual meanings frequently scatter into diverse do-
mains, but this should not be done at the cost of practicality. Louw and Nida, how-
ever, prefer to present the dictionary in this befuddling manner. What’s more, Lee’s
suggestion that the dictionary be reconstructed in alphabetical order is viewed by
54 Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament

Louw as out of touch, since the dictionary is structured based on semantic do-
mains.⁹¹
Summary: With this we conclude our analysis of the dictionaries of the New Tes-
tament. Despite our criticism of Zorell’s dictionary and of the Bauer series, one
should not underestimate the ability of these veterans of New Testament lexicogra-
phy. Their work was done at a time when morphology and syntax, rather than se-
mantics, grabbed the imagination of linguists. One must also bear in mind that with-
out a precise semantic theory it is difficult to conceive lexical meaning clearly, and
even more so to explain it properly. For its part, L&N deserves recognition as the pio-
neer in the realm of semantics applied to lexicography and, because of this, for hav-
ing blazed a new trail. It is regrettable that the authors did not systematically apply
the theoretical principles that they so clearly and brilliantly explained in the intro-
duction to the dictionary. But thanks to Louw and Nida, the path has been smoothed
for new explorers of lexicography to apply more systematically to New Testament lex-
icography the principles sounded by these two scholars. |64-P

 Cf. J. P. Louw, “Analysis of Meaning,” 140. Louw states, “Lee’s call for L[&]N to be recast in alpha-
betical order … shows insensitivity to the fact that L[&]N is a semantic domain dictionary.” However,
the electronic version of this dictionary has resolved this problem by offering each of the contextual
meanings within the particular entry for the various lexeme under consideration.
PART II A Theory of Semantic Analysis
(Juan Mateos)
Chapter 3: Introduction¹TN
3.1 Goals and Purpose

§ 69. The scope of composing a bilingual Greek-Spanish Dictionary limited to the cor-
pus of the New Testament has dimensions that can be realistically carried out. As is
generally known, every dictionary is based on the study of words in context, within
the spoken or written corpus being considered. The Greek of the New Testament has
a certain unity due to the dominant theme that concerns the figure, the activity, and
the doctrine of Jesus, and, in the second place, due to certain common categories in-
herited from the Jewish culture. The question of whether or not a language consti-
tutes a more or less closed system is (in this particular case) not of primary concern,
since the corpus that we have chosen has already been established and the time in-
terval between its first and last writings, which does not even span one hundred
years, allows for sufficient synchrony.
§ 70. In composing a dictionary, the fundamental task consists in determining the
meanings of words. If one attempts to produce a new dictionary rather than translat-
ing or adapting an already existing dictionary, one must face the challenge of how to
carry out the lexicographical analysis. It is obvious that such an endeavor does not
begin from scratch. There are, indeed, concordances for the language of the New Tes-
tament and existing bibliographies about the diverse terms. Various authors have sys-
tematized this data into dictionaries and achieved valuable syntheses. One should
mention the unquestionable value of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testa-
ment, which first looks at the Hebrew equivalents of terms and then at their usage
in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature.
§ 71. The reasons for endeavoring to develop a new dictionary are numerous. In the
first place, since there is not currently²TN a Greek-Spanish dictionary of the New Testa-
ment, students must resort to others in which the “output” language is English,
Latin, or German. Given that every language constitutes a particular system of oppo-
sitions and that two linguistic systems cannot be superimposed on each other, pass-
ing through an intermediate language inevitably leads to deformity, or at least to an
impoverishment, leaving |1-M key resources untapped that would come to light if the
original Greek were translated directly into Spanish. To profit from these dictionaries,
students would need a mastery of a foreign language to the point of being able to
appreciate the tiny nuances or apparent connotations that are clear to native speak-
ers. This alone would justify composing a dictionary, but there are other more impor-

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to the introduction and chapter 1, pp. 1– 16 in the
original text of Mateos.
 Translator’s Note: cf., however, Amador Ángel García Santos, Diccionario del Griego Bíblico: Se-
tenta y Nuevo Testamento, Instrumentos para el studio de la Biblia 21 (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2011) and
the review by David du Toit in Gnomon 86.8 (2014): 691– 95.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-009
58 Chapter 3: Introduction

tant reasons as well. Linguistics has advanced greatly in the last years and semantic
studies have multiplied. It is now possible to produce a dictionary in a more system-
atic and rigorous manner than in the past. If a technique of analysis is established,
greater precision can be achieved, and the consideration of semantic domains brings
out the distinct nuances of each lexeme in the corpus.

3.2 Preliminary Overview of the Method

§ 72. The method that we propose contains some aspects that are borrowed and some
aspects that are original. The systematization made by A. J. Greimas in the first part
of his work Sémantique structural ³ is of great help and opens new horizons for se-
mantic analysis. His theory about the semic nucleus and the diverse figures of speech
that can represent the same nucleus has been very fruitful. Moreover, the distinction
between nuclear and contextual semes provided a solid base for establishing the
fundamental meaning of a lexeme and its different contextual meanings. Some de-
ficiencies, however, are found in Greimas’s exposition. In the first place, a lack of
a procedure for establishing the semic nucleus can be detected. The necessary meth-
odological steps for systematically discovering a lexeme’s nuclear semes are not ex-
plicated in the work. In fact, the few analyses he offers concern exceptional cases of
meaning—such as the example of tête (“head”). It can be said that the basic sense is
not analyzed. The same occurs with the theory of “classemes,” which deals almost
entirely with gender.
In the second place, the work’s approach causes its analyses (tête, “head,” pren-
dre, “take,” donner, “give”) to have only relative usefulness for scholars of a lan-
guage. Greimas’s fundamental intention seems to be to find techniques for mechan-
ical translation. For this he claims to achieve a level of abstraction that enables the
mechanical translator to attain all possible combinations shared between the simple,
common items of two languages. |2-M Since such a method did not prove helpful for
developing a dictionary, it was necessary to look for a formalized procedure that
would help develop an understandable and practica didactic method for all those
that are interested in the matter. Thus, the question of how to establish the necessary
steps for determining a lexeme’s inherent nuclear semes on the semiotic level (i. e.,
langue) was raised.
§ 73. Several works of E. A. Nida contributed to this task.⁴ Acknowledging previous
studies, Nida establishes four semantic classes, which include “object,” “abstract,”

 A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structural (París: Larousse, 1966) (ET Structural Semantics: An Attempt at
a Method, trans. Daniel McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie, intro. Ronald Schliefer [Lincoln/
London: University of Nebraska Press, 1983]).
 E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1974); E. A. Nida,
Exploring Semantic Structures (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1975), and E. A. Nida, Componential
Analysis of Meaning (Paris: La Haya, 1975).
 3.2 Preliminary Overview of the Method 59

“event,” and “relation/relationals.”⁵ For our part, we prefer to label these classes as
“entity,” “attribute,” “event,” and “relation.” According to this classification, words
or lexemes can be classified based on their meaning into semantic classes that differ
from grammatical ones. However, Nida’s classification lacks the class “determina-
tion,”⁶TN which is used frequently in language and is necessary for the classification
of terms and for the interpretation of texts. Nida also expresses uncertainty about
how to classify the article and he does not deal with the different kinds of determi-
nation.⁷
One of Nida’s merits is his observation about the existence of terms that simul-
taneously relate to multiple semantic classes. Such are, for example, familial terms,
like “son,” “father,” (they relate to the classes of entity and relation), terms that
imply an entity and an attribute, an entity and an event, and even more complex
terms that can include three classes (“teacher”: entity + attribute + event). At this
point, however, Nida abandons the analysis of the terms to concentrate on the ana-
lysis of discourse. Although in Componential Analysis of Meaning he analyzes rele-
vant terms from particular domains of language (kinship, verbs for whispering,
verbs for singing, etc.), he does not connect this analysis with his theory of semantic
classes.
§ 74. The method that we propose begins with the definition of semantic classes (and
includes determination; cf. §§ 99 – 100, 139 – 47). On this foundation, the semantic
formulas of terms are established based on whether they refer to one or more seman-
tic classes. In this way, certain paradigms for determining semantic formulas can be
reached. The semantic formula is the starting point for the development of the semic
nucleus of a term. Introducing this step between the lexeme and its |3-M semic devel-
opment presents two advantages. First, by accurately defining the elements that
comprise the formula, one can identify the specific semantic domain where the clus-
ter of semes are to be located while avoiding the dispersion of meaning into several
domains and an incomplete analysis. Second, in order to arrive at paradigmatic for-
mulas that apply to various lexemes, it is helpful to form semantic domains by sub-
stituting semes or by expanding the formula to integrate new elements.⁸TN
To deduce the formula’s primary nuclear semes, the analysis continues from the
semantic classes by finding semantic correspondence for the grammatical categories
(i. e., gender, number, mode, tense, aspect, voice; §§ 174– 203). According to the con-

 Nida, Componential Analysis, 37. In Nida’s terminology, these are called “semantic classes” and are
contrasted with the “grammatical classes” or “parts of speech.” Cf. the discussion of L&N in § 48.
 Translator’s Note: The Spanish authors recognize the novelty of their use of the term “determi-
nation” and view it as a positive advance.
 Cf. Nida, Exploring Semantic Structures, 154.
 Translator’s Note: this is discussed in sections §§ 71 and 74 of this chapter. In the latter of the
two, the author states that by comparing semantic categories, “the first semes belonging to its nu-
cleus appear. Together these constitute a generic nucleus, which is common to numerous lexemes.”
See also § 298 and the examples in §§ 341 and 344.
60 Chapter 3: Introduction

text of the analysis, the semantic categories are applied to lexemic and morphemic
levels, and also to contextual and syntagmatic levels. By applying the semantic cat-
egories to the elements that constitute the lexeme’s formula (lexemic level), the pri-
mary semes that belong to its nucleus appear. Together these primary semes consti-
tute a generic nucleus, which is common to numerous lexemes. The addition of
specific semes gives reason for composing generic, more or less limited semantic do-
mains. The comparison of related lexemes makes it possible to determine each lex-
eme’s specific, distinct semes and to construct its complete semic nucleus fairly ac-
curately. In this way, the elements that comprise the lexeme at the semiotic level
(i. e., langue) are obtained, and based on these elements one is able to compose
the definition(s) of meaning.
The last step, proceeding to the semantic level (i. e., parole), consists of the anal-
ysis of each lexeme in context (cf. §§ 297– 306). If the focus is on a limited corpus like
the New Testament, it is important (ideally) to examine every instance where a term
is used and to establish its lexemic domain, that is to say, the various contextual
meanings (sememes) that are formed from the semic nucleus based on the different
contexts or syntagms in which it is interwoven. At this point, by applying the seman-
tic categories to the morphemic level, one determines whether the contextual semes
are categorical (classemes) or peripheral (occasional semes) based on the relations
that the lexeme establishes with other aspects of the syntagm (see §§ 88 – 90).
§ 75. The method that we have outlined has the advantage of incorporating both
componential and definitional (also called contextual) analysis. The method first
identifies the semantic features that form and characterize a specific lexeme
(semes). When the semes are identified by means of componential analysis, circular
|4-M definitions are avoided. Also, since componential analysis does not depend on
the syntagmatic contextual relations of lexemes, their various contextual meanings
should be determined. Once the componential analysis has been completed, the def-
initional or contextual analysis may be performed. Sememes pertain only to linguis-
tic reality (because lexemes are abstractions), making it necessary for componential
analysis to be complemented by a contextual analysis. Definitional analysis takes the
morphemic elements and the syntagmatic relations into account. If this aspect of the
analysis worked in isolation from componential analysis, lexemes would be viewed
as simple units, which would make it very difficult to explain synonyms and distinct
elements accurately. By working in a complementary manner, contextual analysis
enables a lexeme’s living reality to be captured while at the same time confirming,
completing, or correcting the previous componential analysis.
§ 76. A method of analysis must meet three conditions if it is to be effective, namely,
(1) clarity, (2) functionality, (3) efficiency.
Clarity: If the purpose of the method is to explain the sense of a word or a text
with accuracy, then a murky and complicated method is an obstacle rather than a
help. Instead of facilitating the interpretation, the method itself would need to be in-
terpreted. The concepts must therefore be clear, the steps of the analysis must be pre-
 3.3 Concepts and Terminology 61

cise, practical, and well ordered, and the examples sufficient so that the person try-
ing to apply the method is able to obtain results independently.
Functionality: A method is functional if it complies with the principle of economy
or profitability and achieves the purpose it set out to accomplish. Therefore (without
claiming from the outset to resolve all problems), the selection of subjects treated,
the theoretical exposition, the classifications and terminology, and the grades of ab-
straction that are used will be essential in order to fully understand the terms and
their differences. Distinctions could be multiplied indefinitely and exceptions or par-
ticular cases could fill paragraph after paragraph. The intended goal must always be
kept in focus, since it helps guide the theoretical systematization, which must be suf-
ficient and ample, but not excessive.
Efficiency: The model’s efficiency is its touchstone and the criterion for judging
its validity. If the analysis obtains verifiable results from the text about the meaning
of terms and the relations between them, then we have established an efficient meth-
od. This text will try to explain the steps that seem indispensable for accomplishing
semantic analysis. The subject is not considered closed or |5-M exhausted. We are sure
that this method of analysis will lead to greater precision and to a system that com-
plements previous ones.

3.3 Concepts and Terminology

§ 77. Semantic analysis is concerned with the meaning of words or lexemes, with their
semantic relations, and with the semantic structure of a text. The present method
treats the first of these three aspects in particular.

3.3.1 Lexeme

§ 78. The term “lexeme” refers to lexical units that have an independent semantic nu-
cleus. Not all words that constitute a text are lexemes. Some, although rare, lack an
independent semantic nucleus:

“I wish that you would come”

“I take a break from reading.”

3.3.1.1 Morpholexeme
§ 79. A morpholexeme is a lexical unit (with a semantic nucleus) that is not used in-
dependently, but is always linked with a lexeme that could be used independently.⁹TN

 Translator’s Note: It is helpful to observe that, according to paragraph § 79 of this chapter, mor-
pholexemes are simply equated with prepositions and conjunctions.
62 Chapter 3: Introduction

This is the case with certain particles whose meaning partially depends on the ac-
companying autonomous lexeme. This can be observed in the following phrases:

“leave me, since I have lots to do”

“he has come from Paris.”

Here, the particles have meanings of cause and origin, and this situates them in the
category of lexemes. To this class of lexemes (morpholexemes) belong the particles
“for,” “to,” “without,” “but,” etc. The designation “morpholexeme” describes their
nature: they are morphemes because they do not appear independently, and they
are lexemes because they have a semantic content. In the semantic classes, the fol-
lowing lexemes or morpholexemes can be found:

Entity: house, man, table (lexemes)

Attribute: big, old, red (lexemes)
Event: walking, going (lexemes)
Relation: causality (lexeme), without, but (morpholexemes)
Determination: name (lexeme); the, these (morpholexemes). |6-M

3.3.1.2 Paralexeme
§ 80. Paralexemes (figures of speech/idiomatic expressions) are lexemes formed
through an expression whose meaning does not result from adding each of the mean-
ings of the components. They are, therefore, semantic units whose meaning tran-
scends the particular components from which they are comprised, such as “red her-
ring,” “kick the bucket,” “in full swing,”¹⁰TN υἱοὶ φωτός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

3.3.1.3 Lexeme and Root

§ 81. A lexeme differs from its root (an etymological concept rather than a semantic
one) in that it has a broader scope. For example, in the series justice, just, judge, jus-
tifying, to justify or δίκη, δίκαιος, δικαιόω, δικαιοσύνη, all the terms, respectively, are
derived from the same root but constitute different lexemes. The identification of a
root will occur in most cases when the derivatives have common semantic elements,
but the different elements in each case produce a distinct semantic nucleus for the
particular lexemes.

 Translator’s Note: These three English examples are drawn from Lyons (Semantics, 1:23), since
the Spanish paralexemes carry no special significance in English. Lyons explains paralexemes, viz.
phrasal lexemes as phrases which are defined as independent entries in dictionaries.
 3.3 Concepts and Terminology 63

3.3.1.4 Lexemes and Cases of Inflection

§ 82. The cases of inflection (nominal or verbal) do not change a lexeme’s semantic
nucleus. The forms that result from inflection do not, therefore, constitute different
lexemes: I say, I was saying, I said, I have said, λέγω, ἔλεγον, εἶπον, εἴρηκα.
These are forms of the same lexeme. In languages with nominal inflection, such
as Greek, the same principle applies to nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and participles.
For example, ἀγαθός, ἀγαθοῦ, and ἀγαθόν are forms of the same lexeme. Considered
abstractly, it is unimportant whether a lexeme is designated by one or another of its
forms. To be sure, Greek lexemes with nominal inflection (λευκός, ἀληθής) are cus-
tomarily listed in the nominative singular, and those that have verbal inflection in
the first person present indicative (e. g., ἵστημι, λαλέω, πληρόω). |7-M
§ 83. The so-called cases of nominal or verbal inflection associated with the lexeme
produce contextual semes (classemes of gender, number, tense, aspect, and voice),
thereby actualizing aspects of their semantic potential in context. We call these as-
pects that influence meaning “morphemes.”¹¹

3.3.2 Semes

§ 84. Semes can be defined as the elementary units of meaning into which a lexeme
can be reduced. Although a lexeme is a single unit, in reality it results from the com-
bination of a certain number of characteristic features, each of which is dissimilar
from the other. For this reason, the definition of a lexeme is formulated in light of
the set of the semes that comprise it. Each seme is a carrier of meaning, viz. is an
elementary meaning-bearing unit that can take part in the composition of diverse lex-
emes. A lexeme’s meaning, therefore, is not comprised of isolated semes, but of
semes that are conjoined, arranged, and pertain to a system of networks.

3.3.2.1 Semic Nucleus

§ 85. The cluster of semes that determines a lexeme’s identity is called “nuclear
semes.” This cluster of semes constitutes the semic nucleus of the lexeme in ques-
tion. For example, if we analyze the lexeme “person” in the context of classical phi-
losophy, we would be able to break it down into the following semes: human being,
living, animate, rational. This group of semes, which is inherent and exclusive to the
lexeme “person,” constitutes its nuclear semes. In other words, these comprise the
semic nucleus of the lexeme “person.”

 Other authors define “morpheme” in strictly grammatical terms (as opposed to semantic ones).
We will pass over this question, which does not have bearing on the present analysis.
64 Chapter 3: Introduction

3.3.2.2 Nuclear Configuration

§ 86. Considering the nuclear semes that belong to the lexeme “person,” it can be
seen that they are not arranged randomly but in a specific order that forms a
chain. The reason is that some semes presuppose others and there is a hierarchy
among them: rationality presupposes animate, which presupposes living, etc. The hi-
erarchical organization follows criteria of presupposition or implication (priority or
dependence) and gives the semic nucleus (cluster |8-M of nuclear semes) a specific
configuration, which can be called a nuclear configuration. The meaning of a lexeme
does not depend solely on the semes (considered independently) that comprise it,
nor solely on their particular cluster (their semic nucleus), but also on the particular
manner in which the nuclear semes are organized (nuclear configuration).

3.3.2.3 Generic Contextual Semes (Classemes)

§ 87. Contextual semes that are called “classemes”¹² are defined according to their
consistency, that is, based on their regular presence in context, and according to
their iterative character, that is, not solely according to one lexeme but based on sev-
eral lexemes, according to syntactic units that transcend single lexemes and there-
fore affect not only the lexeme but also the syntagms in which they occur.¹³TN Class-
emes are semantic categories that are derived from grammatical categories (i. e.,
mode, tense, aspect, voice, gender and number). The application of these categories
is the first step for the analysis of a lexeme in context.

3.3.2.4 Occasional Contextual Semes

§ 88. There are contextual semes that do not depend on the semantic categories but
on the relations that a lexeme establishes with other lexemes in a syntagm. Semes
that can be systematized at least in part according to certain semantic axes are called
occasional or peripheral semes, respectively.

 So B. Pottier, Linguistique génerále (Paris: Klincksieck, 1974) and A. J. Greimas, Structural Seman-
tics. Pottier’s book on general linguistics has been translated into Spanish but not English; cf. Lingüís-
tica general: teoría y descripción, Biblioteca románica hispánica 246 (Madrid: Gredos, 1977).
 Translator’s Note: This is a somewhat vague explanation. Essentially, classemes are semantic
categories that are derived from grammatical categories, both of which are discussed in §§ 203 and
215. For example, the “gender” of the classemes is established based on its “iterative character”
and “not solely according to one lexeme” (to quote the author’s terminology), since there are various
ways to specify a lexeme’s gender.
 3.4 Grammar and Semantics 65

3.3.3 Sememe

§ 89. A sememe, which corresponds to “contextual meaning” of classical lexicogra-

phy, is the result of additions to the semic nucleus and/or of changes made in the
lexeme’s nucleus or in its nuclear configuration by classemes and occasional
semes. A sememe, however, is formed in theory by all or some of the nuclear
semes that comprise a given lexeme plus its contextual semes. The sememe has a
meaning that is more specific than that of the abstract lexeme. Occasionally, se-
memes have meanings that differ from their abstract lexemes.
§ 90. A clear example of modifications of a semic nucleus in context, caused by the
omission of semes, is that which occurs in paralexemes (cf. § 80). If, for example,
one considers animality a seme of “flesh,” then the seme of animality is neutralized
in the expression “to flesh something out.” For this reason, the individual components
of paralexemes cannot be analyzed separately. A lexeme situated in context, howev-
er, contains certain constants |9-M (at least relatively) and certain variables. The con-
stants are the semes that belong to the nucleus and the variables are the semes pro-
duced by context. Thus, a lexeme’s meaning is only an abstraction and provides a
basis for meaning in discourse. Even this basis can be modified by the impact of
the syntagms in which the lexeme is used. |10-M

3.4 Grammar and Semantics

§ 91. As an introduction to the chapters that follow we shall succinctly compare

grammatical and semantic principles and then establish a technical terminology.
First of all, one must emphasize the distinction between grammatical structure,
which is based on morphology and syntax, and semantic structure, which is based
on meaning. The relationship between these two is complex. On the one hand, the
same surface structure can express various semantic structures (principle of econo-
my); on the other hand, the same semantic structure can be achieved in various ways
on the surface level (principle of expressiveness).

3.4.1 Grammatical and Semantic Classes

§ 92. In my opinion, grammatical classes correspond to the so called “parts of

speech,” which are distinguished as the main parts of speech (noun and verb), sec-
ondary parts of speech (adjective and adverb), by relations (prepositions and con-
junctions) and by the auxiliaries (article and pronoun). From another point of
view, they can be divided into syntactic classes (noun, adjective, verb, adverb, prep-
osition, and conjunction), into semantic classes (pronoun), and into functional
66 Chapter 3: Introduction

classes (article).¹⁴ This division has the drawback of inserting the term “semantic”
into the field of grammar and applying it exclusively to pronouns.
§ 93. Semantic classes (cf. § 102), however, are based on infra-linguistic concepts that
break down a global, intuitive perception of reality. Individuals experience the world
in which they find themselves. They express themselves from their point of view in
order to orient and to situate themselves in it. For this they classify and name entities
(things) and events (states, actions, processes), both of which are described by
means of attributes (quality, quantity) rooted in established relations. These are ac-
tualized, situated, and objectified in time and space, for which we use the term de-
termination.
§ 94. “Denomination” and “classification,” therefore, refer to the |11-M entities (name-
able persons or things: tree, house, store, cat, child, god, etc.). Entities can be descri-
bed in three ways:
a) with Attributes: properties, qualities, modalities that are attributed to the other
classes (large, good, red);
b) with Events: states, activities, or processes in which entities can actively or
passively participate (to sleep, to be, to walk);
c) with Relations: linkage that is established between the previous classes and
affects the meaning (causality, instrumentality, finality, identity, similarity, posses-
sion, location, etc.).
Determination serves to actualize, identify, situate, and objectify these in time
and space (cf. § 73).

3.4.2 Semantic Classes

§ 95. The semantic classes do not correspond completely to the grammatical classes.
Entity (Ent), for example, covers a narrower field than nouns, because some nouns
do not refer to entities but to attributes. Thus, if nouns denote a quality (e. g., beauty,
height), they belong to the class of attributes (A). If they denote a state or an action
(e. g., stop, rest, walk, greeting, departure) they belong to the class of events (Ev). If
they denote localization or possession (e. g., nearness, distance, allegiance) they be-
long to the class of relations (R). Other non-abstract nouns, such as “name” and
“nickname,” could belong to the class of determination (D). The same occurs in
the Greek of the New Testament, since many abstract nouns denote attributes or
events. Examples of such attributes (A) might include καινότης, “newness” (Rom
6:4); ἀκαθαρσία, “impurity” (Rom 6:19); ἁπλότης, “simplicity,” “generosity” (Rom
12:8); κακία, “wickedness” (1Cor 5:8); δικαιοσύνη, “righteousness” (Matt 5:6). Ab-
stract nouns denoting events (Ev) might include ἁμαρτία, “sin” (Mark 1:4);

 Cf. Marcos Marín, Aproximación a la Gramática Española, 3rd ed. (Madrid: Cincel, 1978), 108, fol-
lowing Bello, Amado Alonso, Henríquez Ureña, and Gili Gaya.
 3.4 Grammar and Semantics 67

μετάνοια, “repentance” (Mark 1:4); θάνατος, “death” (Rom 5:12); ἐπιθυμία, “desire”
(Rom 7:8); ἀποκάλυψις, “revelation” (Rom 8:19); ἐλευθερία, “freedom”; φθορά,
“ruin” (Rom 8:21); παράκλησις, “consolation” (Rom 12:8); φιλαδελφία, “brotherly
love” (Rom 12:10); ὀργή, “wrath” (Rom 12:19); εἰρήνη, “peace” (Eph 2:15); νίκη, “vic-
tory” (1John 5:4); οἰκονομία, “administration” (Luke 16:31).
§ 96. Attributes (A) correspond grammatically to adjectives and adverbs; thus,
ἀγαθός, “good”; πονηρός, “evil”; τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας, “the sick ones” (Mark 1:32);
ἐσχάτως ἔχειν, “to be at the end” (Mark 5:23); νουνεχῶς ἀποκρίνεσθαι, “to respond
intelligently” (Mark 12:34). |12-M In some languages, attributes appear as nominal or
verbal expressions: “in a group,” “with gestures,” “without limit,” “full bodied,” “ac-
cording to custom,” “about to die.” In Greek, this often occurs with the genitive (with
or without the article): ῥῆμα τῆς δυνάμεως, “powerful word” (Heb 1:3); τὰ πνευμα-
τικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, “the evil spiritual beings” (Eph 6:12); τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, “obedient
children” (1Pet 1:14); ὁ κύριος … τῆς δόξης, “the glorious Lord” (Jas 2:1); γεέννα
τοῦ πυρός, “fiery place” (Matt 18:9); τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως, “the lowly body”
(Phil 3:21); τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, “the sinful body” (Rom 6:6); τὸ σῶμα τῆς
σαρκός, “the carnal body” (Col 1:22); σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, “chosen instrument” (Acts
9:15); κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας, “unjust judge” (Luke 18:6); καρδία ἀπιστίας, “unbeliev-
ing/unfaithful heart” (Heb 3:12); πάθη ἀτιμίας, “dishonorable passions” (Rom
1:26); ῥίζα πικρίας, “embittered/poisonous root” (Heb 12:15). Sometimes this also oc-
curs with nominal expressions: διδαχὴ … κατ’ ἐξουσίαν, “authoritative teaching”
(Mark 1:27).
§ 97. Events (Ev) (states, activities, or processes) are normally expressed with verbs:
ἔρχεται, “goes”; ποιεῖ, “does”; τρέχει, “runs”; καθεύδει, “sleeps”; but also with
nouns (verbals or abstracts, see § 95); πίστις, “faith/faithfulness”; ὑπομονή, “endur-
ance” (Luke 8:15); σεισμός, “earthquake” (Acts 6:12); εὐαγγέλιον, “good news” (Mark
1:1).
§ 98. Relations (R) are expressed with prepositions (in Greek also with nominal in-
flection): μετὰ τῶν θερίων, “among the animals” (Mark 1:13); πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν,
“towards the sea” (Mark 4:1); χωρὶς νόμου, “without/apart from the law” (Rom
3:21); ἡ οἰκία τοῦ πατρός, “the house/family of the Father” (John 14:2). Relations
are also communicated by means of prepositional phrases (equivalent to a preposi-
tion): “according to,” “in accordance with,” “in compliance with,” “by means of,”
“with respect to,” “with regards to,” which are less common in Greek (but, cf. πρὸ
προσώπου σου, “before/in front of you” [Mark 1:2]). Some compound prepositions
occur in Greek: ἐναντίον, “facing” (Luke 1:6); κατέναντι, “before” (Mark 11:2). Rela-
tions are also communicated by conjunctions or conjunctional phrases: γάρ, “for”;
δέ, ἀλλά, “but”; ὥστε, “so that”; ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ, “in order to accuse
him” (Mark 3:2); ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν, “in order to destroy him” (Mark 11:18),
εἰ καί “despite”; οὖν, “as a result”; οὕτως οὖν, “for this reason” (Luke 14:33), ἐφ’
ᾧ (causal) “therefore” (Rom 5:12); διὰ μέσου, “in between” (Luke 4:30), etc. In the
Greek of the New Testament, compound conjunctions are quite common: διότι
(Luke 1:13), καθώς (Mark 1:2), καθάπερ (Rom 3:4). |13-M Some abstract nouns express
68 Chapter 3: Introduction

a relation, and many of these clarify the semantic content of the morpholexemes
(prepositions or conjunctions): “finality,” “causality,” “necessity,” “similarity,” “dif-
ference.”
§ 99. Determination or actualization serves to situate a lexeme in time and space and
to specify the person being referred to. It ensures the possibility of referring unequiv-
ocally to the actual and particular.¹⁵ According to Coseriu,¹⁶ “situation” is the set of
circumstances and spatial-temporal relations that are created by the very fact that
someone speaks (with someone and about something) in a particular location and
moment of time. This is achieved by using the determiners “here” and “now,”
“this” and “that,” “now” and “then,” which enable an individual to be an “I” and
others to become “you,” “he,” etc. This is the spatial and temporal dimension of dis-
course, created by the discourse itself and from the perspective of the speaker.
Determination is frequently associated with other semantic classes and is there-
fore a critical part of the semantic analysis of lexemes. There are, moreover, lexemes
or morpholexemes that are determiners, among them the definite article (“the”), the
demonstrative adjectives (“this,” “these,” “that,” “those,” etc.) and other quantifiers
(“very,” “all,” “none”), including the numerals (“one,” “two,” etc.). Given the fre-
quency and importance of the definite article, it is helpful to make a few further re-
marks about it. In addition to actualizing it also distinguishes a person or thing from
others. It is called “anaphoric” when it refers to a term that was already mentioned in
the discourse. Nonetheless, without specifically appearing in the discourse, the arti-
cle often refers to entities known in the situation or culture. Therefore, the concept
“anaphoric” can be amplified and divided into textual, situational, or cultural ana-
phora. For example: they ascended to the temple; the observance of the law; the king
(the specific temple, law, and king are all familiar in the culture); ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, “from
the temple” (Mark 13:1); ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, “the high priest” (Mark 14:60); ἐν τῷ ναῷ, “in
the sanctuary” (Matt 23:16); ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, “by the altar” (Matt 23:18); and cf. τὸ
ἡδύοσμον, τὸ ἄνηθον, τὸ κύμινον, “mint, dill, cumin,” (Matt 23:23).
§ 100. A particularly important kind of determination or actualization for semantic
analysis is the substantival adjective, according to which attributes, events, or rela-
tions are specified (entity). Such determiners gain semantic content since the conno-
ted¹⁷TN subject becomes denoted (Ent); for example, “the young” (Ent + A); “those
who rule” |14-M (Ent + Ev); “those from outside” (Ent + R), “the previous” (Ent +
R); “those from Cadiz” (Ent + R). Objectification/determination can be individual-
ized: ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “the person” (referring to a particular human being); totalized:
οἱ δώδεκα, “the twelve” / ὁ κόσμος, “the world”; generalized: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀγαθός

 E. Coseriu, Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingüística General, ed. D. Alonso, Biblioteca Románica Hispá-
nica (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1973; expanded version in 1990), 308. Translator’s Note: This text was
never translated into English.
 Coseriu, Teoría del Lenguaje, 310.
 Translator’s Note: See the author’s definitions of “connote” and “denote” in paragraphs
§§ 101– 02.
 3.4 Grammar and Semantics 69

“the good person” (referring to the morally ideal person). The differences between
these depend on context. In discourse, determination varies in a diverse manner
both in grade and in form. Relation lexemes can specify or identify, which occurs
with possessive lexemes: “the hat of the man”; with locating lexemes: “the man
on the right”; with temporal lexemes: “the man of yesterday”; with lexemes of origin:
“the man from Cordoba”; and with anaphoric lexemes: “Maria’s husband” (the pre-
viously mentioned Maria). The degree of determination varies significantly and de-
pends on the kind of relations established by the context. |15–16-M
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula¹TN
§ 101. Grammatically, words or lexical units are classified according to the parts of
speech already mentioned (cf. § 92), thus as verbs, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjec-
tives, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Semantically, a word or lexeme
(i. e., an independent lexical unit with a meaningful nucleus) can be classified ac-
cording to the semantic classes (i. e., Entity, Attribute, Event, Relation, or Determina-
tion, cf. § 73). A lexeme, however, can denote more than one of these classes. It is
therefore possible to distinguish between lexemes with simple structure (those
that refer to one class) and those with complex structure (those that refer to two
or more classes). In addition to the denoted class(es), lexemes can also connote nec-
essary relations to one or several other semantic classes.
§ 102. We refer to a lexeme’s group of denoted and connoted semantic classes as the
semantic formula. The semantic formula therefore depicts a lexeme’s basic structure,
which is built on its semantic nucleus. The description of the semantic formula is of
primary importance since it constitutes the starting point for semantic analysis.
When it comes to an initial methodological approach, we consider the most obvious
meaning of the lexemes (for the moment) without taking into account the less com-
mon meanings. We classify the most common meaning according to the five semantic
classes explicated in the previous chapter (cf. § 73), generally distinguishing in each
class between lexemes with simple and complex structures.

4.1 Entity Lexemes

§ 103. Entity lexemes are primarily those lexemes that denote nameable things, like
ἵππος, “horse,” βιβλίον, “book,” and διδάσκαλος, “teacher.” In some instances, lan-
guage-speakers identify certain things as if they were nameable things (and thus as
entities or quasi-entities) even though they might not be, as is the case with χρόνος,
“time”; λόγος, “word”; and φῶς, “light.” We will take this phenomenon into ac-
count,² and we shall proceed in the following analysis by distinguishing between en-
tity lexemes with simple and complex structure. |17-M

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 17– 48 in the original text of Mateos.
 Cf. e. g., the fuller treatment of χρόνος in § 233, and of λόγος in § 266. The lexeme φῶς is not dis-
cussed further.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-010
 4.1 Entity Lexemes 71

4.1.1 Entity Lexemes with Simple Structure

§ 104. Entity lexemes with simple structure only denote an entity (Ent). Their formula
is composed of this one semantic class. Examples of these lexemes include λίθος,
“rock”; κύων, “dog”; and ἄνθρωπος, “human being”:

Formula: Ent

§ 105. There are, however, entity lexemes with simple structures that not only denote
one semantic class, but necessarily connote other classes by implying cause or pur-
pose. This class of lexemes is found in particular among lexemes that denote non-
natural entities, such as βίβλος, “book”; οἶκος, “house”; and καθέδρα, “chair”:³TN

R1 Ev1

Formula: Ent

R2 Ev2

For example, as a nameable entity, οἶκος, “house,” necessarily connotes prior (R1)
construction (Ev1) and the purpose (R2) of habitation (Ev2).⁴TN Whether or not the
house is inhabited is not necessary.

 translator’s note: Although three lexemes are listed, only οἶκος is discussed in more detail in a
later part of the text (cf. § 226).
 Translator’s Note: A word is in order concerning the arrows of the diagrams (i. e., of the formu-
las), and of the diagrams in general. Within the box of the diagrams are a lexeme’s denoted semantic
classes. If there is just one denoted semantic class, then the formula is said to be simple, and if there
are several denoted classes, then the formula is complex. According to the definition provided in the
glossary, a lexeme’s denoted elements are “the features that are both necessary and sufficient for
identifying a concept, according to the usage of a linguistic community.” A brief explanation of
the arrows is given by Peláez in § 324.
If, in addition to denoting semantic classes, a lexeme also connotes semantic classes, these are
placed outside of the box. The authors distinguish between objective and subjective connotations: the
glossary states, “Objective connotations are those which a concept necessarily requires due to con-
scious association. These connotations are identified by considering the relations implied by a lex-
eme, which can include presupposition, purpose, agent, recipient, etc. For example, the lexeme ‘to
eat’ connotes (presupposes) ‘food.’ On the other hand, subjective connotations are emotive or asso-
ciative, and can therefore neither be called ‘necessary connotations’ nor included in a semantic anal-
ysis.”
72 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

4.1.2 Entity Lexemes with Complex Structure

§ 106. Entity lexemes with complex structures primarily denote an entity (Ent) and, to
the same degree, one or more semantic classes. In other words, the class of entity
does not sufficiently express the basic structure of the lexeme, as can be seen
with υἱός, “son”; βασιλεύς, “king”; and ἰατρός, “physician”:

Formula: Ent + X
|18-M

In this formula, X represents the unspecified class or classes that become compo-
nents of the formula, which are specified for each lexeme. The lexeme υἱός, “son,”
provides a clear example: “son” commonly designates a human being and therefore
expresses the class of entity.⁵ Nevertheless, this one class does not completely ex-
press the meaning of “son.” In this case, the X of the formula should be replaced
by two elements: the class of event (Ev: reproduction) and the class of relation (R,
to/of). The entity of the relation is connoted (Ent1: parent):⁶TN

Formula: Ent + Ev + R Ent1

In the case of βασιλεύς, “king,” the X is comprised of an attribute (kingship) and an

event (rule). A relation (R) towards (→) the subjects (Ent1) is also expressed (cf. the
full treatment of βασιλεύς in § 232):

Formula:
βασιλεύς
Ent + A + Ev R Ent1

The arrows of the diagrams are generated only when the semantic classes of event or attribute are
denoted or connoted. The arrows seek to explicate the implications of the relations between the
classes. In the formula for οἶκος, “house,” for example (see above), the (prior) construction (Ev1)
led to the house (Ent), whose purpose (→) is habitation (Ev2).
 Cf. the additional reference to υἱός in § 208.
 Translator’s Note: The arrow in this diagram is present because of the event, but the direction of
the arrow is dictated by the nature of the relation. Thus, the arrow indicates that the son is related to
(→) a parent, but the son’s production by (←) the parent is not indicated.
 4.2 Attribute Lexemes 73

Similarly, for ἰατρός, “physician,” the X is comprised of quality/knowledge (A) and

the activity (Ev) corresponding to the profession. The recipients of (→) the activity
(Ent1) are connoted:

Formula:
α ς
Ent + A + Ev R Ent1

4.2 Attribute Lexemes

§ 107. Attribute lexemes are lexemes that denote quality, form, dimension, or quan-
tity. All attribute lexemes contain an attribute (A) in their basic structure but at the
same time they can denote other classes, forming a complex structure.

4.2.1 Attribute Lexemes with Simple Structure

§ 108. There are attribute lexemes of intrinsic quality or form that do not denote a
relation,⁷TN for example, λευκός, “white” (cf. §§ 149, 234); συνετός, “intelligent”;
and τετράγωνος, “square.” Their attributive nature |19-M implies that they necessarily
connote an entity (or sometimes an event):

Formula: A R Ent

§ 109. There are also attribute lexemes of dimension, such as μέγας, “big” (cf. §§ 113,
235); μικρός, “small” (volume); ὑψηλός, “high” (vertical dimension); πλατύς, “wide”;
στενός, “narrow” (lateral dimension); μακρός, “long” (in the New Testament, also
“remote,” cf. Luke 15:13; 19:12); βραχύς, “short” (longitudinal dimension: in the
New Testament, almost always in the adverbial sense; cf. John 6:7):

 Translator’s Note: It is important to note that these abstract lexemes do not denote a relation,
but they do connote relations. The arrows of these diagrams point in both directions (←R→) due to the
nature of the attribution. For example, συνετός (A) is exhibited by (←R) an entity (Ent1), while at the
same time συνετός (A) is attributed to (R→) an entity. This phenomenon accounts for each of the ex-
amples of attribute lexemes in these diagrams.
74 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

Formula: A R X

In the formula, X represents an unspecified semantic class that will be specified by

context. For example, in κραυγὴ μεγάλη, “great clamor” (Acts 23:9) the attribute
“great” connotes a corresponding event:

Formula: A R Ev

However, in μικρὸν ποίμνιον, “small flock” (Luke 12:32) the abstract “small” connotes
a corresponding entity:⁸TN |20-M

Formula: A R Ent

4.2.2 Attribute Lexemes with Complex Structure

§ 110. Other attribute lexemes do not refer to intrinsic quality but to the non-relation-
al quality of a state (e. g., ὑγιής, “healthy,” cf. §§ 164, 236; ἀσθενής, “sick”; καθαρός,
“clean,” cf. § 242). They denote, therefore, quality (A) and event (Ev) and they con-
note an object:⁹TN

Formula: A + Ev R Ent

§ 111. There are attribute lexemes that primarily denote a personal quality that is
manifested in action (relational quality) (e. g., δίκαιος, “just,” cf. § 238;¹⁰TN ἀγαθός,
“good,” cf. §§ 166, 237; πονηρός, “evil”). These lexemes denote quality (A), event

 Translator’s Note: smallness (A) is attributed to (R→) a flock; the attribute of smallness (A) is
exhibited by (R←) a flock.
 Translator’s Note: sick (A) is attributed to (R→) an entity; the attribute/event of sick (Ev/A) is
exhibited by (R←) an entity.
 Translator’s Note: It should be noted that the diagram of the formula for δίκαιος in § 238 differs
from the diagram presented here.
 4.2 Attribute Lexemes 75

(Ev), and the relation (R) that joins them, and they connote an acting subject, in this
case personal (Ent1), and an occasional or habitual recipient of the action, also per-
sonal (Ent2):¹¹TN

R1 Ent1

Formula: R Ev

R2 Ent2

§ 112. Other attribute lexemes refer to the quality of relation (A + R) to an object. This
is the case with lexemes describing quality of possession (e. g., πλούσιος, “rich,” cf.
§ 239; πτωχός, “poor,” cf. § 165). These attribute lexemes connote both the subject
(Ent1) and the object (Ent2) of the relation (R):¹²TN

R1 Ent1

Formula: R

Ent2 |21-M

§ 113. Comparative attributes necessarily connote the subject (X1, polyvalent) of the
attribution (R1) and an object of comparison (X2). They denote not only the quali-
ty/dimension (A), but also the relation (e. g., μείζων, “bigger”; μικρότερος, “smaller”)

 Translator’s Note: “Good” denotes an abstract relational state (A + R+ Ev) attributed to (R1→)
an entity and exhibited by (R1←) the same entity; “good” is expressed to (R2→) a recipient (Ent2).
 Translator’s Note: The lexemes in this diagram denote (R), which means that an R2 is not nec-
essary. In the hopes that the arrows of the diagrams are somewhat clearer and to avoid unnecessary
repetition, I will now offer fewer explanations of these.
76 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R1 1

Formula: R

Quantifiers (e. g., πολύς, “many,” “big,” § 241; ὀλίγος, “few,” “small”) are attributes
and thus connote the attributive relation to an object (X, polyvalent):

Formula: A R X

Absolute superlatives, such as μέγιστος, “biggest,” and ἐλάχιστος, “smallest,” in-

clude a kind of determination (in this case degree). They omit the comparative rela-
tion and only connote the subject:

Formula: A+D R X

§ 114. There are complex attribute lexemes (A, Ev) in which the internal relation be-
tween the attribute and event is negative or exclusive (–, for example, ἄρρητος, “un-
speakable”; ἀλάλητος, “inexpressible”; ἄμωμος, “blameless”):

Formula: A – Ev R X
|22-M

4.3 Event Lexemes

§ 115. Event lexemes primarily denote action or state. Grammatically, they most often
appear as verbs but they can also be expressed by nouns. Event lexemes can be div-
ided into lexemes of simple structure and complex structure, but we shall categorize
them according to the number of their connotations. Doing so will elucidate the sim-
ilarities and differences between the various event lexemes. Due to their nature,
 4.3 Event Lexemes 77

event lexemes commonly connote other semantic classes that determine their struc-
ture and contribute to the overall complexity of this semantic class.

4.3.1 Event Lexemes without Connotation

§ 116. Event lexemes without connotations are comprised of impersonal lexemes.

They denote events without connoting a subject or a complement, such as ὕει/
βρέχει, “it rains,” and ἀστράπτει, “it lightens”:

Formula: Ev

4.3.2 Event Lexemes with One Connotation

§ 117. Event lexemes with simple structure that have only one connotation denote an
event and connote the subject (Ent) of the action (e. g., καθεύδω, “to sleep”;
πορεύομαι, “to go”; φαίνω, “to shine”). The subject can be explicit or implicit in
the text:

Formula: Ev R Ent
|23-M

§ 118. Verbal lexemes denoting a quality that is not relationally qualified have a com-
plex structure comprised of an event (stative) and an attribute (quality) (cf. § 110).
They connote an attributed subject (Ent) but not an object. These can be expressed
with periphrastic attributes (“to be” + adjective/adverb; cf. ζάω, “to live/be alive”;
ἰσχύω, “to be [permanently or temporarily] strong”; ἀσθενέω, “to be weak/sick”;
ὑγιαίνω, “to be healthy”):¹³TN

Formula: Ev + A R Ent

 Translator’s Note: The arrows pointing in the two directions may be explained because, on the
one hand, the attribute of sick is attributed to (R→) a being, but the event of sickness is experienced
by (←R) the same being.
78 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

4.3.3 Event Lexemes with Two Connotations

§ 119. Transitive verbs (as they are grammatically called) belong to this category. They
denote an event and connote both a subject (Ent1) and an object or recipient (Ent2).
The connotations may or may not be specified in the text (e. g., ποιμαίνω, “to shep-
herd”; ποιέω, “to do”; ἀποκτείνω, “to kill”). For example, killing (Ev) is performed by
(R1←) an entity (Ent1) to (R2→) another entity (Ent2):

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev

R2 Ent2

§ 120. Among event lexemes with two connotations, those whose second relation
does not correspond to the grammatical object must be considered separately. For
example, intransitive verbs with complex structure requiring two relations belong
grammatically in this group, such as ἔρχομαι, “to go”; εἰσέρχομαι, “to enter”;
ἐξέρχομαι, “to leave”; εἰσπορεύομαι, “to move into”; ἐκπορεύομαι, “to exit” (cf. the
discussion in § 127).
§ 121. The dynamic lexeme βασιλεύω, “to rule” (cf. § 106) has a simple structure. It
connotes a subject (Ent1) who is qualified (A, kingship) to perform (R1→) an activity
(Ev) towards (R2→) subjects and a territory (Ent2): |24-M

R1 Ent1

Formula:
Ev

R2 Ent2

§ 122. Event lexemes that signify inward disposition have a complex structure (e. g.,
πιστεύω [εἰς], “to believe,” “to give credit to,” “to show allegiance to”).¹⁴ They denote

 Cf. the discussion of πιστεύω in § 253.

 4.3 Event Lexemes 79

a relational state (Ev + R) of an (R1→) entity (Ent), viz. exercised by an (← R1) entity
(Ent) towards a (→) polyvalent X, which can be a person, a word, or a doctrine:

R1 Ent

Formula: Ev R

§ 123. There are event lexemes that indicate an inward disposition that manifests it-
self in action, such as ἀγαπάω, “to love”; and φιλέω, “to like.” These lexemes there-
fore denote a stative event (Ev1, which is a state of [→] Ent1) and a dynamic event
(Ev2, which is an event performed by [←] Ent1) joined by a relation (R, of manifesta-
tion) to (R2→) an entity (Ent2):

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev1 R Ev2

R2 Ent2 |25-M

This formula shows that event lexemes with durative aspect denote a disposition, but
when these lexemes have a punctiliar aspect they can denote the exterior manifesta-
tion of a disposition (cf. John 3:16, ἠγάπησεν, “showed his love”), which can be
nominalized (cf. Luke 22:47, φιλῆσαι αὐτόν, “to kiss him”).
§ 124. Among lexemes that indicate a relational state by denoting both an event (Ev)
and a relation (R) and connoting a subject (Ent1) and an object (Ent2) (cf. § 122) are
lexemes that signify possession or localization (e. g., ἔχω, “to possess,” “to have”;
οἰκέω, “to dwell”; κατοικέω, “to live in,” “to dwell in”; cf. § 255):¹⁵TN

 Translator’s Note: The dual arrows of ←R1→ can be explained in light of the discussion in
§ 255, where R1 of ἔχω is specified as “attribution.” The event of “having” is thus attributed to (→)
an entity and is at the same time performed by (←) this entity.
80 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev R

Ent2

§ 125. As with attribute lexemes denoting the quality of a relational state to an object
(e. g., “poor,” “rich,” § 112), a relation of possession can be qualified, which is the
case with the verbal lexemes πλουτέω, “to be rich,” and πτωχεύω, “to be poor.”
These are not only verbs of possession, but their formula adds the attribute that
qualifies the relational state (cf. § 124):

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev R

Ent2

§ 126. Other lexemes with complex formulas are those that denote qualified actions
or processes (Ev + A). Such lexemes have a double connotation, |26-M referring to both
the subject (Ent1) and object (Ent2) of an action (e. g., εὐποιέω, “to do good”;
ἀγαθοποιέω, “to do well” [§ 251]; κακοποιέω, “to do wrong”):

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev + A

R2 Ent2

§ 127. We have already mentioned intransitive lexemes having complex formulas and
two connotations (ἔρχομαι, “to go”; εἰσέρχομαι, “to enter”; and ἐξέρχομαι, “to leave”;
 4.3 Event Lexemes 81

cf. §§ 120, 256). In addition to denoting an event (Ev), these also denote a dependent
relation (which differs in each case). The object of the relation is connoted:

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev R

Ent2

4.3.4 Event Lexemes with Three Connotations

§ 128. There are event lexemes that primarily denote an event (Ev) that requires three
connotations¹⁶TN: a subject (Ent1), a polyvalent object (X), and an object or recipient
(Ent2). As with transitive lexemes, the connotations may or may not be explicit in
context (e. g., δίδωμι, “to give”; χαρίζομαι, “to give generously”; διδάσκω, “to
teach”; δείκνυμι, “to show”; λέγω, “to say”). All of these lexemes share |27-M the no-
tion of a transmission or transfer (→) of a polyvalent object (X), which can be an en-
tity, knowledge, or a message. The object is transmitted to (→) a recipient (Ent2), cre-
ating a new relation (R3) between both. In a certain way, therefore, these are
causative lexemes. The formula with simple structure corresponds to δίδωμι and
δείκνυμι (cf. §§ 263 – 65):

 Translator’s Note: these event lexemes are sometimes given the grammatical name “ditransi-
tives.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ditransitives are verbal constructions that take di-
rect and indirect objects.
82 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

The connotation of Ent2 by the event (Ev) is accomplished by means of X, since the
action denoted by Ev consists in creating a relation (R3) between X and Ent2.
§ 129. The lexeme χαρίζομαι, “to give generously,” differs from δίδωμι, “to give” (cf.
§ 264) in that it connotes the favorable, benevolent disposition (Ev1 + A) of
(←R4→) the subject (Ent1) who gives (→) the gift (X). At the same time (as with
many other lexemes in this group) these lexemes connote a prior relation of posses-
sion (R′) between the giver (Ent1) and the gift (X):

R1 Ent1 R4 [Ev1 + A]

Rʹ
Formula:
α αι Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

§ 130. The lexeme διδάσκω, “to teach,” is somewhat unique (cf. § 268). The activity
(Ev) of teaching requires a qualification or competency (A) from a subject (Ent1).
The formula, therefore, looks as follows: |28-M
 4.3 Event Lexemes 83

R1 [Ent1 + A]

Rʹ
Formula:
ι σ Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

§ 131. The lexeme λέγω, “to say,” has a simple formula (cf. § 266). It signifies the ver-
bal transmission (Ev) of (R1←) a message that is conceived as the speaker’s (Ent1)
own (R′→) noetic entity (Ent2). The lexeme therefore denotes the event (Ev) while
connoting the subject (Ent1), the content of the message (Ent2), and its (R3→) recip-
ient (Ent3):

R1 Ent1

Rʹ
Formula:
λ Ev R2 Ent2

R3

Ent3

§ 132. Lexemes related to λέγω, “to say,” have complex structures. Thus, ἐρωτάω, “to
ask,” is a qualified (A) kind of saying:
84 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R1 Ent1

Rʹ
Formula:
Ev + A R2 Ent2

R3

Ent3 |29-M

Another example is ἀποκρίνομαι, “to answer,” “to respond,” which implies a verbal
activity that relates to a question or previous event (X):

R1 Ent1

Formula:
αι Ev + R R2 Ent2

R3

The verb ἀρνέομαι, “to deny,” can signify a qualified kind of saying, in which case its
formula is the same as ἐρωτάω, “to ask.” It can also signify a qualified response,
since it denotes the relation of “responding to” as well as the nature of (A) the re-
sponse:
 4.4 Relation Lexemes 85

R1 Ent1

Formula: Ent2
ἀρνέομαι
Ev + R + A R2

R3

Ent3

§ 133. There are verbal and nominal lexemes that are semantically middle-passive.
Their formula should express the semantic voice of the lexeme (e. g., μανθάνω, “to
be taught”). In the formula, Ent1 represents the subject receiving (→) the teaching,
X the teaching, and Ent2 the teacher:

Ent1

R1
Formula:
μαν ν Ev R2 X

Rʹ

R3 Ent2 |30-M

4.4 Relation Lexemes¹⁷

§ 134. There are lexemes—and above all, many morpholexemes (i. e., adverbs, prep-
ositions, conjunctions)—that indicate a variety of relations, including place, time,
possession, cause, purpose, result, effect, condition, manner, and instrument. Addi-

 Some examples of relation lexemes or morpholexemes shall be given. However, since the mean-
ings of Greek prepositions and conjunctions are so varied, they can only be studied within context. Cf.
§§ 273 ff. for a more thorough discussion of relation lexemes.
86 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

tionally, all of the anaphoric lexemes denote a relation. These lexemes can have sim-
ple or complex structures, which can be seen in the examples that follow.
§ 135. Lexemes and morpholexemes that denote relations of place or time can be sta-
tive or directional. Stative morpholexemes (ἐν, “in”; μετά, σύν, “with”; ἔσω, “with-
in”; ἔξω, “outside”) and directional morpholexemes (εἰς, “to/into”; πρός, “towards”;
ἐκ, “from”) connote an event (Ev) and its locally or temporally related object (X, en-
tity or event). The diagrams contain fewer arrows due to the nature of relation lex-
emes:

Ev

Formula: R

§ 136. Other relation lexemes or morpholexemes also connote two objects. This is the
case with lexemes of local or temporal relation (e. g., πρό, “before,” “in front of”;
μετά [+ acc], “after”), with lexemes of immediate succession (e. g., εὐθύς, “immedi-
ately”; εὐθέως, “then”; παραχρῆμα, “suddenly”), and with lexemes of proximity or
distance (e. g., ἐγγύς, “near”; μακράν, “far”). For the moment, both objects of the re-
lation are considered polyvalent (X1, X2). They will be further explained in the anal-
ysis of these lexemes and morpholexemes (cf. §§ 273 – 79):

Formula: R

2 |31-M

§ 137. Lexemes or morpholexemes that denote cause (γάρ, ὅτι, “because”), connec-
tion and opposition (καί, “and”; δέ, ἀλλά, “but”), result (ὥστε, “therefore”), or pur-
pose (ἵνα, “so that”) also connote two objects. The same is true for lexemes of com-
parison (ὡς, ὥσπερ, “as”; ὅμοιος, “like”; ἴσος, “equal”; διάφορος, “different”). Their
formula is identical to the previous formula.
§ 138. The objects of the possessive series ἐμός/μου, σός/σου, αὐτοῦ, etc. (in contrast
to τινός, “someone’s”) correspond to the series of personal pronouns (cf. § 284). The
relation denotes possession and establishes the link between a personal subject (Ent)
 4.5 Determination Lexemes 87

and that which is possessed (X). Such lexemes connote a statement (Ev) made by (R1)
a speaker (Ent), which may or may not be identified with the possessing subject. The
formula for ἐμός, “my,” looks as follows:

R2 Ev R1 Ent

Formula:
R

|32-M

4.5 Determination Lexemes¹⁸

§ 139. Anaphoric and deictic lexemes or morpholexemes belong to the class of deter-
mination. Definite articles (e. g., ὁ, ἡ, τό, “the”) are morpholexemes of determination
that precede entity lexemes (e. g., ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “the human being”; ὁ οἶκος, “the
house”). In contrast to indefinite articles,¹⁹ which generally introduce new informa-
tion in a discourse, definite articles are commonly used in an anaphoric sense to
refer to something previously mentioned in a text (cf. § 99). When this is the case,
the formula includes the classes of determination and relation:

Formula: D+R X

§ 140. Sometimes cultural or situational factors determine the anaphoric sense of def-
inite articles. In such a case, the entity or semantic class under consideration is
known in the concrete situation or in the culture of the time (cf. § 99) (e. g., τὸ
ἱερόν, “the temple”; ὁ βασιλεύς, “the king”; οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, “the Pharisees”). The se-
mantic formula is identical to the previous formula.
§ 141. Deictic determination lexemes consist of personal pronouns (e. g., ἐγώ, “I”; σύ,
“you”; αὐτός, “he”). As determination lexemes they identify and specify people. Two
entities are thus implied in the formula: the entity (Ent1) who speaks (Ev) and a sec-
ond entity (Ent), who may be identical to the speaker (i. e., “I”) or to another individ-
ual (i. e., “you,” “he”). The formula for ἐγώ is as follows:

 Cf. §§ 285 – 96, 99 – 100.

 Indefinite articles are not present in Koine Greek, although the numeral εἷς and the indefinite τίς
occasionally function in this manner.
88 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

Formula:
D + Ent + R

§ 142. Deictic determination morpholexemes consist of demonstratives (e. g., “this,”

“that”), which in Greek consist of οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος. In a dependent sense (as op-
posed to a |33-M textual anaphoric sense) they denote not only the identifying deter-
mination but also a relation that differentiates them. This relation has two objects: on
the one hand the relation refers to something polyvalent (X: Entity, Attribute, or
Event) while on the other hand it establishes nearness or distance with regards to
the subject who speaks (as in the previous case, an act of communication is connot-
ed):

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

Formula: D+R

If the deictic morpholexemes οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος are used as pronouns, the polyva-
lent X is denoted and not connoted:

R2 Ev R1 Ent

Formula: D+X+R

§ 143. Similar to the previous deictic morpholexemes are localizing lexemes (ὧδε,
“here”; ἐκεῖ, “there”; in contrast to πού, “somewhere”) and temporalizing lexemes
(νῦν, “now”; τότε, “then”; χθές, “yesterday”; σήμερον, “today”; αὔριον, “tomorrow”;
in contrast to ποτέ, “sometime”). These lexemes denote the local or temporal deter-
mination of a situation based on a relation to a speaker (“close/not close” or “con-
temporaneous/non-contemporaneous”) and an object (X): |34-M
 4.5 Determination Lexemes 89

R2 Ev R1 Ent

Formula: D+R

§ 144. Determination lexemes also comprise maximizing terms (e. g., λίαν, σφόδρα,
“very”), totalizing terms (e. g., πᾶς, “all”), distributives (ἕκαστος, “each”), and nu-
merals (εἷς, “one”; δύο, “two”; etc.). They connote a relation to a specific thing (X):

Formula: D R X

§ 145. Ordinal lexemes (e. g., πρῶτος, “first”; δεύτερος, “second”; ἔσχατος, “last”) de-
note a relation to a thing (X: Entity or Event) and to other elements of an ordinal ser-
ies (Ent + R1):²⁰TN

Formula: R

1 R1

§ 146. Determination lexemes that explicate a spatial or temporal range (e. g., ἀρχή,
“beginning”; τέλος, “end”) denote a relation to a continuum:²¹TN

 Translator’s Note: cf. e. g., ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ, “the first man [came] from the dust of the earth; the second [came] from heaven” (1Cor
15:47). In this example, “the first” corresponds to D + R, “man” corresponds to X, and “the second”
functions as Ent + R1.
 Translator’s Note: For the analysis of the range χρόνος, “time,” see § 233. For an example of the
lexeme ἀρχή, cf. Mark 1:1 (ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “the beginning of the gospel”). “Beginning” is com-
prised of D + R, and “gospel” is the polyvalent X; cf. §§ 285 ff. for further examples.
90 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

Formula D+R X
|35-M

§ 147. The lexeme ὄνομα (in its most common contextual meaning of “name” or
“title”) denotes a determination (D) and a relation (R). The connoted elements in-
clude the person (Ent1) who (R1→) communicates (Ev) the (R2) lexeme “name” to
(D + R) a personal subject (Ent2):²²TN

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

Formula D+R

Ent2

4.6 Abstract Lexemes

§ 148. Abstract lexemes (e. g., ἀγάπη, “love”; διδασκαλία, “teaching”; διδαχή, “doc-
trine”; μακρότης, “length”; δικαιοσύνη, “righteousness”) are unique and present
new challenges. In this section we will seek to provide a method that will both facil-
itate the classification of abstract lexemes and clarify their semantic value. Two as-
pects must be considered, namely, (1) the classification of abstract lexemes accord-
ing to semantic classes, and (2) the equivalence of some abstract lexemes with verbal
forms of the infinitive. As was the case with other semantic classes, we must move
beyond the grammatical categories by analyzing the various semantic classes that
express abstract lexemes.

4.6.1 Classification of Abstract Lexemes according to Semantic Classes

4.6.1.1 Abstract Attribute Lexemes

§ 149. When abstract lexemes denote a non-relational intrinsic quality (e. g.,
λευκότης, “whiteness”) their semantic structure is simple and has no connotations.

 Translator’s Note: For the discussion of ὄνομα, see § 296, where, e. g., Matt 10:2 is cited (τῶν
δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστιν ταῦτα, “these are the names of the twelve apostles”). The im-
plied narrator (Ent1) speaks (Ev) the names (D + R) of the disciples (Ent2).
 4.6 Abstract Lexemes 91

Their formula is distinguished from adjectival attribute lexemes (in this case, from
λευκός, “white,” §108) by the omission of a relation to a subject and object. The
same is true with abstracts of dimension (e. g., ὕψος, “height”; μῆκος, “length,”
§ 109): |36-M

Formula: A

§ 150. Abstract lexemes of quality manifested in action (e. g., ἀγαθότης, “goodness”;
πονηρία, “badness,” § 111) only retain a relation to an object. For example, goodness
(A + R + Ev) is expressed to (→) an entity (Ent):

Formula: R Ev R Ent

§ 151. Similarly, abstracts derived from attribute lexemes denoting the quality of a re-
lation (πτωχός, “poor” → πτωχεία, “poverty”; πλούσιος, “rich” → πλοῦτος, “wealth,”
§ 112) have the same formula as adjectival attribute lexemes, but without a denoted
relation to a subject. For example, wealth describes the quality of a relation (A + R)
with respect to (→) possessions (Ent):

Formula: A+R Ent

4.6.1.2 Abstract Event Lexemes

§ 152. Abstract event lexemes of state or action are always events at the semantic
level and, except for the subject, have the same connotations as verbal lexemes of
the same class. The abstracts ὑγίεια, “health,” νόσος and ἀρρωστία, “sickness,”
ἰσχύς and δύναμις, “strength,” and ἀσθένεια, “weakness,” denote a qualified state
in which a relation and connoted subject are absent (cf. § 118):

Formula: Ev + A

§ 153. Abstract lexemes designating a disposition or state of the soul (e. g., ἀγάπη,
“love”; μῖσος, “hate”; ὀργή, “anger,” § 148) denote a stative event (Ev1) and a dynam-
92 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

ic event (Ev2) joined by a relation of manifestation (R) towards a (→) connoted recip-
ient (Ent) of the action or manifested activity:²³TN

Formula: Ev1 R Ev2 R1 Ent

|37-M

§ 154. Transitive nominal lexemes are abstract when they denote an event (Ev; e. g.,
προσφορά, “offering,” “sacrifice”; cf. Heb 10:10, 14, 18). This is especially clear with
the lexemes “government” = “the act of governing” and “meal” = “the act of eating.”
The semantic formula of these abstract lexemes is identical to the corresponding ver-
bal lexeme, but as abstracts the connotation of agent²⁴TN is omitted:

Formula: Ev R2 Ent2

§ 155. The transitive nominal lexemes we have just discussed can have a second
usage. In some contexts, these lexemes denote one of the entities that were connoted
by the verbal lexeme of origin, thus forming lexemes of agent and lexemes of object.
A lexeme of agent can be illustrated with “government” = “those who govern,” which
is the subject (Ent1) of “to govern.” A lexeme of object is illustrated by προσφορά =
“offering,” “that which is offered” (cf. Acts 21:26); “meal” = “that which is eaten.”
The lexemes “offering” and “meal” are direct complements (Ent2) of the correspond-
ing verbal lexemes. The semantic formulas are derived from the event lexeme but dif-
fer for each noun. Context will specify which formula should be applied:

m o a nt: Ent1 Ev R Ent2

 Translator’s Note: The wording is somewhat awkward due to the use of the seme “manifesta-
tion.” The author is describing how the stative event (Ev1) is manifested in another event (Ev2), which
occurs, for example, with “love”: the disposition of “love” (Ev1) is manifested (R) in acts of “love”
(Ev2). Cf. the discussions in §§ 123, 274.
 Translator’s Note: Since the connotation of agent is omitted, the formula identifies the entity
as Ent2 to specify that in the parallel formula there is a subject entity (i.e., Ent1).
 4.6 Abstract Lexemes 93

m o o t: Ent2 Ev R Ent1

§ 156. As was the case with transitive lexemes, abstract lexemes that are grammati-
cally ditransitives (cf. § 128) can denote an event, as is the case with δόσις, τὸ δοῦναι,
“giving” = “the act of giving” (perhaps Phil 4:15). The semantic formula is identical to
the verbal lexeme except that the connoted giver (Ent1) is omitted. Thus, δόσις refers
to the giving (Ev) of a (R2) polyvalent object (X) to (R3) a recipient (Ent2):

Formula: Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

§ 157. Abstract lexemes of agent that are ditransitives denote the subject and an event
and connote two complements (e. g., δότης, “giver”; cf. 2Cor 9:7): |38-M

Formula: Ent1 + Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

§ 158. The same is true for abstract lexemes of object, such as δῶρον, “gift” (Matt
2:11), δωρεά, “present” (John 4:10), δόσις, “gift” (Jas 1:17),²⁵TN which denote a direct
complement (X) and an event and connote a recipient (Ent2):

 Translator’s Note: Translational equivalents are offered in the Spanish text in an unclear man-
94 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

Formula: X + Ev R3 Ent2

4.6.2 The Correspondence of Abstract Lexemes with Verbal Forms of the Infinitive

§ 159. Abstract lexemes that denote events are closely related to the corresponding
verbal lexemes, in particular with the infinitive forms. In Greek, infinitives are verbal
nouns that can take definite articles. It is somewhat common in Greek for an abstract
verbal noun to be an infinitive:

Matt :: τὸ καθίσαι “sitting”

Mark :: τὸ ἐγερθῆναι “rising”
Acts :: τὸ παθεῖν “suffering”
:: τὸ ἀποθανεῖν “dying”
:: τὸ ἀναστῆναι “rising”
:: τὸ σιγῆσαι “silencing”
:: τοῦ σῷζεσθαι “rescuing”
Rom :: τὸ θέλειν “wanting”
Cor :: τὸ λαλεῖν “speaking”
Heb :: τὸ μένειν “remaining”

§ 160. Based on the relation of abstract lexemes to the verbal forms of the infinitive,
the following three observations can be made:
1. Verbal abstracts denote an event (Ev) without connoting a subject. In context,
however, an abstract lexeme (like an infinitive) can take a subject, which will be in
the accusative for the infinitive and a subject genitive for the abstract: |39-M

Infinitives:

λέγουσιν αὐτὸν ζῆν, “they are saying that he is alive” (Luke 24:23).
νομίζοντες αὐτὸν τεθνηκέναι, “thinking he was dead” (Acts 14:19).
βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας, “I want men to pray” (1Tim 2:8).
μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναι με, “when I am raised” (Matt 26:32).

Abstract lexemes:

δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ, “righteousness [performed by] God” (Rom 1:17).

ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ, “the peace [brought by] God” (Phil 4:7).
δικαιοσύνη πίστεως, “righteousness [produced by] faith” (Rom 4:13).
τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ σκότους, “that which darkness hid” (1Cor 4:5).
διδασκαλία δαιμονίων, “demons’ teaching” (1Tim 4:1).

ner, namely, as “gift, donation/contribution” = that which is given. Since δόσις was treated in § 147 as
an abstract event, but in this paragraph as an abstract object, the lexeme is polysemic.
 4.6 Abstract Lexemes 95

2. Various complements can be expressed by infinitives or by abstract lexemes in the

genitive:

Infinitives:

ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τὸ παιδίον, “when [they] brought in the child” (Luke 2:27).

τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον, “because I did not find Titus” (2Cor 2:13).
διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς (object) τινὰ (subject) τὰ στοιχεῖα (object), “that someone teach you the basics”
(Heb 5:12).

Abstracts:
θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, “worship of angels” (Col 2:18).
ὀνειδισμὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “reproach [made] against the Anointed” (Heb 11:26).
μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “witness [given] about the Messiah” (1Cor 1:6).
ὑπακοὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “obedience to the Messiah” (2Cor 10:5).
συνηθείᾳ τοῦ εἰδώλου, “accustomed to idols” (1Cor 8:7).
φόβος θεοῦ “fear/respect²⁶TN towards God” (Rom 3:18).

3. In contrast to infinitives, abstract lexemes do not mark aspect, voice, or tense.

Since Greek infinitives mark aspect they create relations of simultaneousness, |40-M
priority, or posteriority, depending on which form of the infinitive is used. Infinitives
also mark voice. Abstracts can be substituted with infinitives that contextually ex-
press voice, aspect, and tense, viz. by contextual semes that affect the abstract lex-
emes. The chart below illustrates the ways in which abstract event lexemes can cor-
respond to infinitive forms:

Εὐλογία Blessing

Seme: simultaneousness Aspect: punctiliar or durative

τὸ εὐλογεῖν to bless (active)

τὸ εὐλογεῖσθαι to be blessed (passive)

Seme: priority (temporal) Aspect: perfective

τὸ εὐλογῆσαι to have blessed

τὸ εὐλογηθῆναι to have been blessed

Semes: priority-simultaneousness Aspect: perfective

τὸ ηὐλογηκέναι to leave blessed

τὸ ηὐλογῆσθαι to achieve blessing

Seme: simultaneousness Aspect: stative

τὸ εὐλογημένον εἶναι to be blessed

 Translator’s Note: The dual suggestion of “fear/respect” is made by Mateos.

96 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic

Classes
§ 161. Having examined different kinds of lexemes from each semantic class, it is pos-
sible to establish correspondence between lexemes of different classes. This will help
specify the differences between the formulas and establish some of their general pat-
terns.²⁷TN
§ 162. Attribute lexemes that denote intrinsic quality or form (e. g., λευκός, “white,”
§ 108) parallel the corresponding abstracts of quality (λευκότης, “whiteness”) as well
as verbal lexemes of state (λευκαθίζω, “to be white”): |41-M

R Ent

Ev R Ent

§ 163. Likewise, attribute lexemes denoting dimension (μέγας, “big,” § 109) parallel
the corresponding abstract lexemes (e. g., μεγαλότης, “greatness”) as well as the ver-
bal lexemes of state (e. g., μέγας εἶναι, “to be big”):

ας A R X

ε αλ ς A

ας ε αι Ev + A R X

 Translator’s Note: Although not all of the lexemes discussed in this section are found in the
New Testament, Mateos includes these to help clarify his theory.
 4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes 97

§ 164. Attribute lexemes that denote the quality of a non-relation state (e. g., ὑγιής,
“healthy,” § 110) parallel event lexemes that denote the quality of a state (e. g.,
ὑγιαίνω, “to be healthy,” § 118) as well as abstract lexemes whose primary denotation
is a state (e. g., ὑγίεια, “health,” § 152):

ι ς A + Ev R Ent

ια Ev + A R Ent

εια Ev + A

§ 165. Attribute lexemes that denote the quality of relation to an object (e.g., πτωχός,
“poor,” § 112) parallel the corresponding abstract lexemes (e.g., πτωχεία, “poverty,”
§ 151) as well as event lexemes that denote state (e.g., πτωχεύω, “to be poor,”
§ 125): |42-M

R1 Ent1

Ent2

εα A+R Ent2
98 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R1 Ent1

Ev R

Ent2

§ 166. Attribute lexemes that denote quality manifested in action (e. g., ἀγαθός,
“good,” § 111) correspond with their respective abstract lexemes (e. g., ἀγαθότης/
ἀγαθωσύνη, “goodness,” § 150) and event lexemes (e. g., ἀγαθὸς εἶναι, “to be good”):

R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 Ent2 |43-M

α ς A + Ev R2 Ent2

R1 Ent1

Ev Ev

R2 Ent2

§ 167. In order to discuss the correspondence of event lexemes, it is preferable to treat

them as a whole and to illustrate the particulars by means of examples. The follow-
ing types of lexemes can be derived from the formula of stative event lexemes: (a)
lexemes explicating the state of an entity (the entity-event will be one of the denoted
elements), (b) attribute lexemes, and (c) abstract lexemes. The lexeme ζάω, “to live”
(cf. § 118), which denotes a state that is not qualified by a relation, will serve as an
 4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes 99

example. Parallel lexemes refer to the subject of the state (ζῷον, “living thing”), to an
attribute (ζῶν, “living”), and to an abstract event (ζωή, “life”):

Ev + A R Ent

Ent + Ev + A

A + Ev R Ent

Ev + A

§ 168. In the case of dynamic intransitive lexemes, such as πορεύομαι, “to go,” “to
walk” (cf. § 117), the diagram looks as follows: |44-M

Event lexeme Ev R Ent

Lexeme of agent Ent + Ev

§ 169. If the event lexeme is transitive, a lexeme of object can also be formed by de-
noting the corresponding entity (i. e., a direct object). For example, with ποιέω, “to
do,” there will be a lexeme of agent (ποιητής, “doer”), a lexeme of object (ποίημα,
“that which is done”), and an abstract lexeme (ποίησις, “doing”). The formula for
ποίησις is constructed based on the event lexeme, but the relation to a subject
(Ent1) is removed. If, as in the present case, the event lexeme is transitive, the rela-
tion to the object will be maintained:
100 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 Ent2

ι ς Ent1 + Ev R2 Ent2

α Ent2 + Ev R1 Ent1

σις Ev R2 Ent2

§ 170. Ditransitive event lexemes, such as δίδωμι, “to give,” can refer to three objects,
including an agent (Ent1), an object (X), and a recipient (Ent2, passive). An abstract
can also be formed. The lexemes related to δίδωμι are, respectively, that of agent
(δότης, “giver,” § 157), that of object (δόμα/δῶρον, “gift,” § 158), and the abstract
(δόσις, “giving,” § 158). The recipient lexeme (λήπτης, “receiver”) is nominalized
from λαμβάνω, “to receive”: |45-M

R1 Ent1

ι Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2
 4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes 101

ς Ent1 + Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 Ent2

λ ς Ent2 + Ev R1 Ent

R3 R2

σις Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2 |46-M

If the formulas of the event lexemes have complex structures, the procedure does not
change.
102 Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula

§ 171. Determination lexemes with complex formulas designating the characters of

the discourse (e. g., ἐγώ, “I”) are comparable to (a) relation lexemes that denote pos-
session (e. g., ἐμός/μου, “my”), (b) to lexemes that denote local relation (e. g., ὧδε,
“here”), and (c) to deictic determination lexemes (e. g., οὗτος, “this”).²⁸ |47-M

 The corresponding formulas can be found in this chapter (cf. §§ 138, 141– 42). Other lexemes ex-
hibit correspondence in a similar way to the event lexemes that we have just explicated.
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis¹TN
§ 172. The use of the semantic formula (cf. the previous chapter) as an intermediate
step is one of the unique features of our method. This step offers two primary advan-
tages. First, the formula provides guidance for identifying the semes, which will be
the focus of this chapter. Instead of haphazardly identifying semes, which carries
the risk of omitting many of them, the formula offers a pattern for the semic devel-
opment based on the identification of the semantic classes (i. e., events, entities, at-
tributes, relations, and determinations). Secondly, the formula serves as a paradigm,
since the semic polyvalence of a formula’s elements allows |61-M the same formula to
be used for various lexemes. Domains or groups of lexemes can thus be constructed
that have the same structure. Additional formulas are derived from these based on
the addition or substitution of elements. We shall now move to the second step of
our method, which involves the identification of semes. Since we identify semes
by means of semantic categories, it is first necessary to define the semantic catego-
ries.

5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories

§ 173. Grammatical categories are symbols that affect words, similar to the way that
positive and negative signs, coefficients, and exponents affect quantities in mathe-
matics. The grammatical categories include gender and number (nominals and ver-
bals), mode, tense, aspect, and voice (verbals), and degree (conjunctions, adjectives,
and adverbs). Semantic categories do not entirely correspond to grammatical catego-
ries, as is the case with the semantic classes (cf. §§ 73 – 75).

5.1.1 Gender

§ 174. Grammatical gender distinguishes between masculine, feminine, neuter, com-

mon, epicene, and ambiguous. Semantically, the following levels are highly impor-
tant:²

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 49 – 68 in the original text of Mateos.
 In some texts, such as the New Testament, “angelic” and “demonic” can be included in contrast to
“divine” and “human.”

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-011
104 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

an mat nan mat

r on non r on

vn uman

ma ul n mnn

5.1.2 Number

§ 175. The category of number includes not only singular and plural, but also the con-
cept of collectivity. |49-M Depending on context, singular can be individual or generic/
universal.

n v ual non n v ual oll t v

n ular non n ular uant a l non uant a l

lural tr ut v ual non ual

art al total or orat v rtual

r t lo al

§ 176. The definite article gives the plural and the collective a sense of totality, which
can be limited by the circumstances: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας , “the elders of
the church” (Acts 20:17); οἱ μαθηταί, “the disciples” (Acts 20:1); οἱ περὶ αὐτόν,
“those around him” (Mark 4:10); οἱ στρατιῶται, “the soldiers” (Acts 23:31); οἱ σὺν
ἐμοὶ ὄντες, “those with me” (Acts 22:9); οἱ ἀπόστολοι, “the apostles” (Acts 15:22);
οἱ ἀδελφοί, “the brothers” (Acts 17:10); ἡ πόλις, “the city” (Acts 17:5); ὁ δῆμος,
“the people” (Acts 19:30); ὁ ὄχλος, “the crowd” (Acts 19:35); ἡ ἐκκλησία, “the church”
(Acts 19:40).
§ 177. Non-quantifiable collectives include groups of objects (e. g., ὄχλος, “crowd”;
ἀγέλη, “herd”; δῆμος, “populace”) or something’s volume (e. g., καρπός, “harvest”).³
In contrast to the unqualified lexeme ὄχλος, the lexemes λαός, “people,” and ἔθνος,

 Cf. ὁ θερίζων … συνάγει καρπόν, “the reaper gathers fruit” (John 4:36), in contrast to πᾶν δένδρον
ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, “every good tree brings good fruits” (Matt 7:18).
 5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories 105

“nation,” entail a distinctive feature that qualifies them. Quantifiable collectives can
be illustrated by the lexeme σπεῖρα, “cohort” (John 18:3; Acts 27:1).
§ 178. Since there are two types of distributives, it is important to determine whether
they are (a) distributives of actuality, such as ἕκαστος (“each one,” 1Cor 16:2); οἱ
πάντες (“everyone,” Eph 4:13); καθ’ ἕν (“one by one,” John 21:25); κατὰ πόλιν (“in
each city,” Acts 20:23), or (b) distributives of potentiality, such as ὅστις (“whoever/
whichever,” Matt 12:50); ὃς ἄν (“who/whoever,” Mark 3:35); πᾶς ὁ (“everyone
who,” Matt 7:8). Distributives of potentiality can also be expressed with the article
(e. g., ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς, “the one who receives you,” Matt 10:40).
§ 179. Some lexemes that denote a group of people holding a position or who have
received an appointment have a (singular or plural) corporate sense. This is the
case with τὸ συνέδριον, “the Sanhedrin” (Acts 23:1); οἱ ἀσιάρχαι, “provincial offi-
cials” (Acts 19:31); οἱ πολιτάρχαι, “civic magistrates” (Acts 17:8); οἱ δώδεκα, “the
twelve” (Luke 8:1). |50-M
§ 180. The concept of totality can be specific (e. g., “all [of you]”) or comprehensive
(e. g., “all”).⁴

5.1.3 Mode

§ 181. Grammatically, the verbal category of mode is related to syntax, but semanti-
cally mode transcends this formal criterion. Mode expresses a speaker’s actual expe-
rience of an event and is based on opposition, as the following diagram illustrates:

t n r al t non t n unr al t
a rmat on n at on

§ 182. In and of itself mode does not affirm or deny something’s existence. It express-
es a speaker’s degree of subjective certainty corresponding to his or her experience.
Hence, in addition to the primary opposition of reality vs. unreality, there can also be
an element of uncertainty:

r al t o lt m o lt
unr al t

 Examples of specific totality might include πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, “all of you drink from it” (Matt
26:27) and συνάξω τοὺς καρπούς μου, “I will gather my crops” (Luke 12:17). Comprehensive totality
might include ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα, “he will restore all things” (Matt 17:11) and ἡ γῆ ἐβλάστησεν
τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς, “the earth bore its fruits” (Jas 5:18).
106 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

rta nt un rta nt ou t rta nt

The uncertainty can be nuanced as probability ↔ improbability. The diagram for

modality looks as follows:

R al orl ro a l rta nt

o al t o l orl m ro a l o n on ou t

nr al orl rta nt

In this way people express their knowledge of something’s existence as real or unre-
al, their opinion about probability or improbability, and their uncertainty and doubt.
§ 183. Modal oppositions can be expressed semantically in several manners:
1. with attributes (i. e., with adjectives or adverbs): δυνατόν, “possible” |51-M (Mark
14:35; Acts 20:16; Rom 12:18; Gal 4:15); ἀδύνατον, “impossible” (Mark 10:37; Heb 6:18;
10:4; 11:6); οὐ δυνατόν, (Acts 2:24, equiv. οὐ δύναται, Matt 5:14); δῆλον, “manifest,”
“evident” (Gal 3:11); ἴσως, “perhaps,” “equally” (Luke 20:13); τάχα, “perhaps” (Rom
5:7; Phlm 15); πῶς οὐχί, “will he not?” (Rom 8:32; 2Cor 3:8);
2. with events (especially with verbs of opinion, and sometimes with auxiliaries
of mode): δοκέω, “I think” (1Cor 4:9); ἡγέομαι, “I consider” (2Pet 1:13); νομίζω, “I
suppose” (1Cor 7:26); οἶμαι, “I suppose” (John 21:25); πέπεισμαι, “I am convinced
of” (2Tim 1:12); πέποιθα, “I am convinced/sure,” “to trust” (Phil 1:6); ὑπολαμβάνω,
“I understand” (Luke 7:43);
3. with conditional expressions: εἴ γε, “if it is that” (2Cor 5:3; Gal 3:4; Eph 4:21;
Col 1:23); εἴ πως, “if perhaps” (Rom 1:10; 11:14; Phil 3:11); εἰ θέλοι, “if [God] wills”
(1Pet 3:17); εἰ ἄρα, “if perhaps” (Acts 8:22);
4. with interrogatives: εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες; “did you receive
the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2); εἰ ἔξεστίν μοι εἰπεῖν τι πρός σε;
“will you allow me to tell you something?” (Acts 21:37).
§ 184. The semantic category of mode can convey affirmation and negation. In the
statements “run / do not run,” the event of running is specified in the first case as
existing (real) and in the second as non-existing (unreal). Mode, therefore, applies
in the first place to the contents of expression and secondarily to the form of expres-
sion.
§ 185. Contrasting opposition (existence / non-existence), which characterizes mode,
is sometimes found at the lexemic level (e. g., “to learn” / “to ignore”; “to acknowl-
edge” / “to disown”). Sometimes this also occurs with lexemes that include the class
of entity: “deceased” = Ent (person) / Ev (not living, i. e., no longer existing, viz. with
 5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories 107

a mode of non-existence). Additionally, contrasting opposition can be noted in

phrases such as “ex-minister,” which would be expressed in Greek by the aorist par-
ticiple (cf. Mark 5:18, ὁ δαιμονισθείς, “the one who was previously demon-pos-
sessed”; conveying a situation that was real in the past but unreal in the present).
When mode changes from existence to non-existence, this is expressed (a) if the
change is indicated by verbal lexemes of destruction, suppression, elimination, neu-
tralization (e. g., ἀπόλλυμι, καταργέω, θανατόω, λύω, καταλύω, ἀποκτεῖνω, ἀναι-
ρέω), or (b) if the cause of the change is not indicated, simply with lexemes that de-
note disappearance (e. g., παρέρχομαι, “I pass by”).
§ 186. On the other hand, a change of mode from non-existence to existence is indi-
cated with the lexemes γεννάω, “I reproduce/give birth”; κτίζω, “I create”; and
ποιέω, “I make”; but most commonly with the lexeme γίνομαι, “I become.” |52-M

5.1.4 Tense

§ 187. The grammatical category of tense distinguishes morphologically between pres-

ent, past, and future to specify absolute time, and between imperfect, pluperfect, fu-
ture perfect to specify relative time. Verbal tense thus offers two pieces of information
about temporality, namely, a verb’s relation to the present and its relation to the past
or future.⁵ The semantic category of tense transcends the grammatical category of
tense, since it is based on a broader hierarchical opposition:

t m oral t non t m oral t at m oral t

In other words, there are statements that are situated in the time in which the event
takes place (“he walks”) and others that are independent of an event’s time (“man is
mortal”).
§ 188. Atemporal statements include:
1. Statements of essence: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστίν, “God is light” (1John 1:5); ὁ θεὸς
ἀγάπη ἐστίν, “God is love” (1John 4:16).
2. Gnomic lexemes that state principles: ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, “the one
who receives you receives me” (Matt 10:40); ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν ἐμοῦ ἀκούει, “he who
listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16).
3. Empirical lexemes, which express habitually experienced events: [οἰκο-
δεσπότης] … ἐκβάλλει ἐκ τοῦ θησαυροῦ αὐτοῦ καινὰ καὶ παλαιά, “[a house master]

 Cf. A. J. Greimas, Maupassant: La sémiotique du texte, exercices pratiques (Paris: Le Seuil, 1976), 70
(ET Maupassant: The Semiotics of Text. trans. Paul Perron [Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins,
1988]).
108 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

… draws from his storeroom new things and old things” (Matt 13:52); ὁ σπείρων φει-
δομένως φειδομένως καὶ θερίσει, “whoever sows sparingly will reap sparingly” (2Cor
9:6); ἄνθρωποι κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν, “people swear by something greater
than themselves” (Heb 6:16).
4. General hypotheticals: εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, “if someone wants to
come with me” (Mark 8:34).
§ 189. Temporality is indicated by graded oppositions. If events portray the presence
of the speaker or narrator as the chronological starting point, the absolute tense is
used. The following examples and diagram illustrate this point: ὑμεῖς ἐστε (present
tense) τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς, “you are the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13); ἀνέβη (past tense)
εἰς τὸ ὄρος, “he went up on the mountain” (Matt 5:1); αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται (future
tense), “Those will be comforted” (Matt 5:4).

contemporaneousness non-contemporaneousness
(present)
retrospective prospective
(past) (future)

|53-M
§ 190. On the other hand, if temporal relations are established with reference to a
statement situated outside of the present (in the past or future), the relative tense
is used:

simultaneousness non-simultaneousness

anterior posterior

Two examples of relative tense are illustrated as follows:

1. Absolute past tense: γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας / ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
/ ἀνεθεμάτισμαν ἑαυτοὺς / λέγοντες / μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πίειν / ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν
τὸν Παῦλον, “when it was day (simultaneous) / the Jews made a pact (simultaneous)
/ and swore (absolute, past) / not to eat or to drink (posterior) until they killed Paul
(posterior-anterior) (Acts 23:12).
2. Absolute future tense: ὁ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται, “the one who
endures to the end (anterior) will be saved (absolute, future) (Mark 13:13b).
§ 183. Apart from the temporal relative determinations (e. g., ὅτε, ὅταν, “when”; τότε,
“then”; πρό, “before,” μετά, “after”), which specifically denote relative tense, some
relations also include a temporal relative feature:
 5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories 109

1. A situation can indicate simultaneousness: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ Ἰούδας

… ἦλθεν, “he was still speaking (simultaneous) when Judas arrived” (Matt 26:47).
2. Motivation and causality have a relation of priority to the action or result. Mo-
tive is illustrated in Mark 3:21, οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι
ἐξέστη, “his parents went to seize him since they were saying that he had lost his
mind.” Cause is seen in Mark 4:6, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν ἐξεράνθη, “because it did
not have roots it dried up.” The difference between cause and motive is that the latter
possesses a seme of intention. Cause produces an event or action, while motive is the
purpose or reason for the action, for example, “In order to avoid a pedestrian (mo-
tive), the driver pressed the brake and the car stopped (cause-effect).” |54-M
3. Conditional statements also assume an anterior relation to the completion/re-
alization of the conditioned event: ἐὰν σκανδαλίζῃ σε ἡ χείρ σου, ἀπόκοψον αὐτήν,
“if your hand puts you in danger, cut it off” (Mark 9:43).
4. The semes of cause and effect mark a posterior relation to the subject’s action
or behavior: παρητέρουν αὐτόν … ἵνα κατεγορήσωσιν αὐτόν, “they were watching
him in order to accuse him” (Mark 3:2); συμβούλιον ἐδίδουν … ὅπως αὐτὸν
ἀπολέσωσιν, “they began to plot in order to accuse him” (Mark 3:6); ἐξῆλθεν ἔμπρο-
σθεν πάντων, ὥστε ἐξίστασθαι πάντας, “he withdrew from everyone, leaving them
amazed” (Mark 2:12).
§ 191. For the relations implied in verbal lexemes, lexemes of knowing presuppose
the existence of the known subject or event: ἐπιγνόντες αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ
τόπου ἐκείνου, “when the men of that place recognized him” (Matt 14:35). Verbal lex-
emes of will, desire, etc., include a relation of purpose with the corresponding pos-
terior feature: εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, “if someone wants to come after / follow
me” (Matt 16:24). The content of imperatives, jussives, warnings, and optative expres-
sions are related posteriorly with the tense of the expression: ἀκολούθει μοι, “follow
me” (Mark 2:14).
§ 192. Semantic tense can be independent from the grammatical tense and is often
marked by non-verbal elements, as in the following expressions, “tomorrow I go
to Paris” (grammatically present, semantically future); “then he goes and says”
(grammatically present, semantically past); “what am I to do?” (grammatically pres-
ent, semantically future).

5.1.5 Aspect

§ 193. Grammatically, aspect is connected with verbal forms (morphemic aspect) and
classifies these as punctiliar, durative, and resultative. Punctiliar aspect is divided
into semes of inchoative, terminative, and complexive. Furthermore, extrinsic occa-
sional aspect includes the semes of desiderative, volitional, and conative. Semanti-
cally, aspect is based on an opposition at a higher level, subdivided into secondary
oppositions: |55-M
110 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

stativity dynamism

relative non-relative resultative non-resultative

(with relation (without relation
to an object) to an object)

aoristic non-aoristic
(not a process) (a process,
resultative)

§ 194. Unlike mode and tense, which are not usually represented at the lexemic level,
aspect is predominantly lexemic. Independent from context, every event entails an
aspectual seme so that lexemes can be classified in the following manner:

Stativity

Dynamism

For the purpose of semantic analysis, the distinction between imperfective and aor-
istic lexemes is the most important.
§ 195. Just as the semantic class of event can appear in the nominal form (cf. e. g.,
§§ 164, 166), nominal events also have lexemic aspect:

Stativity: “existence,” “love,” “possession”

Dynamic imperfective: “conversation,” “dialogue,” “walk”
Dynamic aoristic: “launch,” “homicide,” “gift”

§ 196. When attributive events qualify entities, they mark the imperfective lexemic as-
pect as habitual (e. g., “studious boy”). When these are applied to events they have
aspect, such as a “timely call” (punctiliar), in contrast to “punctual man” (habitu-
al). |56-M
 5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories 111

5.1.6 Voice

§ 197. As in the previous categories, voice should be distinguished grammatically and

semantically. As a grammatical category it highlights a subject or an action and is
divided morphemically into the active voice and the middle/passive voice. Voice is
an expressive, stylistic way of emphasizing one relation of an event. Occasionally,
voice does not carry this nuance, which is the case with deponent verbs. Semantical-
ly, the category of voice (like aspect) comes into play at the lexemic level and is based
on opposition:

agentivity non-agentivity

This opposition does not coincide with aspect (stativity ↔ dynamism), since lexemic
aspect affects events while lexemic voice depicts the relation that exists between an
entity and an event.
§ 198. Having established the primary opposition for voice, subordinate oppositions
can be determined:

agentivity non-agentivity

affecting affecting receptive non-receptive

non-subjective subjective (passive voice) (neutral voice)
(active voice) (middle voice)

The non-subjective affecting category (i. e., lexemic active voice) has an agent as its
subject and its action affects an external object (e. g., βάλλω, “to throw”; κρατέω, “to
grasp”; ἀποκτείνω, “to kill”; ἁγιάζω, “to make holy”). The subjective affecting cate-
gory (i. e., lexemic middle voice, often with morphemic active voice) has an agent as
its subject and the action affects this subject (e. g., ἀναγινώσκω, “to read”; ἐσθίω, “to
eat”; πορεύομαι, “to go”; περιπατέω, “to walk”; ὑπομένω, “to endure”; εἰσακούω,
“to listen”; ἀτενίζω, “to look at”; ζητέω, “to seek”). For the receptive category
(i. e., lexemic passive voice), there is an externally agent, but this is not the subject
of the action. The lexemes can have the morphemic active voice (e. g., ἀκούω, “to
hear”; ὁράω, “to see”; λαμβάνω, “to receive”; πάσχω, “to suffer”). Lexemes of the
non-receptive category (i. e., lexemic neutral voice) have a subject that is not acting
and lack an external agent. The morphemic voice is often active (e. g., |57-M ἀσθενέω,
“to be weak/sick”; λυπέομαι, “to be sad”; κάθημαι, “to be seated”; ῥέω, “to flow”;
καθεύδω, “to sleep”; ἀποθνῄσκω, “to die”; οἰκέω, “to dwell”; εἰμί, “to be”;
κτάομαι, “to possess”).
112 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

§ 199. Some Greek lexemes exceed the categories of voice that have just been intro-
duced. Voice can be ambiguous and can be specified by the context. In the New Tes-
tament, for example, ἀκούω can mean “to hear” (passively, not voluntarily; cf. Acts
22:9) and “to listen” (middle; cf. Mark 4:3, 9; John 5:25). In the middle voice, λαμβάνω
can mean “to pick,” “to take” (voluntarily, initiative; cf. Matt 21:39; 26:26) and with
the passive voice it can mean “to receive” (cf. John 1:16).
§ 200. The lexemic middle voice, as has been seen, denotes the seme of subjectivity.
This seme can be divided into spontaneity,⁶ personal benefit,⁷ and reflexive-action.⁸
§ 201. In addition to the connotation of agent/non-agent between an entity and an
event, there are two other kinds of connotations, namely, connotations of object
and of finality. For event lexemes with two connotations (transitive lexemes and oth-
ers) there is a second connotation with another entity (or with a polyvalent X) that
can be affected (connotation of finality) or non-affected (connotation of object) (cf.
e. g., §§ 119 – 20). An event lexeme that has connotations with an object and towards
another is an event lexeme with three connotations (i. e., a ditransitive):

connotation of agent origin agent

connotation of object mediation object (passive)
connotation of finality purpose recipient (patient)

§ 202. Voice, like aspect, is present in event lexemes and therefore in nominal event
lexemes:

active lexemes: “assassination,” “gift” (ditransitive), “launch”

middle lexemes: “study,” “walk,” “reflection,” “seating”
passive lexemes: “reception,” “audition,” “vision”
neutral lexemes: “death,” “dream,” “stream”

5.1.7 Hierarchy of Semantic Categories

§ 203. We have shown how semantic categories can be derived from grammatical cat-
egories, and how these semantic categories contribute to a lexeme’s semes. We shall
now clarify how these semantic categories are ordered hierarchically, since they fol-
low a pattern that is helpful to have ready at hand during the analysis. |58-M
1. First comes the category of mode, which produces the classemes of existence/
reality – non-existence/unreality and subordinate oppositions. Every text and any
part in it affect one of these oppositions.

 Cf. e. g., ἐγείρομαι, “to rise” (Matt 9:19; 17:7); αἰσχύνομαι, “to be ashamed” (Luke 16:3), φοβέομαι,
“to fear” (Matt 14:5), ταράσσομαι, “to be disturbed” (Luke 24:38).
 Cf. e. g., κτάομαι, “to buy” (Acts 1:18; 8:20; 22:28).
 Cf. e. g., νίπτομαι, “to bathe oneself” (John 9:11, 15).
 5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories 113

2. Subordinated to mode is tense, which can include absolute chronological

tense (cf. §§ 187– 89) or relative tense (cf. § 190). The combination of mode and ab-
solute tense can be diagrammed as:

present
ttemporal past temporal
future

existence/ non-existence/
reality unreality

eessential
aatemporal ggnomic aatemporal
eempirical
h
hypothetical

This combination can produce classemes of becoming and of causality. Although ex-
istence and non-existence cannot coexist in the same tense, context can indicate a
change from one of these states to the other by means of successive tenses. The
change of states will be indicated by verbal lexemes of becoming if there is no indi-
cation of a cause, and by causative lexemes if there is (cf. §§ 187– 88).
3. Semantic aspect introduces the nuclear semes of stativity or dynamism. At the
morpho-syntactic level, aspect semes will be punctiliar, inchoative, resultative, or in-
tensifying.
4. As a semantic category, voice introduces nuclear semes of activity/non-activity.
At the morphemic level, voice provides classemes that indicate agentivity/non-agen-
tivity, objectivity, purpose, etc. These prepare the way for the actancial analysis⁹TN of
passages.
5. If an agent, an object, or a recipient are features of a lexeme they will also in-
clude the dependent classemes of gender and number applied contextually. |59-M
We have thus described how semantic categories can be constructed from the gram-
matical categories of mode, tense, aspect, voice, gender, and number. This is a key

 Translator’s Note: Actantial analysis was introduced by Greimas in A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés,
“Actante,” In Semiótica. Diccionario razonado de la teoría del lenguaje (Madrid: Gredos, 1990). [A. J.
Greimas and J. Courtés, Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage, trans. Joseph Cour-
tés (Hachette: Supérieur, 1979); A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés, Semiotics and Language: An Analytical
Dictionary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982)]. The term refers to roles in a discourse, sim-
ilar to the roles in a play. In theater the roles might include a hero and villain and in semiotics they
might include roles such as subject, object, and recipient.
114 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

point of our analysis, since these categories will form the basis of the various semes,
which will now be discussed.

5.2 Semic Development

§ 204. Semantic analysis can be conducted in several ways. Lexemes can be analyzed
in isolation (i. e., langue), in context (i. e., parole), or in conjunction with other lex-
emes. The final goal of our method is the analysis of lexemes in context, but a nec-
essary prerequisite for this is the examination of lexemes in langue. In our estima-
tion, semes provide the key for analyzing lexemes in langue. The identification of
the semes of a lexeme enables the lexeme’s basic features (i. e., its semic nucleus)
to be explicated. The lexeme can then be examined in context, which enables its var-
iables (i. e., its contextual meanings) to be determined.

5.2.1. Semes

§ 205. When possible, we refer to semes as abstract nouns. Since semes are rendered
in a technical metalanguage, it can be helpful to coin new terms if these are neces-
sary for expressing the nature of the semes. Semes are often defined as elemental,
indivisible semantic units.¹⁰ For the sake of practicality, we do not apply this defini-
tion strictly, implying that some of the semes in our analysis can actually be broken
down into smaller units. Given that a method must be functional, the degree of ab-
straction that we use remains proportionate to the purpose of the method. For exam-
ple, the seme “humanity” can be clearly broken down into smaller features, includ-
ing entity, corporeality, vitality, sensitivity, and rationality, but to mention these
semes each time “humanity” appears would lead to endless, unintelligible lists of
semic nuclei. Therefore, we seek to simplify the lists of semes without compromising
their accuracy. Thus, the semes of animality, humanity, and divinity do not require
explanation. Other related issues will be explained as they appear.

5.2.2 The Semic Nucleus: A Methodological Option

§ 206. The semic nucleus (cf. § 85) is an abstraction based on the uses of a lexeme in
a select corpus. Concordances provide the passages in which a lexeme is used, and
these usages are systematized and grouped based on contextual meanings (cf.
§§ 89 – 90). The common features of a lexeme’s contextual meanings, which are iden-

 According to E. Coseriu, semes are the minimal distinctive features of meaning and the basis of
opposition; cf. E. Coseriu, “Lexikalische Solidaritäten,” Poetica 1.293 – 303.
 5.2 Semic Development 115

tified by means of comparison, serve (at least provisionally) to establish the semantic
formula and the specific nuclear semes.
§ 207. At this point in the analysis, the heterogeneous nature of many lexemes’ mean-
ings presents a problem. Such heterogeneousness normally results from semes that
are added by context. These additions, however, can also change the structure of the
semic nucleus, which occurs in three ways: |62-M
1. By causing the nuclear semes to link in different ways. Context may emphasize
one of the semes or place a seme in a specific semic group, which will be the dom-
inant group under which others are subordinated. Thus, although the lexeme’s nu-
clear semes remain constant, they can change their organization. The semic structure
will begin in each case with the seme or the group made dominant by context. New
structures of the semic nucleus are thus produced that generate different nuclear
configurations (i. e., various hierarchies of the nucleus’s semes; cf. § 86) and there-
fore new meanings;
2. When a contextual seme substitutes or neutralizes a nuclear seme, causing it
to disappear. Neutralization or suspension of the nuclear semes is the basis for trans-
formed, metaphorical, and symbolic senses;
3. By constructing a new nucleus using elements from the context, and subordi-
nating older nuclear semes to the new nucleus.
§ 208. When in certain contexts a lexeme’s meanings differ greatly from the more
common contextual meaning(s), there are two ways to establish the semic nucleus:
(1) reduce all the contextual meanings to the common semes, or (2) consider some
contextual meanings as viable meanings of the lexeme and others as the result of
the restructured nucleus and its semes. The first procedure can be helpful when pre-
paring a mechanical translation, but the second is better suited for linguistic descrip-
tion and for understanding a term’s transformed sense.
The second option is more feasible methodologically. Consider, for example, the
Spanish lexeme “gato” (cat), which can refer to a domestic animal, to a mechanical
instrument, and (colloquially) to a person born in Madrid. If the goal is to determine
a semic nucleus that accounts for the development of these three contextual meanings,
the lexeme “gato” would be reduced to so few generic semes (among them the basic
feature of animality would not even appear) that the lexeme becomes nearly unintelli-
gible to the reader. The method loses its functionality. Something similar occurs with
the Greek lexeme υἱός in the New Testament. Besides the normal meaning “son,”
which denotes a person and his relation with another based on the event of reproduc-
tion, there are (among others) the following expressions: υἱοὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, “sons
of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36); υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας, “sons of the kingdom” (Matt 8:12;
13:38); υἱοὶ [τοῦ] φωτός, “sons of the light” (Luke 16:8; |63-M John 12:36), υἱὸς
παρακλήσεως “son of exhortation” (Acts 4:36); υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, “son of destruction”
(John 17:12); υἱοὶ βροντῆς “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). The only common seme for
υἱός in each of these expressions, besides the seme “human being,” is that of relation.
Nothing more is specified. Hence, the cited phrases would thus mean “the resurrected
116 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

ones,” “the citizens of the kingdom,” “those who live illuminated,” “the exhorter,”
“the one who is destroyed,” “the thunderous ones.” In reality, these are paralexemes.
§ 209. To establish the semic nucleus we shall therefore seek greater clarity and utility
by temporarily omitting the somewhat heterogeneous contextual meanings. This en-
ables us to establish a provisional semic nucleus, which is then augmented and re-
vised by a contextual analysis that accounts for possible changes in meaning. The
semantic construction of the contextual meanings is tested by the coherency of
their form and structure. Having established these premises, the methodological
steps of our analysis can now be explained.

5.3 The Lexeme in Isolation: Determining the Constants

§ 210. The preliminary step for the semic development of lexemes consists in estab-
lishing the semantic formula (cf. the previous chapter). The semantic formula con-
sists of a lexeme’s denoted class or classes as well as its connoted relations. Once
the semantic formula is established, the lexeme’s generic and specific nuclear
semes can be determined (i. e., its semic development).

5.3.1 Generic Nuclear Semes

§ 211. To determine a lexeme’s generic nuclear semes, the semantic categories are ap-
plied (cf. §§ 173 – 202) at the lexemic level to each element of the formula. If an ele-
ment is classified as an entity, the relevant categories will be gender and number.
Events are explicated with the categories of aspect, voice and sometimes mode.
The semic development is then constructed by determining the nuclear semes of
each relation. In this way a list of generic nuclear semes common to many lexemes
is obtained, enabling semantic domains to be formed. |64-M We define a semantic do-
main as a group of lexemes that have common generic semes at different levels.
Thus, for example, the generic seme of dynamism includes the whole domain of ac-
tivity. If the seme of mobility is added (dynamism + mobility), then the domain of
movement is included. If the seme of horizontality is also added (dynamism + mo-
bility + horizontality), the domain becomes one of horizontal movement.

5.3.2 Specific Semes

§ 212. Specific nuclear semes are identified by looking at the meaning of the lexeme,
enabling semes such as imperfectivity, aoristic, effectivity, purpose, verbality, factual-
ity, and harmfulness to be determined. Attention should also be given to oppositions
and differences from other lexemes within the same semantic domain.
5.4 Lexemes in Context: Determining the Variables (Classemes and Occasional Semes) 117

5.3.3 The Semic Nucleus

§ 213. Once a lexeme’s generic and specific nuclear semes are identified, these are
placed in a hierarchical order by following the criteria of implication, presupposi-
tion, and consequence. In this way a lexeme’s structured semic nucleus (i. e., its nu-
clear configuration) is established. This configuration is normally established when
the formula’s denoted and connoted elements are first developed. The nuclear con-
figuration is of decisive importance when there are various semes or semic groups in
a lexeme that, depending on context, can become dominant when the nucleus’s
structure changes, giving rise to various nuclear configurations for the same lexeme
(cf. chap. 7).

5.3.4 Definition of the Lexeme

§ 214. Once the semic nucleus is determined, the lexeme can be defined. The defini-
tion should integrate all the data that has been gathered. The definition will confirm
the accuracy of the analysis by showing whether the definition describes the specific
lexeme. If the definition can be applied to other lexemes, one is either dealing with
synonyms or a specific seme has been overlooked in the analysis. |65-M

5.4 Lexemes in Context: Determining the Variables (Classemes

and Occasional Semes)
§ 215. Once the defined lexeme is considered in context, the next step is to determine
and define the sememes (i. e., contextual meanings) that are formed in context. To do
so, the contextual semes must be identified, beginning with the classemes (i. e., com-
mon contextual semes). Classemes appear when the semantic categories of gender,
number, mode, tense, aspect, and voice are applied at the morphemic and syntag-
matic levels.
§ 216. Occasional contextual semes are then identified. This is accomplished in con-
text by identifying: (1) the recipients of the connoted relations in the semantic formu-
la, and (2) the recipients of the relations that are not necessarily offered by the con-
text. To establish the nuclear semes, the relational semes (but not their objects) have
been integrated into the semic nucleus. This points to a certain generic nature re-
quired by the lexeme.¹¹ Context will augment the semic development. If a nuclear
seme is ambiguous (e. g., whether “testimony” is used in a favorable or unfavorable
sense), this is often explained by contextual clues.

 For example, the seme of humanity may be generic when actions like “construction” or “fabrica-
tion” are discussed.
118 Chapter 5: Semic Analysis

§ 217. By adding the contextual semes (i. e., classemes and occasional semes) to the
semes that constitute the lexeme’s semic nucleus, the sememe (i. e., contextual
meaning) is obtained. This leads to the lexeme’s definition, which should square ex-
actly with the details of the text. However, contextual semes sometimes contradict
one or several nuclear semes—neutralizing or negating them. In this way, both the
derived and the metaphorical senses of the lexeme are formed (cf. chap. 7). A specific
lexeme’s group of contextual meanings that are found within a selected corpus can
be called the lexemic domain. |66-M

5.5 Lexeme, Formula, and Semic Development

§ 218. As has been shown, this method adds determination to the semantic formula
as a step between the lexeme and the identification of its semic nucleus. The formula
is comprised of denoted and connoted elements that are classified according to se-
mantic classes. To proceed from the formula to the semic nucleus, the semantic cat-
egories are applied to the elements of the formula, marking the start of the semic de-
velopment. Once the generic semes are obtained, these can be compared with other
lexemes that share the same generic semes. In doing so, the specific semes that com-
plete the nucleus and characterize the lexeme are specified. Each element of a lex-
eme’s formula includes a series of semes or semantic features. The same seme can
be found in the development of several elements. Just as lexemes are generalities
that can be subdivided into elements arranged by classes, so also are elements gen-
eralities that are subdivided into semes. There are therefore two steps in our analysis:
(1) The lexeme is subdivided into denoted and connoted elements, arranged by se-
mantic classes; (2) Each element is subdivided into generic or specific semes, viz. se-
mantic features. The formulas do not become excessively complicated, but the group
of semes is systematized.

5.6 Summary

§ 219. In summary of what has been explained, the steps of the analysis can be pre-
sented as follows:
1. Semantic Formula: determine a lexeme’s semantic class or classes and their
required relations
2. Development of the semantic formula
2.1. Determine the nuclear semes: the constants
A. Generic semes
a. Apply the semantic categories to the lexeme
b. Identify the relational semes
B. Specific semes
a. Identify specific semes in the semantic categories
 5.6 Summary 119

b. Identify specific semes in the relations |67-M

C. Organization of the semic nucleus
D. Definition of the lexeme
2.2. Determine the contextual semes: the variables
A. Classemes
a. Apply the semantic categories morphemically and syntagmatically
B. Occasional semes
a. Identify the necessary relations and the contextual relations
b. Determine the nature of the relations
C. Definition of the sememe(s) |68-M
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis¹TN
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes

§ 220. According to what was explained in the previous chapter, our first methodo-
logical step consists in analyzing a lexeme abstractly in langue in order to establish
its semic nucleus and its nuclear configuration. This enables us to determine the hi-
erarchy and structure of a lexeme’s semes.

6.1.1 Entity Lexemes

§ 221. We begin with the lexeme ἄνθρωπος, “human being,” which only denotes the
semantic class of entity and does not connote a relation. Its formula, therefore, is
simple:

Ent

To determine the semes of ἄνθρωπος that do not connote other entities, the semantic
categories of number and gender should be applied:

individuality (= number)
ν ρ ο
humanity (= gender)

The seme of individuality does not affect the morphemic number, i. e., singular or
plural, which will be clear in context. Based on the semic analysis, the lexeme
ἄνθρωπος can be defined as “human being.”
§ 222. Like ἄνθρωπος, the lexeme ἀκρίς, “locust” (Mark 1:6), only denotes the seman-
tic class of entity. Its formula is therefore the same, but the development will have
different semes:

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 69 – 148 in the original text of Mateos.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-012
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 121

individuality (= number)
ἀ ρ
animality (= gender)

These generic semes must be supplemented with the characteristic features that dis-
tinguish locusts from other animals (e. g., “insect,” “flying”). In this way, the specific
semes that |69-M comprise the semic nucleus of ἀκρίς can be identified.
§ 223. The lexeme ἀνήρ, “adult male,” has more semantic content than ἄνθρωπος,
“human being.” The seme “adulthood” is a denoted qualification. The formula,
therefore, will be complex:

Ent + A

The development will be as follows:

Ent individuality (number)

ἀν ρ humanity
masculinity (gender)
A adulthood

Definition: “Adult (A) human male (Ent).”

§ 224. The lexeme ὄχλος, “multitude” (cf. § 367) also has a complex formula, since it
denotes three semantic classes, namely, an entity (“people”), a local relation (“in the
same place”), and an attribute (“quantity,” “great number”):

Ent + R + A

If the attribute is specified and the corresponding semantic categories are applied to
the entity and the relation, the following semes can be established:
122 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Ent plurality (number)

humanity (gender)
ο R location
simultaneousness
A quantity

Definition: “A large (A) group of human beings (Ent) in the same place (R).”
§ 225. The lexeme λαός, “people,” adds to ὄχλος the idea of a people’s historical iden-
tity, which can be considered a relation (R). The local relation is external to the de-
notation, |70-M since it connotes the territory or native land (R1) inhabited by the peo-
ple (Ent1). The attribute (A) of quantity is present, resulting in the following formula:

Ent + A + R R1 Ent1

By applying the categories of number and gender to the entity and by specifying the
other elements, the resulting semic development is:

Ent plurality R1 location

humanity Ent1 territory
α
A quantity
R identity
historicity

Definition: “A large group (A) of human beings (Ent) with a historical identity (R) who
inhabit (R1) a territory (Ent1).”
§ 226. The lexeme οἶκος (“house” in its most common contextual meaning) denotes
an entity. Its formula therefore has a simple structure. Nevertheless, οἶκος has a dou-
ble connotation of origin (event, construction) and purpose (event, habitation), each
of which are connected with personal subjects (Ent1 and Ent2):
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 123

R1 Ev1 R1 Ent1

Ent

R2 Ev2 2 Ent2

To determine the nuclear semes, the semes of Ent as well as the semes of the connot-
ed relations (R1, R2) must be determined. The semes of Ent1 and Ent2 come into play
only when they can be determined at the lexemic level. For |71-M οἶκος, the builder of
the house (Ent1) is necessarily a human entity. The one for whom the house is built
(Ent2) can be of human or divine gender, such as when οἶκος refers to the house of
God (cf. Mark 11:17 par.). The specific semes of οἶκος are developed in opposition to
other entities from the same semantic domain. Thus, the seme of demarcation must
be accompanied by the seme of coveredness, in order to differentiate “house” from
“fence.” The seme of suitability will also be present, since this distinguishes houses
from buildings not suitable for habitation. The seme of self-containment distin-
guishes a house from one of its rooms. The semic development of οἶκος is as follows:

ο ο Ent Generic semes R1 transitivity

individuality (number) Ev1 dynamism
inanimateness (gender) resultativity
construction
Specific semes agentivity
building Ent1 personhood
location humanity
demarcation R2 purpose
coveredness Ev2 stativity
self-containment habitation
suitability utilization
Ent2 personhood
(human/divine)

Definition: “A covered building demarcating a self-contained and suitable space

(Ent), constructed (R1, Ev1) by (R′1←) people (Ent1) for (R2→) the habitation (Ev2)
of (←R′2→)²TN people (Ent2).”

 Translator’s Note: The habitation is for (→) people, and the house is inhabited by (←) people. Cf.
the explanations of double arrows in chap. 4, note 4.
124 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

§ 227. The preceding analysis and definition of οἶκος have accounted for the most
common contextual meaning of οἶκος. Nevertheless, our analysis does not explain
all the occurrences of this term |72-M in the New Testament. For example, John 2:16
contains the phrase οἶκος ἐμπορίου, “house of commerce/business.” In this verse
the relation of purpose changes from habitation to commerce, and the corresponding
semes cannot be considered nuclei of the lexeme. If this contextual meaning were
integrated into the formula, the seme of purpose R2 becomes unspecified and the
semes of habitation and personhood in Ev2 and Ent2 would be omitted. Only context
can specify the proper contextual meaning of οἶκος. Thus, in order to establish a lex-
eme’s semic nucleus in a specific corpus, it is necessary to examine the various uses
of the lexeme. Sometimes it is also necessary to examine the lexeme outside of the
corpus in order to identify other possible meanings and to remove elements that do
not comprise the lexemic meaning.
§ 228. It should be noted that in our analysis of οἶκος we incorporate the common
contextual seme of purpose, even though this seme does not belong to the lexeme
in langue. Our analysis of οἶκος, however, is not misguided, since we develop the
semes of οἶκος by means of a constructed sememe.³ A constructed sememe broadens
the scope of the analysis, which often enables us to determine the nuclear semes
more accurately. This modus operandi relates to what was previously said (cf.
§§ 207– 08) about the heterogeneous contextual meanings of lexemes. Sometimes,
especially if the lexeme is used figuratively, it is nearly impossible to determine a
semic nucleus that is shared by all the contextual meanings. The best strategy is
to establish the semic nucleus from the most common contextual meaning and to
consider the other meanings as the result of the influence of context on the semic
nucleus.
§ 229. The lexeme οἶκος denotes a constructed entity that serves a specific purpose for
humans. Lexemes that denote entities of the same gender (i. e., lexemes of instru-
ment in the broadest sense, e. g., τράπεζα, “table”; πλοῖον, “boat”; ἱμάτιον,
“cloak”; ἅρμα, “chariot”) will have the same semantic formula as οἶκος and parallel
semic developments.
§ 230. The lexeme οἶκος can refer to the house of God (i. e., to the temple),⁴ but |73-M
this contextual meaning is dependent on context and depends on how the relation of
purpose is specified. By contrast, the lexeme ἱερόν, “temple,” adds the seme of sa-
credness (A), which specifies a dual sense of purpose (R2), namely, the habitation
of a god and the exercise of divine worship:

 Greimas, Sémantique structurale, 85. A constructed sememe refers to the praxis of supplementing
the analysis of a lexeme in langue with one or several contextual semes from parole.
 Cf. ὁ οἶκός μου, “my house” (Mark 11:17); τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου, “my Father’s house” (John
2:16).
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 125

R1 Ev1 R1 Ent1

Ent + A

R2 Ev2 2 Ent2

As can be seen, the formula of ἱερόν is similar to that of οἶκος. However, in the de-
velopment the attribute of sacredness (A) is added and the purpose (R2) is specified
as location and exercise of sacred activity in honor of (Ev2) a god (Ent2). In this case,
the sequence Ev2←R′2→Ent2 could be repeated twice in the formula.
§ 231. The lexeme ναός, “sanctuary” (which is considered the dwelling of a god with-
in a temple and is inaccessible to the faithful) will have the same formula as ἱερόν.
However, its development lacks the seme of self-containment (cf. § 226), since a sanc-
tuary is part of a larger complex (i. e., the temple). The seme of accessibility will be
replaced by restriction, since entrance is restricted in the Jewish culture to priests,
and the interior is restricted to the High Priest once a year.
§ 232. The lexeme βασιλεύς, “king” (cf. § 106) has a complex formula comprised of an
entity (man or God), an attribute (kingship), and an event (government). It connotes
the subjects and the territory over which the governance is exercised (Ent1). The for-
mula and development are as follows:

Ent + A + Ev R Ent1
|74-M

Ent individuality (= number) R transitivity

personhood (= gender) Ent1 plurality
α ι A quality humanity
royalty location
Ev dynamism
imperfectivity
resultativity
governance

Definition: “A person (Ent) who, by virtue of the kingship attributed to him (A), ex-
ercises an activity of governance (Ev) over (R) a group of human individuals in a
given territory (Ent1).”
126 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

§ 233. Quasi-entities present challenges in the domain of entity lexemes, since these
are not actual entities, but are often perceived as entities (cf. § 103). One example is
χρόνος, “time.”⁵ In the formula for χρόνος there is an event alongside an entity. The
event expresses the temporal succession of the entity. In order to indicate the nature
of a quasi-entity in another manner, the symbol (+) can be added in the box, which
expresses the addition of elements, or the symbol (=), which indicates identification.
The formula, semic development, and definition of χρόνος are as follows:

Ent = Ev

ρ νο Ent entity
Ev dynamism
imperfectivity
succession
temporality

Definition: “An entity (Ent) that represents continual temporal succession (Ev).” |75-M

6.1.2 Attribute Lexemes

§ 234. Attribute lexemes appear in adjectival, adverbial, and abstract forms (cf.
§ 107 ff.). Those with adjectival or adverbial forms always connote an object. We
first identify attribute lexemes that express an intrinsic non-relative quality, as is
the case with λευκός, “white”:

A R Ent

 The lexeme λόγος, “word,” “message,” presents a similar example and will be examined with
event lexemes that have three connotations (cf. § 266).
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 127

A quality
coloration
whiteness
R attribution
Ent entity

Definition: “White coloration (A) attributed to (R) an entity (Ent).”

The specific semes of color (e. g., whiteness, blackness) are data of immediate expe-
rience and cannot be analyzed. The generic semes apply to each lexeme of quality.
§ 235. Attribute lexemes, such as μέγας, “big,” that denote dimension (cf. § 109) have
the same formula as λευκός. The object is polyvalent (X), since “big” can be attrib-
uted to an entity,⁶ to an attribute,⁷ or to an event:⁸ |76-M

A R X

A dimensionality
largeness
μέ α
R attribution
X reality [Ent/A/Ev]

Definition: “A large dimension (A) attributed to (R) a reality (X).”

The physical or metaphorical nature of the attribute μέγας will be determined by con-
text. Lexemes like μικρός, “small,” share the same formula as μέγας but change the
seme of largeness in the development.
§ 236. Attribute lexemes that denote the quality of a non-relational state (cf. § 110),
such as ὑγιής, “healthy,” or ἀσθενής “weak,” “sick,” have a complex formula,
since they not only denote quality but also state. This is due to the fact that they
do not refer to an entity’s intrinsic quality, but to a state that is not necessarily
viewed as permanent. The semantic formula of ὑγιής, “healthy,” is therefore as fol-
lows:

 Cf. e. g., λίθος, “stone” (Matt 27:60); κλάδος, “branch” (Mark 4:32); οἰκοδομή, “building” (Mark
13:2); ἰχθύς, “fish” (John 21:11); ἱερεύς, “priest” (Heb 10:21).
 Cf. e. g., ἐξουσία, “authority” (Rev 18:1).
 Cf. e. g., χαρά, “joy” (Matt 2:10); πτῶσις, “fall” (Matt 7:27); φόβος, “fear” (Luke 2:10); διωγμός, “per-
secution” (Acts 8:1).
128 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

A + Ev R Ent

To explicate the development, it is necessary to identify the specific semes of the at-
tribute and event. The event semes should specify the characteristics of the state of
health. The attribute (A) includes a seme of euphoria:

A quality R attribution
excellence Ent individuality
ι duration humanity
euphoria
Ev stativity
vitality
dynamism
activity
having organs
corporeality
|77-M

Definition: “An enduring, euphoric state of excellent (A) vitality and function of the
bodily organs (Ev) attributed to (R) a human individual (Ent).”
The abstract state of ὑγίεια, “health” (absent in the New Testament) reverses the
order of the formula’s elements and omits the relation to a subject:

Ev + A

The development is the same as ὑγιής, except that the order of the elements is re-
versed and the reference to R and Ent is absent.
Definition: “An enduring, euphoric state of excellent (A) vitality and function of the
bodily organs (Ev).”
§ 237. Attribute lexemes that primarily denote a personal quality manifested in ac-
tion, such as ἀγαθός, “good,” or πονηρός, “wicked” (cf. § 111), denote a quality
(A) and an event (Ev) and connote (R1) a subject (X) and a personal recipient (Ent)
of (R2) the action. By considering the attribute lexeme ἀγαθός, “good,” it becomes
clear that in the New Testament this adjective can refer to people (ἀγαθός ἐστιν,
“he is good,” John 7:12), to inanimate objects (δένδρον ἀγαθόν, “good tree,” Matt
17:17), to things (ἀγαθὸς θησαυρός, “good treasure,” Matt 12:35), and to events
(λόγος ἀγαθός, “good word,” 2Thess 2:17). Each of these has to do with something
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 129

that brings about positive effects for people.⁹ In the formula, the subject is given a
polyvalent X. A relation (R) joins the quality (A) and the action (Ev).

R1 X

A + R + Ev

R2 Ent |78-M

A quality R1 attribution
ἀ α advantageousness X reality
R manifestation R2 transitivity
Ev dynamism Ent humanity
activity
habituality

Definition: “A beneficial quality (A) attributed to (R1) a reality (X), which is manifest-
ed in (R) the habitual expression of goodness (Ev) towards (R2) a human being
(Ent).”
Other attribute lexemes of quality manifested in action (e. g., κακός, “bad”; πονηρός,
“wicked”; μακρόθυμος, “patient”) will have the same formula and a semic develop-
ment that parallels that of ἀγαθός.
§ 238. Although it belongs to the same category as ἀγαθός, the lexeme δίκαιος, “right-
eous,” is unique because the quality (A) consists in faithfulness to a rule, which is
perceived as an entity (Ent′ = Ev1 + A1). The event is dynamic and denotes a habitual
action that manifests (R) faithfulness (A). For the moment, we consider δίκαιος when
it is applied to persons and takes a personal object. The formula and development
are as follows:

 An exception, however, is συνείδησις ἀγαθή, “good conscience” (Acts 23:1), which has a contextual
meaning that differs from the common one. According to our previous discussion (cf. §§ 207– 09), we
can leave this example aside for the moment, viewing it as a byproduct of the ordinary sense.
130 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

R1 Ent1

A + R + Ev [Ent + Ev1 + A1]

R2 Ent2
|79-M

A quality R1 attribution
αιο faithfulness Ent1 personhood (divine/human)
R manifestation R2 transitivity
Ev dynamism Ent2 personhood (human/divine)
activity quasi-entity
habituality Ev1 regulation
A1 rightness

Definition: “Faithfulness (A) to a just rule (Ent′) that is attributed to (R1) a personal
subject (Ent1) and is manifested in (R) a habitual manner of acting (Ev) towards (R2)
one or several human beings (Ent2).”
We have considered the most common use of δίκαιος in which the lexeme is applied
to people. This implies that we are dealing with a constructed sememe, since δίκαιος
is also applied in the New Testament to αἷμα, “blood” (Matt 23:35); κρίσις, “judg-
ment” (John 5:30); ἐντολή, “commandment” (Rom 7:12); and ὁδός, “way” (Rev
15:3). One must consider the various subjects in order to determine the formula
and its semic development (in similar fashion to our discussion of ἀγαθός above).
§ 239. Attribute lexemes that specify the quality of a relation by means of an object,
such as πλούσιος, “rich” (cf. § 112), denote an attribute (A) and a relation (R) and con-
note a subject (Ent, human or divine) and an object, which is polyvalent (X) because
it occasionally does not consist of material things (cf. πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει, “rich in
mercy,” Eph 2:4; πλούσιοι ἐν πίστει, “rich in faith,” Jas 2:5):

R1 Ent

A+R

[X + A1]
|80-M
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 131

A abundance X reality
ο ιο R possession A1 valuability
R1 attribution
Ent individuality
personhood

Definition: “An abundant (A) possession of (R) something valuable (X + A1) that is
attributed (R1) to a person (Ent).”
§ 240. Comparative attribute lexemes denote an attribute (A) and a relation (R) and
connote a polyvalent subject (X1) and a polyvalent object of comparison (X2) (cf.
§ 113). The formula and development for μείζων, “greater,” are:

R1 X1

A+R

X2

A dimensionality R1 attribution
μ ν largeness X1 reality (subject)
R comparison X2 reality (object)
superiority

Definition: “A dimension (A) attributed to (R1) a reality (X1) which surpasses (R) that
of another reality (X2).” |81-M
§ 241. The quantifying lexemes πολύς, “many,” “big,” and ὀλίγος, “few,” “small,” are
attributes that relate to objects (cf. § 113). The lexeme πολύς is applied to entities,¹⁰
events,¹¹ and relations.¹² The object, therefore, is polyvalent (X), as depicted in the
following formula and development:

 Cf. e. g., ὁ θερισμὸς πολύς, “the harvest [is] great” (Matt 9:37); ὄχλος πολύς, “a great multitude”
(Matt 26:47).
 Cf. e. g., μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς, “with great power and great glory” (Matt 24:30); ἤρ-
ξατο κηρύσσειν πολλά [adverbial], “he began to proclaim [it] much” (Mark 1:45).
 Cf. e. g., πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν, “he [instead] shouted [even] more/louder” (Mark 10:48).
132 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

A R X

A quantity
largeness
ο R attribution
X reality

Definition: “A large quantity (A) attributed to (R) a reality (X).”

Absolute superlatives like μέγιστος, “biggest,” do not include a comparative relation.
Instead, they denote an attribute and a determination (degree) and only connote a
subject:

A+D R X

A dimensionality R attribution
μέ ι ο largeness X reality
D maximality

Definition: “A dimension of maximum (D) size (A) attributed to (R) a reality (X).”
§ 242. The lexeme καθαρός, “clean,” “pure”—an attribute lexeme that designates the
quality of a state (cf. § 110)—presents challenges. This lexeme is applied to people or
things and has different meanings depending on context. It has a physical contextual
meaning |82-M (“clean,” as opposed to “dirty”)¹³ and a religious contextual meaning
(“legally or morally pure,” “one who has access to God”).¹⁴ Both contextual mean-
ings refer to an opinion (Ev2) given by a competent (A1) individual (Ent3) about con-
formity (R2) to a rule (Ev1), which is viewed as an entity (Ent2) and establishes the
required conditions for applying the attribute (A). The formula and development are:

 Cf. e. g., ἐν σινδόνι καθαρᾷ, “in a clean cloth” (Matt 27:59); ὕδατι καθαρῷ, “with clean water” (Heb
10:22). It can be noted that καθαρός sometimes includes an opposition to “a skin disease”; cf. Mark
1:40 – 45.
 Cf. e. g., οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, “the pure in heart” (Matt 5:8); ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, “you are clean”
(John 15:13); καθαροί is the contrast to “legal or moral impurity,” “excluded from access to God.”
 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes 133

R1 Ent1

A + Ev Ev2 R3 [Ent3 = A1]

R2 [Ent2 = Ev1]

A qualification Ev2 dynamism

cleanness resultativity
Ev stativity assessment
condition R3 agentivity
α α ς R1 attribution Ent3 personhood
Ent1 entity A1 adequacy
R2 conformity
Ent2 quasi-entity
Ev1 regulation |83-M

Definition: “A state (Ev) of cleanness (A) attributed to (R1) an entity (Ent1) because of
its conformity (R2) to a rule (Ent2 = Ev1), which can be declared (Ev2) by (R3) a per-
son (Ent3) competent in the matter (A1).”
§ 243. The lexeme κοινός, “common,” “ordinary,” is another example of an attribute
lexeme with unique features. Its formula denotes not only an attribute but also a re-
lation to entities that have the same characteristics. The lexeme has two primary con-
textual meanings, which stem from the lexeme’s application (1) to a feature or situa-
tion that is common to many,¹⁵ and (2) to an entity that is common to many.¹⁶ The
attributed subject is therefore polyvalent (X) and the relation always has (personal
or impersonal) entities as the object:

R1 X

A+R

Ent + A1

 Cf. e. g., κοινὴ πίστις, “common faith” (Tit 1:4); τὴν κοινὴν ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν, “our common salva-
tion” (Jude 3).
 Cf. e. g., εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά, “they were sharing all things in common” (Acts 2:44).
134 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

A qualification Ent entity

externality plurality
ι ς R reference A1 numerosity/totality
R1 attribution
X reality

Definition: “An extrinsic qualification (A) attributed to (R1) a reality (X) because of its
similarity to or possession by (R) a certain number (A1) of entities (Ent).”¹⁷ |84–86-M

6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes

§ 244. According to our discussion of the semantic formula in §§ 115 ff., various
groups of event lexemes can be constructed based on their number of necessary con-
notations. The following analysis will therefore proceed in three parts by examining
lexemes with one connotation (subject), lexemes with two connotations (subject and
object), and lexemes with three connotations (subject, object, and recipient). In each
of these sections, lexemes with simple and with complex formulas will be discussed.
Semantic aspect must be considered in the analysis of event lexemes, since it can
change the meaning of a lexeme. Occasionally, morphemic aspect, which is part of
contextual analysis, should also be considered (when the lexicographer deems
this necessary).

6.2.1 Event Lexemes with One Connotation

§ 245. The verb πορεύομαι serves as an example of an event lexeme that has a simple
formula and one connotation (cf. § 117). Its connotation specifies the subject of the
action:

Ev R Ent

By examining this lexeme’s use in the New Testament, it becomes clear that
πορεύομαι is always used with reference to people. The entity, therefore, represents

 The pejorative sense of “ordinary” that κοινός frequently acquires in context is noteworthy, mak-
ing it virtually synonymous with ἀκάθαρτος, “impure” (cf. Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; Rom 14:14;
Heb 10:29; Rev 21:27).
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 135

a human subject. In the development of the formula, the generic semes are specified
by applying the verbal and nominal semantic categories:

Ev dynamism
activity (
(lexemic aspect
imperfectivity n
non-resultative)
activity
ορ ομαι subjectivity (
(lexemic voice,
spontaneity middle)
m

R agentivity
Ent individuality (number)
humanity (gender) |87-M

The specific semes of πορεύομαι will be determined by comparing other lexemes that
have the same generic semes: In opposition to νοέω, “to think,” the semes of
πορεύομαι specify mobility and location; in opposition to ἀναβαίνω, “to go up/as-
cend,” it specifies horizontality; in opposition to περιπατέω, “to walk,” it specifies
directionality; in opposition to ἱππηλατέω, “to ride” (not in the New Testament), it
specifies autonomy; in opposition to νέω, “to swim” (not in the New Testament), it
specifies land. Contrasting πορεύομαι with ἔρχομαι, “to come to,” “to go to,” can
also be helpful, since ἔρχομαι not only includes the seme of directionality, but
also of towardness, which is not expressed by πορεύομαι. Thus, the specific event
semes of πορεύομαι would be:

εύ αι Ev mobility
location
landness
horizontality
directionality
aimlessness
self-sufficiency

Definition: “An activity of movement on solid-ground in a horizontal direction, al-

though without a precise goal (Ev), exercised by (R) a human individual (Ent).”¹⁸TN

 Peláez has suggested a slightly different definition, namely, “Horizontal movement on solid
ground in a certain direction by (R) a human individual (Ent) by his or her own means without a spe-
cific end (Ev).”
136 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

§ 246. Another example of a dynamic lexeme with one connotation is φαίνω, in the
sense of “to shine” (figuratively), which is viewed as a continuing activity.¹⁹ The for-
mula for φαίνω can be developed by differentiating between the generic (g) and spe-
cific (s) semes:

Ev dynamism (g) (aspect)

imperfectivity (g)
activity (g) (voice)
α radiation (s)
luminosity (s)
R agentivity
X reality [Ent/Ev]

Definition: “A continuing activity of shining light (Ev) by (R) a reality (X).”²⁰TN |88-M
When φαίνω acquires a second connotation by adding an object or recipient, which
occurs primarily in the middle voice, it can be translated as “to appear,” “to show,”
or “to seem.”²¹ In such cases, the semes of radiating and luminosity are replaced by
the semes of presence and display.
§ 247. The verb καθεύδω, “to sleep,” is another example of a dynamic lexeme with
one connotation (cf. § 117). The formula shows the passivity and the non-receptive-
ness that correspond to the lexemic neuter voice (←R→) (cf. § 174):

Ev R Ent

The event is developed based on the semantic categories, and the generic (g) and
specific (s) semes are identified. The seme of normality distinguishes the state of
sleep from other possible states of unconsciousness caused by sickness or other ex-
ternal causes:

 Cf. e. g., τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, “the light shines in [sc. the midst of] the darkness” (John
1:5); ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει, “as the sun shines” (Rev 1:16).
 Translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “Continual radiation of light (Ev) by (R) a reality (X).”
 Cf. e. g., ἄγγελος Κυρίου … ἐφάνη αὐτῷ, “an angel of the Lord appeared to him” (Matt 1:20); ὅπως
φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, “so that they may be seen by people” (Matt 6:5); τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; “how
does it seem to you?” (Mark 14:64).
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 137

α εύ Ev stativity (g) (aspect) R predication

passivity (g) Ent individuality
non-receptiveness (g) humanity
transitoriness (s)
inactivity (s)
unconsciousness (s)
normality (s)

Definition: “A normal, transitory state (Ev) ascribed to (R) a human being (Ent) whose
conscious activity is suspended (Ev).”²²TN
Context can add a relation of place.²³ Context can also produce figurative senses by
(1) employing semes of inactivity and unconsciousness, which, for example, may re-
sult in sleep as a metaphor for death,²⁴ or (2) by omitting the seme of unconscious-
ness and relying on inactivity, which may result in the metaphorical sense of unfaith-
fulness to an accepted obligation.²⁵ |89-M

6.2.2 Event Lexemes with Two Connotations

§ 248. Event lexemes with two connotations (i. e., a subject and an object) are com-
prised of grammatically transitive lexemes as well as intransitive lexemes that con-
note another reality in addition to the subject. With transitive lexemes, the activity
denoted by the event may or may not affect an object. If these lexemes do affect ob-
jects, they do so in a productive, modifying, or annulling manner:

p
productive: to construct
affective m
modifying: to hurt / to sanctify
aannulling: to destroy / to kill
transitivity
non-affective to read / to skim (a book)

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A normal, transitory state in which the conscious activity (Ev) of (R) a human being
(Ent) is suspended (Ev).”
 Cf. e. g., ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων, “he was in the stern sleeping on the
cushion” (Mark 4:38).
 Cf. e. g., τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει, “the girl has not died, she is sleeping” (Mark
5:39; cf. 1Thess 5:10; Eph 5:14).
 Cf. e. g., μὴ ἐλθὼν ἐξαίφνης εὕρῃ ὐμᾶς καθεύδοντας, “[so that] if he suddenly comes, he may not
find you sleeping” (Mark 13:36).
138 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Event lexemes that affect an object in an annulling manner can relate to an entity
(ἀπόλλυμι, “to destroy”), to a state (ἀποκτείνω, “to kill”; σβέννυμι, “to extinguish”),
or to something’s validity (καταργέω, “invalidate”).
§ 249. Although sometimes the object is not explicit in context, ἐργάζομαι offers an
example of an event lexeme that produces or affects a polyvalent object (e. g.,
σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι, “work today in the vineyard,” Matt 21:28). Its for-
mula has two connotations, which is a characteristic feature of lexemes in this group:

R1 Ent

Ev

R2 X

The generic semes of ἐργάζομαι are developed by applying the semantic categories to
the lexemic level. As with many other Greek verbs, the lexemic verbal aspect of
ἐργάζομαι is |90-M ambiguous. According to the contextual morphemic aspect, it
can mean “to work” or “to bring about/produce.” The present tense emphasizes a
process, and the aorist tense emphasizes completion. These two possibilities must
be left open in the semic nucleus. In the New Testament, ἐργάζομαι can have God
or people as its subject (cf. John 5:17). The entity (Ent) must therefore include a
seme of gender (person, divine or human). The object is polyvalent (X) since this
can be an entity²⁶ or an event that is already-realized²⁷ or regularly practiced.²⁸
The generic semes of ἐργάζομαι are as follows:

 Cf. e. g., κοπιῶμεν ἐργαζόμενοι ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν, “we labor tirelessly [sc. producing tents, cf. Acts
18:3] with our own hands” (1Cor 4:12).
 Cf. e. g., ἔργον καλὸν ἠργάσατο εἰς ἐμέ, “she has done something excellent [sc. anointing with
perfume] for/to me” (Matt 26:10).
 Cf. e. g., οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, “those who do iniquity” (Matt 7:23); ὁ … ἐργαζόμενος
δικαιοσύνην, “the one doing righteousness” (Acts 10:35).
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 139

αι Ev dynamism R1 agentivity
processuality (aspect) Ent individuality
resultativity personhood
activity (voice) R2
(v transitivity
non-subjectivity affectivity
X reality [Ent/Ev]

The specific semes of ἐργάζομαι can be identified by considering other lexemes with
similar meanings. For example, ποιέω, “to do,” is used far more commonly, and at
the lexemic level its meanings is much less specific than ἐργάζομαι, since it omits
the seme of process and instead emphasizes completion.²⁹ The specific semes of
ἐργάζομαι include:

Ev industriousness
productivity

Definition: “Production (Ev) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent) of (R2) something (X).”³⁰TN
|91-M
The lexeme’s aspect will be specified in context. Although causative, ἐργάζομαι can
emphasize the imperfective aspect of the activity, meaning “to work” (cf. 1Cor 4:12),
or the result of the activity, meaning “to produce,” “to construct” (cf. John 6:28) or
“to make” (cf. Matt 26:10).
§ 250. An example of a transitive event lexeme that modifies an object is βάλλω, “to
throw,” “to pitch,” “to cast.” Its semantic formula is the same as ἐργάζομαι (see the
formula above). Its aspect is aoristic resultative, which naturally excludes a process
seme. The generic semes include:

β λλ Ev dynamism R1 agentivity
resultativity (aspect) Ent personhood
aoristic R2 transitivity
activity affectivity
non-subjectivity (
(voice)
X entity

 Cf. e. g., ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ, “the one who made me well” (i. e., the creation of a state, John 5:11);
ἐὰν τί αἰτήσητέ με … τοῦτο ποιήσω, “whatever you ask me, I will do” (John 14:14).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The production (Ev) of (R2) something (X) by (R1) a personal subject (R1).”
140 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

The specific semes of βάλλω can be derived from its uses in the New Testament,
where it denotes an action that causes the movement of an object,³¹ of a human
being,³² or of an entity or quasi-entity³³ by changing its position without |92-M the
use of a material object. A seme of violence is not constant so that it cannot be in-
cluded in the semic nucleus.³⁴ The same is true for the seme of separation, since in-
dividuals can throw themselves (cf. Luke 4:9, σεαυτόν, “yourself). By removing the
seme of throw, βάλλω εἰς means to “to put [a finger] in [the ear],” (cf. Mark 7:33;
John 20:25, 27). However, this example causes little trouble, since it constitutes a con-
textual seme formed by the influence of the termination of movement. The specific
semes of βάλλω, therefore, are:

Ev impulse (dynamism)
modification
location (r
(resultative)
non-contact

Definition: “An act of throwing (Ev) by (R1) a person (Ent1), who, without use of an-
other object, causes (R2) an entity (Ent2) to change its location (Ev).”³⁵TN
Lexemes in the same domain (i. e., transitive event lexemes that modify their object)
include ἐκβάλλω (cf. Matt 7:4– 5, 22), which, unlike βάλλω, contains a seme of move-
ment from a point (ἐκ‐). This movement is expressed by a denoted relation. Another
lexeme in the same domain is ῥίπτω/ῥιπτέω (cf. Matt 15:30; 27:5; Luke 4:35; Acts
27:19, 29), which in context can be synonymous with βάλλω.
§ 251. Among the transitive event lexemes that affect a state and have two connota-
tions are lexemes that denote qualified actions or processes (cf. § 126), such as
ἀγαθοποιέω, “to do good” (Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9, 32, 35; cf. ἀγαθουργέω, Acts 14:17).
Their formula is complex, since an attribute (goodness) is associated with the
event (action or process). The formula and development are:

 Cf. e. g., χόρτον, “grass” (Matt 6:30); ἄρτον, “bread” (Mark 7:27).
 Cf. e. g., αὐτόν, the epileptic boy (Mark 9:22); με, the paralytic (John 5:7).
 Cf. e. g., εἰρήνη, “peace” (Matt 10:34); πῦρ, “fire” (Luke 12:49).
 Cf. e. g., βάλῃ τὸν σπόρον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “if he throws the seed to the earth” (Mark 4:26).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The throwing (Ev) of (R2) an entity (Ent2) by (R1) a person (Ent1), who changes its lo-
cation without the use of an object (Ev).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 141

R1 Ent1

Ev + A

R2 Ent2
|93-M

Ev dynamism R1 agentivity
activity R2 transitivity
α ι
A beneficiality affectivity
Ent1 individuality Ent2 individuality
humanity humanity

Definition: “A beneficial (A) action (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1)
for (R2) another individual (Ent2).”³⁶TN
§ 252. The verb ἀποκτείνω, “to kill,” is another transitive event lexeme that annuls a
state. Its semantic formula is similar to the previous transitive lexemes (cf. § 251), but
the complement of the action is a qualified state (of life) (Ev1 + A):

R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 [Ev1 + A] R3 Ent2

Ev dynamism ((aspect) R2 transitivity

affectivity affectivity
activity (voice) Ev1 stativity
ε
privation A vitality
R1 agentivity R3 attribution
Ent1 entity Ent2 humanity |94-M

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The accomplishment of a beneficial (A) action (Ev) performed by (R1) a human indi-
vidual (Ent1) on behalf of (R2) another individual (Ent2).”
142 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Comparable to ἀποκτείνω is the verb ἀπόλλυμι, “to cause to perish,” “to destroy,” “to
eliminate.” The difference between the two lexemes is that, whereas ἀποκτείνω de-
notes the termination of an object’s current state of life (cf. Mark 9:31, where
ἀποκτείνω is compatible with ἀνίσταμαι, “to rise”), ἀπόλλυμι simply denotes the de-
struction of an object (cf. John 6:39, where ἀπόλλυμι is contrasted with ἀνίστημι, “to
raise”; and Matt 10:28, where ἀποκτείνω is contrasted with ἀπόλλυμι).
Definition (ἀποκτείνω): “An action (Ev) by which (R1) an animate or inanimate agent
(Ent1) causes (R2) a human being’s (Ent2, R3) state of being alive (Ev1 + A) to end
(Ev).”³⁷TN
Context can specify the nuclear semes of ἀποκτείνω by clarifying (a) whether the
agent is inanimate (cf. ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωάμ, “the tower in Siloam,” Luke 13:4), fig-
urative (cf. ἡ ἁμπαρτία, “sin,” Rom 7:11) or human (cf. ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
ἀποκτεῖναι, “the Jews were trying to kill him,” John 7:1); (b) if the state of being
alive is terminated physically (cf. μαστιγώσουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποτκενοῦσιν, “they
will flog him and kill him,” Mark 10:34) or spiritually (cf. ἡ ἁμαρτία … ἐξηπάτησέν
με καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς ἀπέκτεινεν, “sin deceived me and killed me through it [sc. the com-
mandment],” Rom 7:11). The semantic formula for ἀπόλλυμι is the same as ἀποκτείνω
and its development is parallel.³⁸
§ 253. There are other event lexemes with two connotations, such as those that refer
to interior disposition (cf. πιστεύω, “to believe,” “to trust,” “to assent to,” “to attest”;
§ 122). In the formula, X represents a person,³⁹ a word,⁴⁰ or an event.⁴¹ The verb
πιστεύω often refers to an inner attitude instead of an explicit object.⁴² We classify
certain meanings of πιστεύω, such as “to entrust something to someone” (Luke
16:11; John 2:24), as contextual meanings. The formula and development of
πιστεύω can be depicted as follows: |95-M

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The ending (Ev) by (R1) an animate or inanimate agent (Ent1) of (R2) a human indi-
vidual’s (Ent2, R3) state of being alive (Ev1 + A).”
 Another example of a transitive lexeme that affects an event/state is σβέννυμι, “to put out,” “to
quench” (cf. Matt 12:20; 25:8; Eph 6:16).
 Cf. e. g., οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ, “they did not believe him [sc. John the Baptist]” (Matt 21:32).
 Cf. e. g., οὐκ ἐπίστευσας τοῖς λόγοις μου, “you did not believe my words” (Luke 1:20); ἐπίστευσαν
τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὅν εἶπεν, “they believed that Scripture and the word that he spoke” (John 2:22).
 Cf. e. g., πιστεύτε ὅτι δύναμαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; “do you believe that I can do this?” (Matt 9:28);
πιστεύτε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, “believe that you have received it” (Mark 11:29).
 Cf. e. g., μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε, “do not fear, only believe” (Mark 5:36); πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ
πιστεύοντι, “anything is possible for the one who believes” (Mark 9:23).
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 143

R1 Ent

Ev

R2 X

Ev stativity Ent individuality

disposition humanity
interiority R2 towardness
ισ εύ
subjectivity X reality
commitment (entity/event)
R1 attribution

Definition: “An interior disposition of commitment (Ev) by (R1) a human being (Ent)
to (R2) a person, word, or deed (X).”⁴³TN
§ 254. The lexeme κάθημαι, “to sit,” is a grammatically intransitive event lexeme that
necessarily connotes a subject and an object. Although it functions as a stative lex-
eme (Ev) of bodily position, κάθημαι denotes a relation (R) to a place where the sub-
ject rests. The formula, therefore, is:

R1 Ent1

Ev + R

Ent2 |96-M

In the New Testament the subject of κάθημαι can be a person (Mark 2:14), an angel
(Matt 28:2), other celestial beings (Rev 4:4), or God (Rev 5:1). Hence, the gender of
Ent1 is specified as personhood. The development is:

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A human being (Ent, R1) who commits (Ev) to (R2) a person, word, or deed (X).”
144 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

αι Ev stativity R support
position Ent1 individuality
corporeality personhood
stability R1 predication
contact Ent2 entity
posteriority materiality
solidness

Definition: “An established position of contact by the body’s posterior (Ev) on (R) a
supporting material (Ent2), predicated about (R1) a personal being (Ent1).”⁴⁴, ⁴⁵TN
§ 255. Other lexemes of state with two connotations are those that denote a relational
state of possession, such as ἔχω, “to have,” “to possess,” or a relational state of lo-
cation, such as οἰκέω, “to dwell” (cf. § 124). The formula of such lexemes would be:

R1 Ent

Ev + R

With regards to ἔχω, the polyvalent X is explained by the variety of terms that serve
as objects of possession, such as τιμήν, “honor” |97-M (John 4:44), and ζωὴν αἰώνιον,
“eternal life” (John 5:24). In the case of John 5:5 (τριάκοντα ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ
ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ, “who has been sick for thirty-eight years”), ἔχω acquires a secon-
dary sense. The same occurs with the expressions κακῶς ἔχειν, “to be sick” and
ἐσχάτως ἔχειν, “to be at the point of death” (Mark 5:23). Leaving these usages
aside for the moment, the development of the formula for ἔχω is as follows (possible
contextual semes are indicated in brackets):

 Contextually, the seme of stability can be emphasized, causing κάθημαι to mean “to be seated,”
“to be situated” (cf. Mark 2:6; 13:3; 14:62).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “An established position of contact (Ev) of (R1) the posterior portion of the human
body (Ent1) on (R) a supporting material (Ent2).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 145

Ev stativity
R possession
[utilization/accessibility/availability]
R1 attribution
Ent individuality
personhood
X reality (entity/event)

Definition: “A state (Ev) of possession (R) by (R1) an individual person (Ent) of a re-
ality (X) [contextually: which enables that person to use, enjoy, or dispose of this re-
ality] (R).”⁴⁶TN
The relation of possession can be qualified, as is the case with πλουτέω, “to be rich”
(cf. § 125). The denoted elements of the formula and the development will include the
qualification of abundance (A). If the relation denoted by the lexeme is local, as is
the case with οἰκέω, “to dwell,” then the object of the relation will be an entity
(Ent2, location) and the relation will be a seme of habitation. It is noteworthy, how-
ever, that among the nine times this lexeme appears in the New Testament, it only
has a genuine local sense in 1Cor 7:12– 13. The compound verb κατοικέω adds a
seme of permanence, viz. “to be situated” in a city (Matt 2:23; 4:13), “to live in,”
“to dwell in” (Matt 12:45; 23:21; Luke 11:26; 13:4; Acts 1:29; 2:5, 9).
§ 256. There are also grammatically intransitive lexemes⁴⁷ that require a second con-
notation, since they denote local movement in relation to an object. These lexemes
have semes of directionality and towardness (cf. § 127, πορεύω). The formula of
ἔρχομαι is similar to that of κάθημαι, but the denoted event is dynamic/active: |98-M

R1 Ent1

Ev + R

Ent2

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The possession (Ev, R) of a reality (X) by (R1) an individual person (Ent) [contextually:
which enables this person to use, enjoy, or dispose of this reality (R)].”
 Cf. e. g., ἔρχομαι, “to go”; εἰσέρχομαι, “to enter”; ἐξέρχομαι, “to leave”; εἰσπορεύομαι, “to go into,”
“to enter”; ἐκπορεύομαι, “to make to leave,” “to go out.”
146 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Ev dynamism Ent1 individuality

resultativity humanity
activity R1 agentivity
αι
mobility Ent2 entity
location location
R directionality
towardness

Definition: “An activity of local movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual
(Ent1) towards (R) a specific place (Ent2).”⁴⁸TN
Contextually, the aorist and the present punctiliar forms highlight the seme of to-
wardness and indicate the end of the movement. On the other hand, the present
(if durative) and imperfect forms (ἤρχετο) highlight the seme of directionality. The
lexemes εἰσέρχομαι, “to go in,” and ἐξέρχομαι, “to go out,” denote movement into
a closed or demarcated space (cf. Matt 2:21; 8:26), or vice versa (cf. Mark 13:1; John
18:29). Their formula is the same as ἔρχομαι but with a minor change in the relation.⁴⁹
Thus, εἰσέρχομαι and ἐξέρχομαι have a similar development in that they specify the
seme of towardness with a seme of interiority or exteriority. |99-M

Ev dynamism Ent1 individuality

resultativity humanity
εσ αι activity R1 agentivity
αι mobility Ent2 entity
location location
R directionality demarcation
towardness
interiority/exteriority

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “Movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) towards (R) a concrete
place (Ent2).”
 The contextual difference between the aorist and present forms of ἔρχομαι also applies to
εἰσέρχομαι and ἐξέρχομαι. Regarding εἰσπορεύομαι (cf. Mark 1:21a; Luke 22:11) and ἐκπορεύομαι
(cf. Mark 6:11; 11:19)—which never appear in the aorist in the New Testament—the seme of towardness
remains.
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 147

Definition (εἰσέρχομαι): “An activity of local movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a

human individual (Ent1) towards the interior (R) of an enclosed place (Ent2).”⁵⁰TN
§ 257. Grammatically intransitive stative lexemes, such as γρηγορέω, “to be awake,”
connote a second relation in the New Testament, namely, the state of wakefulness
that is part of readiness for action (e. g., Mark 13:33; cf. καθεύδω, § 247). The formula
and the corresponding development are:

R1 Ent

Ev

R2 Ev1 |100-M

Ev stativity R1 predication
consciousness R2 purpose
readiness Ev1 dynamism
Ent individuality activity
humanity

Definition: “A state of consciousness and readiness (Ev) for (R2) an action (Ev1),
which is predicated of (R1) a human individual (Ent).”⁵¹TN
§ 258. Among grammatically intransitive stative lexemes, lexemes that refer to “want-
ing” present unique challenges (cf. e. g., πεινάω, “to have hunger,” “to be hungry”;
διψάω, “to thirst,” “to be thirsty”). These lexemes denote a subjective dysphoric⁵²TN
state resulting from the lack of an entity that would end this state. In the New Testa-
ment, lexemes of this domain have both a literal and figurative sense.⁵³ If the literal
sense is considered to be the primary sense, πεινάω denotes an intensely (D) dissat-
isfying dysphoric (A) state of bodily sensation (Ev). In the New Testament, πεινάω

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “Movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) towards the interior of
(R) a specific place (Ent2).”
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A state of consciousness and readiness (Ev) for (R2) an action (Ev1) by (R1) a
human individual (Ent).”
 translator’s Note: dysphoric is used in contrast to euphoric. It is derived from the Greek
δύσφορος, “hard to bear,” from δύσ-, “hard,” “bad” + φέρειν, “to bear.” Dysphoric refers to a
state of feeling unwell or unhappy (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
 For the literal sense see Matt 25:35; for the figurative sense see Matt 5:6 (οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶν-
τες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “those hungering and thirsting for righteousness”).
148 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

connotes the human subject (Ent1) to whom the state is attributed (R1). This state is
caused by the lack (R4) of resources (Ent2) that are necessary for survival (A1) and
provokes a continual and intense (D1) longing (Ev1) to obtain (R3) these resources
(Ent2 + A1).

R1 Ent1

Ev + A + D R4

R2 [Ev1 + D1] R3 [Ent2 + A1]

|101-M

Ev stativity R1 attribution A1 indispensability

sensitivity Ent1 individuality R2 causality
corporeality humanity Ev1 dynamism
ει tendency
dissatisfaction R4 privation
A dysphoria Ent2 entity D1 intensity
D intensity materiality R3 appropriation
edibility

Two semic groups can be distinguished in such a lexeme. The first group of semes is
stative and highlights the denoted elements (Ev + A + D) and the subject’s (Ent1) lack
of (R4) necessities (Ent2 + A1). The second group of semes is dynamic and highlights
the strong longing (Ev1 + D1) caused by (R2) the dysphoric state of dissatisfaction to
procure (R3) the necessary goods (Ent2 + A1).
Definition: “An intensely (D) dysphoric and lasting bodily (A) sensation of dissatis-
faction (Ev), attributed to (R1) a human subject (Ent1) who lacks (R4) the nourish-
ment (Ent2) necessary for life (A1), which causes (R2) a strong (D1) longing to obtain
(Ev1) this for oneself (R3).”⁵⁴TN
§ 259. Lexemes that denote some kind of service (cf. διακονέω, δουλεύω, λατρεύω,
λειτουργέω) are event lexemes with simple structures and two connotations, and
their formula—in its most basic form—may be constructed as: |102-M

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “An intensely (D) dysphoric (A) lasting sensation of intense bodily dissatisfaction
(Ev) of (R1) a human subject (Ent1) who lacks (R4) the nourishment (Ent2) necessary for life (A1),
which provokes (R2) a strong (D1) desire to obtain (Ev1) this for oneself (R3).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 149

R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 Ent2

The differences between lexemes that denote a kind of service, at least in their more
common usage in the New Testament, are as follows:
1. The verb διακονέω denotes service done out of personal love or commitment to
one or several people. It can mean “to collaborate,” “to cooperate” (cf. John 12:26).
Along with a dynamic activity (Ev), the lexeme also incorporates a stative event of
commitment (Ev′), linked together by a relation (R) of causality.
2. The verb δουλεύω denotes service that presumes submission (e. g., of a servant
or slave) and can have God or people as an object (cf. Matt 6:24; Luke 15:29; John
8:23). Figuratively, δουλεύω can take a personified reality as its object (cf. Rom
6:6; τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ). The lexeme includes a relation of inferiority to the one receiving
the service (Ev + R).
3. The verb λατρεύω refers to the cult (Ent2 = God), and the subject (Ent1) is often
the group of the faithful.
4. The verb λειτουργέω, which also denotes the cult (Ent2 = God), preserves LXX
usage, which restricts the subject (Ent1) to the priestly group (Heb 11:10). However,
the Letter to the Hebrews sometimes assimilates λατρεύω and λειτουργέω (cf. Heb
8:5; 13:10).
The lexeme διακονέω can take ἄγγελοι, “angels” (Matt 4:11) and “people” (Matt
8:15 par.; 25:44) as its subject. The object is always human (Jesus: Matt 4:11; 8:15; John
12:26; other people: Mark 1:31; Luke 4:39; Rom 15:25). In one instance the human ob-
ject is connoted (cf. διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, “to serve tables,” Acts 6:2). We consider the
more common usage as the primary sense. The internal relation (R) can be interpret-
ed as cause or manifestation. Given that the service (dynamic event) is primary and
the commitment (stative event) is secondary (contrary to lexemes of interior disposi-
tion manifested in action, cf. § 123), we interpret the commitment as causal. |103-M
Context can specify the activity in focus, such as the writing of a letter (2Cor 3:3), pro-
phetic activity (1Pet 1:12), or the exercise of spiritual gifts (1Pet 4:10):
150 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

R1 Ent1

R2 Ent2

Ev dynamism Ent1 individuality

activity personhood
R causality R2 towardness
ια Ev stativity beneficiality
commitment Ent2 individuality
R1 agentivity humanity

Definition: “An activity (Ev) that a personal subject (Ent1) carries out (R1) because of
(R) commitment to (Ev′) and to the benefit of (R2) a human subject (Ent2).”⁵⁵TN
§ 260. Lexemes of psychological response⁵⁶ constitute another group of intransitive
stative lexemes. Such lexemes imply the perception (Ev1) of (R2) an event (Ev2) as
(R3) pleasant or unpleasant (A1), provoking (R4) a reaction. We shall use
λυπέομαι, “to be sad” (the deponent of λυπέω, “grieve,” “cause pain/grief”) as
our model, since it is commonly used in the New Testament.⁵⁷ The cause of sadness
can be a request (Matt 14:9), a harsh attitude |104-M (Matt 18:31), betrayal (Mark 14:19),
the content of a letter (2Cor 7:8), someone’s death (1Thess 4:13), and trials of the faith
(1Pet 1:6). The formula for lexemes of psychological response is:

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The carrying out of an activity (Ev) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) because of (R)
a commitment to (Ev′) and to the benefit of (R2) a human subject (Ent2).”
 Cf. e. g., λυπέομαι, “to be sad” (Matt 26:22); φοβέομαι, “to fear” (Mark 10:32); χαίρω, “to be glad”
(Luke 10:20); ἀγανακτέω, “to be outraged” (Mark 14:4); αἰσχύνομαι, “to be ashamed,” “to feel shame”
(Phil 1:20).
 Of the 26 occurrences of λυπέομαι in the New Testament, the lexeme appears five times in the
active voice; cf. 2Cor 2:2, 5; 7:8 (2x); Eph 4:30.
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 151

R1 Ent

R2

Ev + A R4 Ev1 + A1

R3

Ev2

In the development, the generic (g) and specific (s) semes of the denoted elements
(Ev, A) are distinguished. The seme of emotionality includes the seme of interiority:

Ev stativity (g) Ent individuality A1 unpleasantness

subjectivity (s) humanity R3 towardness
emotionality (s) R2 agentivity Ev2 occurrence
λ αι A quality (g) Ev1 dynamism R4 causality
dysphoria (s) cognition
R1 attribution experience

Definition: “A subjective emotional state (Ev) of dysphoria (A) that is attributed to

(R1) a human subject (Ent) due to (R4) an occurrence (Ev2) that he or she (R2) per-
ceives or experiences (Ev1, R3) as unpleasant (A1).”⁵⁸TN |105-M
§ 261. Other lexemes of psychological response add a seme of intensity that provokes
the outward expression of emotion. One such lexeme is πενθέω, which can be trans-
lated as “to suffer intensely” (Matt 5:4) or “to mourn” (Matt 9:15). The emotion can be
expressed outwardly in mourning (1Cor 5:2; 2Cor 12:21) or crying (cf. the pairing of
πενθέω and κλαίω in Mark 16:10; Luke 6:25; Jas 4:9; Rev 18:15, 19). The formula is sim-
ilar to that of λυπάω, but adds determinations of intensity (D, D1) and an event of
manifestation (Ev3):

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A human subject (R1, Ent) who finds himself or herself in a subjective emotional
state (Ev) of dysphoria (A) due to (R4) an occurrence that he or she (R2) perceives or experiences
(Ev1, R3) as unpleasant (A1).”
152 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

R1 Ent

R2

Ev + A + D R4 Ev1 + A1 + D1

R5 R3

Ev3 Ev2

Ev stativity Ent individuality A1 unpleasantness

subjectivity humanity D1 intensity
emotionality R4 causality R3 towardness
ε A dysphoria R2 perceptivity Ev2 factuality
D intensity Ev1 dynamism R5 manifestation
R1 attribution cognitivity Ev3 dynamism
experience activity
|106-M

Definition: “A subjective emotional state (Ev) of intense (D) dysphoria (A) that is at-
tributed to (R1) a human subject (Ent) and caused by (R4) an incident or situation
(Ev2) that he or she perceives (R3) and experiences (R2, Ev1) as intensely (D1) un-
pleasant (A1), manifesting itself (R5) in actions or gestures (Ev3).”⁵⁹TN

6.2.3 Event Lexemes with Three Connotations

§ 262. Event lexemes with three connotations (cf. § 128) connote an agent, an object,
and a recipient. Their generic semantic formula looks as follows:

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A human subject (R1, Ent) who finds himself or herself in a subjective emotional
state (Ev) of dysphoria (A) due to (R4) an occurrence that he or she (R2) perceives or experiences
(Ev1, R3) as unpleasant (A1).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 153

R1 Ent1

Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

The action (Ev) is performed by (R1) an individual (Ent1), who transfers (Ev) some-
thing (R2, X: object/knowledge) to (R3) an object or recipient (Ent2). The action cre-
ates a relation of possession (R3) between X and Ent2, implying that these lexemes
are causative lexemes.

6.2.3.1 Lexemes of Giving

§ 263. The most common contextual meaning of δίδωμι, “to give,” offers an example
of lexemes of giving.⁶⁰ The object that is given (X) varies greatly.⁶¹ |107-M The seme of
personhood includes several possibilities, since the giver (Ent1) and the one receiv-
ing the gift (Ent2) can be of divine or human gender. Between Ent1 and X there is a
relation of (prior) possession (R′). The formula and development of the generic semes
are:

 Cf. e. g., ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω, “I will give you all this” (Matt 4:9); δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον, “let
him give her a statement of divorce” (Matt 5:31); ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν, “he gave them the right/
authority” (John 1:12); ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμπψασιν ἡμᾶς, “so that we may give an answer
to those who sent us” (John 1:22).
 Cf. e. g., ἄρτον, “bread” (Matt 6:11); κῆνσον, “tax” (Matt 22:17); τὸ καθίσαι, “the [right] to sit” (Mark
10:40); ἀμπελῶνα, “vineyard” (Mark 12:9); σύσσημον, “sign” (Mark 14:44); ὕδωρ, “water” (Luke 7:44);
φίλημα, “kiss” (Luke 7:45); νόμον, “law” (John 1:17); ζωήν, “life” (John 6:33); φωνήν “sound [of a mu-
sical instrument]” (1Cor 14:7); ἀποκάλυψις, “revelation” (Rev 1:1).
154 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

R1 Ent1

Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

Ev dynamism R1 agentivity R possession

resultativity R2 transitivity R3 towardness
ι
activity X reality Ent2 individuality
Ent1 individuality personhood
personhood

Definition: “An act (Ev) by which (R1) a person (Ent1) causes (Ev) a reality (X) that he
or she possesses (R′) to become (R2) the possession of (R3) a personal recipient
(Ent2).”
Two observations can be made about δίδωμι in context, depending on whether or not
R′ is annulled: (a) the annulment of R′ creates the relation R3 (possession of X by
Ent2), in which case δίδωμι means “to give,” “to deliver,” “to hand over”;⁶² (b) if
R’ is not annulled, X is possessed by both Ent1 and Ent2. In such a case, |108-M
δίδωμι means “to impart,” “to cause to participate in.”⁶³
§ 264. The formula of χαρίζομαι is similar to the formula of δίδωμι, except that it adds
a qualified state of benevolence to the agent (Ev1 + A). The benevolence is manifested
in two ways: (1) by a gift, in which case χαρίζομαι can be translated as “to grant,” “to
give at no cost,” “to gift”;⁶⁴ (2) by a pardon, in which case χαρίζομαι can be translat-

 Cf. φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι, “to give taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).
 Cf. ὁ πατήρ … δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν, “the Father will impart the Holy Spirit to
those who ask him” (Luke 11:13).
 The nature of the gift can vary: cf. βλέπειν, “eyesight/vision” (Luke 7:21); ἄνδρα φονέα, “[sc. the
pardon of] a murderer” (Acts 3:14); οὐδείς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρισθῆναι, “no one can deliver me to
them” (Acts 25:11, as a demonstration of benevolence, or generosity/gratification/appeasement); πάν-
τας τοὺς πλέοντας μετὰ σοῦ, “[sc. the lives of] all those who sail with you” (Acts 27:24); τὰ πάντα,
“everything” (Rom 8:32); τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, “the name that is above every name/title”
(Phil 2:9).
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 155

ed as “to show favor,” “to grant grace,” “to forgive,” “to pardon.”⁶⁵ For both options
the formula is complex, since it denotes the manifestation of (R) benevolence in the
gift or action (Ev). The seme of possession (R′) in δίδωμι becomes a seme of property
or availability for χαρίζομαι:

R1 Ent1 R4 Ev1+ A

Ev + R + A R2 X

R3

Ent2

The specific semes of χαρίζομαι are:

R manifestation
R property/availability
A benevolence
|109-M

Definition: “A person’s (Ent 1) decision to give (Ev) something (X), which in a certain
sense belongs to (R2) him or her, to another (R3) individual (Ent2) as a sign of (R) his
or her benevolence (A).”⁶⁶TN
§ 265. The verb ζωοποιέω, “to give life,” “to bring to life,” is a lexeme of participatory
giving (cf. §§ 128 – 29). Its semantic formula follows the previous lexemes of giving,
except that the object of giving (ζωή, “life”) is not polyvalent but is rather a stative
event (Ev1 + A). The semes for ζωοποιέω include:

 Cf. a debt (Luke 7:42); an offense (2Cor 2:10); πάντα τὰ παραπτώματα, “all the transgressions” (Col
2:13).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A person’s (Ent 1, R1) decision to give (Ev) something (X), which in a certain sense be-
longs to him or her (R2), to another (R3) individual (Ent2) as a sign of (R) his or her benevolence (A).”
156 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Ev dynamism R2 transitivity
resultativity Ev1 stativity
R1 agentivity condition
Ent1 individuality A vitality
personhood R3 towardness
R possession Ent2 individuality
humanity

Definition: “An act (Ev) by which a personal (Ent1) agent (R1) imparts (R2) a state
(Ev1) of life (A) that he or she possesses (R′) to (R3) a human individual (Ent2).”⁶⁷TN
In the New Testament, ζωοποιέω never means “to beget,” “to bring into existence”
(cf. γεννάω). It thus refers to making alive/bringing back to life someone who is phys-
ically dead (1Pet 3:18) or to giving a special quality of life to someone whose situation
is regarded as death (cf. John 5:21). |110-M

6.2.3.2 Lexemes of Verbal Communication

§ 266. For the lexeme λέγω, “to say,” whose formula is the same as the previous for-
mulas (cf. § 265), the dynamic, resultative event (Ev) has a specific seme of verbality.
X represents the content of the communication with semes of cognition, meaningful-
ness, and communicability. The relation R2 will be one of expressivity. The develop-
ment is as follows:

Ev dynamism X cognitivity Ent1 individuality

activity meaningfulness personhood
λ verbality communicability R1 agentivity
resultativity Ent2 individuality R possession
R2 expression personhood R3 towardness

Definition: “A verbal activity (Ev) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) by

which he or she expresses (R2) his or her own (R′) meaningful and communicable
mental content (X) to (R3) another personal subject (Ent2).”⁶⁸TN

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The communication (Ev) of a state (Ev1) of life (A) that a personal agent (Ent1, R1) pos-
sesses (R′) to (R3) a human individual (Ent2).”
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “A complete verbal expression (Ev) of (R2) a person’s own (R′) thoughtful, meaningful,
communicable content (X) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) to (R3) another personal sub-
ject (Ent2).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 157

The noun λόγος, “word,” “message,” constitutes a quasi-entity (Ent) comprised of

the event of verbality (Ev) and the content of the word or message (X) (cf. what
was said about “signifier” and “signified” in chap 1, note 15):

R1 Ent1

Ent = [Ev + X]

R2 Ent2 |111-M

Definition: “A meaningful (X) and complete verbal act (Ev) that can be viewed as an
entity (Ent) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) to communicate with (R2) an-
other subject (Ent2).”
When λόγος is viewed as an object or a being,⁶⁹ its status as an entity is empha-
sized and the relation to (R1) the acting subject (Ent1) is removed or put to the side.
The noun λόγος can be translated in terms of its content if this can be concisely for-
mulated. For example, in Mark 4:14, λόγος represents a set of teachings and can be
translated as “message”; in John 1:1, the content of the word is the divine plan for
humanity, so that the best translation of the phrase is “the plan was from God.”⁷⁰TN
§ 267. The lexeme λαλέω, “to speak,” “to talk,” is similar to λέγω. It can denote: (1)
the ability to speak, in opposition to muteness;⁷¹ (2) the ability to communicate;⁷² (3)
the communication of content;⁷³ (4) verbal activity, specifying the recipient but not
the content;⁷⁴ (5) verbal activity, specifying both the content and the recipient.⁷⁵
The main difference between λαλέω and λέγω is that λαλέω is used in an imperfec-
tive sense, denoting a verbal activity without relating to its completion. Aside from
contextual meanings (1) and (2), λαλέω always connotes a speaker and transmitted
content, which is also true of λέγω. The semantic formula must account for the most

 The λόγος is viewed as an object in Mark 4:14 (ὁ σπείρων τὸν λόγον σπείρει, “the sower sows the
message”) and as a being in John 1:1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, “God was the word”).
 translator’s Note: I am puzzled by this translation of John 1:1. Peláez, however, assures me
that this translation is correct.
 Cf. e. g., ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφός, “the mute spoke” (Matt 9:33; cf. Matt 12:22; 15:31).
 Cf. e. g., ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, “they began to speak/communicate in various lan-
guages” (Acts 2:4).
 Cf. e. g., μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε τί λαλήσητε, “do not worry beforehand about what you will say” (Mark
13:11; cf. Matt 10:19; 12:34, 36; Mark 2:7; 12:50; Acts 6:10).
 Cf. e. g., ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι, “seeking to speak with you” (Matt 12:47).
 Cf. e. g., ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, “while he was saying these things to them” (Matt 9:18; cf.
Matt 13:3, 34; Mark 2:2; John 6:63).
158 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

common uses of λαλέω (i. e., the ability to speak or communicate), which can be
called the intransitive contextual meaning:

Ev R Ent
|112-M

λαλ 1 Ev dynamism R capability

activity E individuality
verbality humanity

Definition: “Verbal activity (Ev) that can be produced by (R) a human subject
(Ent).”⁷⁶TN
Other contextual meanings of λαλέω can be seen as derivatives of this usage and add
elements to the formula that produce two connotations, similar to λέγω:

R1 Ent1

Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “Expression by means of words (Ev) by (R) a human individual (Ent).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 159

The development of the event (Ev) and of R2 will be:

Ev dynamism
activity
λαλ 2 imperfectivity
verbality
R2 expositoriness

Definition: “A verbal activity (Ev) of (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) about (R2) his or
her own (R′) meaningful and communicable mental concept (X) to (R3) another per-
sonal subject (Ent2).”⁷⁷TN |113-M
§ 268. Teaching is a particular mode of communication⁷⁸ for which a particular ability
or competency (A) from a subject (Ent1) is assumed. This is the case with διδάσκω:

R1 [Ent1 + A]

Ev R2 X

R3

Ent2

The formula’s development is similar to the preceding lexemes of verbal communi-

cation. In context and with the present tense, διδάσκω denotes the act teaching with-
out reference to a particular content (cf. Matt 26:55; Mark 4:1; Luke 4:15; Rom 12:7;
1Tim 2:12). In such a case, the dynamism of the event (Ev) will be specified as imper-
fective rather than resultative.

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “Verbal expression (Ev) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) to (R3) another personal sub-
ject (Ent2) about (R2) his or her own (R′) meaningful and communicable mental concept (X).”
 Cf. e. g., ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς … πολλά, “he was teaching them many things” (Mark 4:2); ἐκεῖνος
ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα, “he will teach you all things” (John 14:26).
160 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

6.2.3.3 Other Event Lexemes

§ 269. The verb χορτάζω, “to feed,” is a lexeme with three connotations and can be
considered a lexeme of proportionate action. The verb is a mode of “to give” in which
the object given adequately meets a need of the recipient. In the New Testament,
χορτάζω is used literally (cf. Matt 14:20; 15:33, 37) and figuratively (cf. Matt 5:6).
We examine the literal sense because the figurative sense is likely derived from it.
In addition to an action (Ev) by (R1) a subject (Ent1), the formula includes a trans-
mitted object (Ent2), its edible quality (A1), and the quantity (D) proportionate to
(R4) the need (A2) of the recipient (Ent3). |114-M

R1 Ent1

Ev R2 [Ent2 + A1 + D]

R3 R4

[Ent3 + Ev1 + A2]

Ev dynamism Ent2 entity Ev1 stativity

resultativity materiality situation
activity A1 edibility A2 necessity
Ent1 individuality D quantity entity
humanity sufficiency materiality
R1 agentivity R3 towardness edibility
R2 transitivity Ent3 individuality R4 adequacy
humanity

Definition: “An action (Ev) by which a human (Ent1) agent (R1) gives (Ev) nourish-
ment (Ent2 + A1) in sufficient quantity (D) to satisfy (R3) adequately (R4) the need
(Ev1) of a human being (Ent3) for nourishment (A2).”⁷⁹TN |115-M

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The giving (Ev) of nourishment (Ent2, A1) by (R1) a human being (Ent1) in sufficient
quantity (D) to (R3) satisfy adequately (R4) the need (Ev1) for food (A2) of another human being
(Ent3).”
 6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes 161

The figurative sense in Matt 5:6 (μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν
δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται, “happy are those who hunger and thirst
for justice, because they will be filled”) results from substituting elements in the for-
mula related to necessity (τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “righteousness”). In this case, χορτάζω is
a response to this necessity and does not focus on material nourishment, but with
acting to change an unrighteous situation into a righteous one. Ent2 becomes an
event. The situation described as Ev1 + A2 is a situation of unrighteousness. R4 be-
comes the solution for this situation.
§ 270. Causative event lexemes can be divided into two general groups:
1. There are event lexemes that not only express quality but also the result of a caus-
ative action. The result can be a state (i. e., “to cause to be”)⁸⁰ or an action (i. e., “to
cause to do”).⁸¹ Many verbs can be causatives based on context, such as μαστιγόω,
“to beat, to cause to beat” (cf. John 19:1) and περιτέμνω, “to circumcise, to cause to
circumcise” (cf. Acts 16:3). Causative lexemes of state or action denote two events (Ev,
Ev′), the second of which will be specified in the development as stative or dynamic.
R2 will be a relation of attribution with a stative event, and a relation of agent with a
dynamic event. The events are joined by a relation (R) of causality. The agent (Ent1)
and the recipient of the action (Ent2) are connoted:

R1 Ent1

R2 Ent2
|116-M

Ev dynamism Ent1 entity

resultativity R1 agentivity
activity R2 attribution/agentivity
R causality Ent2 entity
Ev stativity/dynamism

 Cf. e. g., ἁγιάζω, “to sanctify,” “to consecrate” (cf. Matt 23:7; 1Cor 7:14; 1Tim 4:5; Heb 2:11);
μαθητεύω, “to cause [another person to become] a disciple” (cf. Matt 28:19; Acts 14:21); σκληρύνω,
“to harden” (cf. Rom 9:18; Heb 3:8, 15); καταδουλόω, “to make a slave” (cf. 2Cor 11:20; Gal 2:4);
λυπέω, “to cause sadness” (cf. 2Cor 2:2, 5; Eph 4:30); δέω, “to bind” (cf. Luke 13:16), φιμόω, “to
cause to be silent” (cf. Matt 22:12, 34; 1Pet 2:15).
 Cf. e. g., ἀνατέλλω, “to cause to rise up”; τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει, “[he] causes his sun to rise”
(Matt 5:45); ποτίζω, “to cause someone to drink/to give drink” (Mark 9:41; Luke 13:15; Rom 12:20).
162 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

2. The second group of causative lexemes is comprised of terms that denote com-
mands and requests (and that can thereby be characterized as conative with regard
to causation).⁸² Both the command and the request imply an influence over a possi-
ble agent. These lexemes intend to cause an action to be executed that can have one,
two, or three connotations. Contrary to the lexemes in the previous group, the lex-
emes in this group do not denote the action that must be completed. Therefore,
the second event will simply be connoted (Ev1). The denoted action (Ev) is performed
(R1) directly to (R) a subject (Ent2), who in turn will (hopefully) become an agent
(R2→)⁸³TN of another action (Ev1). The development does not require its own explan-
ation, and the formula will be:

R1 Ent1

Ev + R

Ent2 R2 Ev1
|117-M

§ 271. The verb σφραγίζω, “to seal,” “to mark,” can be included in the first group of
causative lexemes above (cf. § 270). At the same time, certain features of σφραγίζω
should be taken into account. In a literal sense, σφραγίζω denotes an action, namely,
the application of an object or instrument (i. e., of a seal or mark), and connotes the
object that is sealed and the result of the action (sealed or marked). Therefore, the
formula has several denoted elements, including an action (Ev), an object/instru-
ment (Ent), and a relation of instrumentality that unites the two (R). The relation be-
tween the acting subject (Ent1) and the denoted elements is twofold: the relation to
the action (Ev) is agent (R1) while the relation to the instrument (Ent) is exclusive
possession (R′), in such a manner that the sealed (Ev1) entity (Ent2) can be visibly
(A) recognized (Ev2) as the property of (R3) the agent (Ent1) by a witness (Ent3)
who observes (R4, Ev2) the seal/mark (Ev1). Hence:

 Cf. e. g., ἐντέλλομαι, “to command,” “to give a command/task” (cf. Mark 10:3; John 15:14);
διαστέλλομαι, “to order” (cf. Matt 16:20; Mark 5:43); διατάσσω, “to give instructions” (cf. Matt 11:1;
Luke 8:55); ἐπιτάσσω, “to order,” “to give an order” (cf. Mark 1:27; 6:27, 39), αἰτέω, “to ask” (cf.
Matt 5:42; Luke 1:63); δέομαι, “to request” (cf. Luke 8:28; 10:2); παρακαλέω, “to exhort,” “to beseech”
(cf. Matt 8:34; Mark 7:32); προσεύχομαι, “to pray,” “to ask” (cf. Mark 14:38; Heb 13:18).
 translator’s Note: It should be noted that Mateos omits arrows in the lower half of this dia-
gram. I assume there should be an arrow after R2.
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 163

R1/R Ent1

Ev + R + Ent R3 Ev2 R4 Ent3

R2 [Ent2 + Ev1 + A]
|118-M

Ev dynamism R possession A visibility

resultativity exclusivity R3 connection
R instrumentality Ent1 individuality exclusivity
σ α Ent entity humanity Ev2 dynamism
materiality R2 towardness perception
imprintability Ent2 materiality R4 agentivity
R1 agentivity Ev1 stativity Ent3 humanity
impression

Definition: “An action (Ev) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1), who, by
means of (R) an instrument (Ent) of his or her exclusive possession (R′) applied to
(R2) an entity (Ent2), marks it permanently (Ev1) in a visible manner (A), connecting
it to himself or herself (R3) in a perceptible manner (Ev2) as (R4) a human testimony
(Ent3).”⁸⁴TN, ⁸⁵ |119–20-M

6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes

§ 272. The domain of relation and determination lexemes is quite extensive, since it
contains the majority of a language’s morpholexemes (in particular the prepositions
and conjunctions). Greek prepositions require certain cases, which affect their mean-

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The giving (Ev) of nourishment (Ent2, A1) by (R1) a human being (Ent1) in sufficient
quantity (D) to (R3) satisfy adequately (R4) the need (Ev1) for food (A2) of another human being
(Ent3).”
 In the New Testament, σφραγίζω is used (1) in a literal sense: σφραγίσαντες τὸν λίθον, “sealed
the stone [sc. of the grave]” (Matt 27:66); (2) in a figurative sense to indicate the confirming of a testi-
mony: ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν, “whoever has accepted his testimony has placed
his seal (i.e., has certified/confirmed this)” (John 3:33); the delivery of an intact monetary collection:
σφραγισάμενος αὐτοῖς τὸν καρπὸν τοῦτον, “[after I] have delivered this fruit [sc. the final collection]
to them intact” (Rom 15:28); or those who have received the Spirit/seal (whose effects are visible for
others) as belonging to God: τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός, “for God the Father has marked
this one with his seal” (John 6:27; cf. 2Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30); (3) with various meanings—symbolic or
figurative—in Rev 7:3 ff.; 10:4; 20:3; 22:10.
164 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

ings. As in the previous sections we will not attempt to analyze lexemes or morpho-
lexemes exhaustively, but to provide a method for conducting their analysis.

6.3.1 Relation Lexemes

§ 273. We begin by examining relation lexemes that indicate relations of place or

time. As has been seen (cf. § 135), such lexemes can denote a stative (non-directional)
relation⁸⁶ or a directional relation.⁸⁷
§ 274. The semantic formula of ἐν accounts for the denoted class of relation and the
two connoted objects (cf. § 135).
1. The particle ἐν is used in a literal and figurative local sense in one of three
manners: (a) with the seme of interiority, translated as “in,” “within”⁸⁸ or as
“among,” “in the presence of” a specific circle;⁸⁹ (b) with semes of contact, translat-
ed as “in,” “upon”;⁹⁰ |121-M (c) with a seme of proximity, translated as “with,” “be-
side.”⁹¹
2. On the other hand, ἐν can denote a temporal relation by indicating: (a) a date
or moment, “on,” “at”;⁹² (b) a span of time during which something occurs, “in,”
“during”;⁹³ (c) the maximum span of time during which something must occur,
“in,” “during the span of.”⁹⁴
The generic formula accounts for the connoted local or temporal object (X) of the
relation and the event, state, or process (Ev) that exists in relation to a place or time:

 Cf. e. g., ἐν, “in”; and πρός (with dative), “beside”; or πρό, “in front of”; μετά (with dative) and
σύν, “with”; ἔσω, “inside”; and ἔξω, “outside.”
 Cf. e. g., εἰς/πρός + acc., “toward”; ἐκ, “from”; ἐκεῖθεν, “from there”; ἄνωθεν, “from above”;
μακρόθεν, “from far.”
 Cf. e. g., γυνὴ ἥτις ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁμαρτωλός, “a woman who was a sinner in the city” (Luke 7:37);
ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν, “they died in the water” (Matt 8:32).
 Cf. e. g., σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, “we speak a wisdom among the mature/completed/
perfected” (1Cor 2:6); τί διαλογίζετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς; “what are you discussing amongst yourselves?”
(Matt 16:8); τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, “that which is said in the Prophets” (Acts 13:40).
 Cf. e. g., ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν, “they worshiped upon this mountain” (John 4:20);
κατασκενοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ, “to rest in its branches” (Matt 13:32).
 Cf. e. g., ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐλάλησεν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ, “he spoke these words beside/by the
treasury” (John 8:20).
 Cf. e. g., ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ, “that which is forbidden to do on the Sabbath” (Matt
12:2); ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, “the servant was healed in that hour/at that moment” (Matt 8:13).
 Cf. e. g., ἐάν τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, “if one walks during the day” (John 11:9); μήποτε
ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, “lest they tire on the way/during the journey” (Matt 15:32); βασίλισσα νότου
ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει, “the queen of the south will rise at/during the judgment” (Luke 11:31).
 Cf. e. g., ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν, “in three days I will raise him” (John 2:19).
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 165

Ev

The diverse contextual meanings that have already been described are sememes pro-
duced by context. In each case the features of the sememe should be added to the
nuclear semes that appear in the following development (for example, the semes
of interior and duration could be added):

R stativity (non-directional)
position
Ev occurrence
X location/time

Definition: “A stative position (R) in space or time (X) in relation to an event (Ev).”⁹⁵TN
|122-M
3. Contextually, ἐν has many other meanings. It can indicate an instrument,⁹⁶
which is a denoted contextual meaning that joins two objects, namely, an instrument
and an action:

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of a stative position (R) in space or time (X) in relation to an event (Ev).”
 Cf. e. g., ἐν μαχαίρῃ πατάσσειν, “to strike/wound with the sword” (Luke 22:49); ἐν μαχαίρῃ
ἀπόλλυσθαι, “to die by the sword” (Matt 26:52); ἐν αἵματι καθαρίζειν, “to purify with blood” (Heb
9:22); ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἐν παραβολαῖς, “he told them many things with/by means of parables”
(Matt 13:3); ὑμῖν ἐρῶ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ, “I will tell you by what authority I do these things”
(Matt 21:24).
166 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Ent

Ev

R instrumentality
Ent entity
Ev dynamism
activity

Definition: “A relation of instrumentality (R) between an object (Ent) and the action
or process (Ev) which is performed with it.”⁹⁷TN
With regard to a transitive dynamic lexeme, an instrumental relation (R) is inserted
in the formula, affecting the subject’s (Ent1) mode of action (R1) by means of (R) the
instrument (Ent):

R Ent R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 Ent2
|123-M

Thus, Ent1 is the acting subject, R1 represents the activity, Ent is the instrument, R is
a relation of instrumentality, Ev is an action or process, R2 represents transitivity,
and Ent2 is an object. All other contextual meanings of ἐν must be analyzed in
the same way.

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of a relation of instrumentality (R) between an object (Ent) and the action
or process (Ev) which is performed with it.”
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 167

§ 275. The morpholexeme πρό, which requires the genitive case, can denote (1) stative
local priority, “before,” “in front of”;⁹⁸ (2) temporal priority, “before”;⁹⁹ or (3) prior-
ity/precedence in relation to something’s importance.¹⁰⁰
The Semitic expression πρὸ προσώπου τινός, “before someone” (lit. “before
someone’s face”; cf. Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:76) includes a local and temporal
sense. As the previous examples demonstrate, the relation is connected to an
event in each case. The semantic formula for πρό, therefore, has two connotations:

Ev

The development that follows adds the symbol [ ] to indicate possible contextual
semes belonging to the various contextual meanings:

R priority
[location/temporality/importance]
X reality (Ent/Ev)
Ev occurrence
activity
|124-M

Definition: “The status of an event (Ev) as prior (in place, time, or importance) to (R)
another entity or event (X).”¹⁰¹TN
§ 276. The morpholexeme εἰς denotes a local or temporal relation, but with a direc-
tional sense (“to,” “towards”). Its formula is the same as ἐν.

 Cf. e. g., φύλακες πρὸ τῆς θύρας ἐτήρουν τὴν φυλακήν, “sentinels in front of the door were guard-
ing the prison” (Acts 12:6); ἑστάναι τὸν Πέτρον πρὸ τοῦ πυλῶνος, “that Peter was at the door [sc. in
front of the gate]” (Acts 12:14; cf. Acts 14:13; Jas 5:9).
 Cf. e. g., οὐ πρῶτον ἐβαπτίσθη πρὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου, “he had not first washed himself before the
meal” (Luke 11:38); πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, “before the world existed” (John 17:5; cf. Matt 5:12;
6:8; 8:29; Luke 22:15; 2Cor 12:2).
 Cf. e. g., πρὸ πάντων … μὴ ὀμνύετε, “above all do not swear” (Jas 5:12; cf. 1Pet 4:8).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The indication that an event occurred (Ev) prior (in place, time, or importance) to (R)
another entity or event (X).”
168 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

1. In a local sense εἰς indicates: (a) direction “towards” a place or recipient,¹⁰²

sometimes with a contextual seme of hostility (e. g., ταῦτα πάντα ποιήσουσιν εἰς
ὑμᾶς διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, “they will do all this to you on my account,” John 15:21);
(b) point of arrival, “to,” “unto”;¹⁰³ (c) sometimes with stative verbal lexemes, εἰς de-
notes a location resulting from a previous movement (constructio pregnans) (cf. καθη-
μένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ὄρος, “as he was sitting on the mountain,” Mark 13:3, implying
the way to the mountain).
2. The temporal sense of εἰς indicates: (a) continuance (of an action or condition)
to a specified time, “until” (cf. εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν, “until that day,” 2Tim 1:12); (b)
duration, “for” (cf. εἰς ἔτη πολλά, “for many years,” Luke 12:19); (c) the expression
εἰς τέλος can have a temporal sense (cf. ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος, “the one who en-
dures until the end,” Matt 10:22) or can indicate degree (cf. ἔφθασεν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ
ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος, “wrath/punishment has come upon them until the end/completely,”
1Thess 2:16).
Thus, in a local sense, in a temporal sense, and in a sense of degree, the devel-
opment of εἰς is as follows:

R directionality
ες towardness
X reality
[location/temporality/intensity]

Definition: “Direction towards or arrival at (R) a point (local, temporal, or of degree)

(X).”¹⁰⁴TN |125-M
§ 277. The morpholexeme ἐκ indicates direction in an opposite sense than εἰς. In its
more common local and temporal contextual meanings, ἐκ is developed as:

 Cf. e. g., ἀναστὰς πορεύου εἰς Δαμασκόν, “get up and go to Damascus” (Acts 22:10); ἀναβλέψας
εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, “lifting up the gaze toward heaven” (Mark 6:41); λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον, “I speak to
the world” (John 8:26).
 Cf. e. g., ἦλθον εἰς Δαμασκόν, “I came to Damascus” (Acts 22:11); εἶδεν … τὸ πμεῦμα …
καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν, “he saw the Spirit descend on him” (Mark 1:10).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of direction towards or arrival at (R) a point (local, temporal, or of degree)
(X).” There are other contextual meanings for εἰς that must be analyzed in context.
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 169

R directionality
initiality
X reality
[location/temporality]

Definition: “Direction from (R) a local or temporal point (X).”¹⁰⁵TN

§ 278. The morpholexeme διά requires the genitive and accusative cases, each of
which must be analyzed separately.
1. With the genitive, διά can have three senses: (a) a local sense of “through”;¹⁰⁶
(b) a temporal sense of “through,” “for,” “during,”¹⁰⁷ or “in the span of”;¹⁰⁸ (c) an
instrumental sense of “through,” “by means of.”¹⁰⁹ In these and other possible con-
textual meanings, διά denotes a relation and connotes an action (Ev) as well as a
place, time, or instrument (X):

Ev |126-M

R mediation
X reality
ι [location/temporality/instrumentality]
+ gen Ev dynamism
activity

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of direction from (R) a local or temporal point (X).”
 Cf. e. g., ἀπελεύσομαι δι’ ὑμῶν εἰς Σπανίαν, “I will go to Spain via you [sc. passing through your
city]” (Rom 15:28); ὡς διὰ πυρός, “as through fire” (1Cor 3:15); πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον,
“they all passed through the sea” (1Cor 10:1).
 Cf. e. g., δι’ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα, “for forty days” (Acts 1:3).
 Cf. e. g., διὰ νυκτὸς ἤνοιξεν τὴν θύραν τῆς φυλακῆς, “during the night he opened the door of the
prison” (Acts 5:19).
 Cf. e. g., γράφειν διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος, “to write with paper/papyrus and ink” (2John 12); διὰ
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα, “by means of the gospel I have begotten you” (1Cor 4:15).
170 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Definition: “A relation of instrumentality (R) between a local, temporal, or material

reality (X) and an action or process (Ev).”
2. With the accusative, διά indicates reason/cause and can be translated as “for,”
“because,” “for the purpose of,” “due to.”¹¹⁰ The lexeme denotes a relation between
a reality (X) and a subsequent action (Ev). The formula is the same as the previous
but its development is:

R dependence
ι X reality
+ acc causality
Ev dynamism
resultativity

Definition: “The dependence (R) of an action (Ev) on a reason or cause (X).”¹¹¹TN

§ 279. Similar to διά, the morpholexeme μετά takes the genitive and accusative.
1. With the genitive μετά has a local sense, signifying: (a) location, “among,”
“with”;¹¹² (b) company, “with,” “together with,” without connoting activity;¹¹³ (c)
the recipient of an activity of speech or of help;¹¹⁴ |127-M (d) association together in
a common activity, “with”;¹¹⁵ (e) the connection or association of a human subject
and an object, “with”;¹¹⁶ (f) the simultaneousness of two actions by the same subject
or of an action and an emotion, “with.”¹¹⁷

 Cf. e. g., διὰ φθόνον, “because of envy” (Matt 27:18); διὰ τὸν θόρυβον, “because of the uproar”
(Acts 21:34); διὰ τί; “for what reason?” (Matt 2:18); οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, “man was not
created for the sake of woman” (1Cor 11:9).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of dependence (R) of an action (Ev) on a reason or cause (X).”
 Cf. e. g., ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων, “he was among the beasts” (Mark 1:13); τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ
τῶν νεκρῶν; “why are you looking for the living one among the dead?” (Luke 24:5); ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν
νεφελῶν, “he comes in the clouds” (Rev 1:7).
 Cf. e. g., καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔμεινεν μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν, “and he stayed there with the disciples” (John
11:54); ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμί, “I am still with you a little while” (John 13:33).
 For recipients of speech, see e. g., ἐλάλησεν μετ’ αὐτῶν, “he spoke with them” (Mark 6:50); τί
λαλεῖς μετ’ αὐτῆς; “why/what are you discussing with her?” (John 4:27). For recipients of help, see
e. g., μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, “God with us” (Matt 1:23); χεὶρ Κυρίου ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ, “The Lord’s hand
was with him” (Luke 1:66); ὁ πέμψας με μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν, “the one who sent me is with me” (John
8:29).
 Cf. e. g., πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου, “I am going to celebrate the Passover
with my disciples in your house” (Matt 26:18); γρηγορεῖτε μετ’ ἐμου, “keep watch/stay awake with
me” (Matt 26:38); ὁ τρώγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ τὸν ἄρτον, “the one who eats bread with me” (John 13:18).
 Cf. e. g., ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν, “a crowd with swords” (Mark 14:43); ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ μετὰ φανῶν καὶ
λαμπάδων καὶ ὅπλων, “he arrives there with lanterns, torches, and weapons” (John 18:3).
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 171

With the genitive μετά has two connotations in the semantic formula, namely,
the subject, object, state or activity (X1) prompted by μετά and the object (X2) that
is associated with it:

X1

X2

The development will account for the common semes of presence and simultaneous-
ness, which will be accompanied in context by semes of centrality, speech, help, or
association. Additionally, each object of the relation is polyvalent, referring to a
human subject or to an activity of this subject (X1; cf. Mark 3:5; 4:16; Acts 20:31)
and to a human subject, to an object, or to an activity or emotion (X2). |128-M

R presence
ε simultaneousness
+ gen X1 reality (Ent/Ev)
reality (Ent/Ev)

Definition: “The simultaneous presence (R) of two or more realities (X1, X2).”¹¹⁸TN
2. In the New Testament, μετά with the accusative often denotes temporal sub-
sequence and can be translated as “after.”¹¹⁹ The local sense of “after,” “behind,” is

 Cf. e. g., πάλιν ἡρνήσατο μετὰ ὄρκου, “again he denied it with an oath” (Matt 26:72); μετὰ δα-
κρύων νουθετῶν ἕνα ἕκαστον, “admonishing each one individually with tears” (Acts 20:31); περιβλε-
ψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετ’ ὀργῆς, “looking around at them with anger” (Mark 3:5); μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνου-
σιν αὐτόν, “they receive it (sc., the word/message [λόγος]) with joy” (Mark 4:16); ἀπελθοὐσαι ταχύ …
μετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρὰς μεγάλης, “they left quickly with fear and great joy” (Matt 28:8).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of a simultaneous presence (R) of two or more realities (X1, X2).”
 Cf. e. g., μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἱουδαίων, “after this/sometime later it was the feast of the
Jews” (John 5:4); εἰσελεύσονται μετὰ τὴν ἄφιξίν μου λύκοι βαρεῖς, “after my departure fierce wolves
will come in [among you]” (Acts 20:29); ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, “after eating, he
did the same with the cup” (1Cor 11:27).
172 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

not common.¹²⁰ The formula for μετά with the accusative is identical to μετά with the
genitive. The two connotations required by the relation will take objects designated
with X1 and X2, which stand for possible senses these objects receive in context. If
the sense is temporal, the object will be specified as an event; with a local sense
the object is an entity. The development can be:

R subsequence
ε [temporal/location]
+ acc X1 reality (Ent/Ev)
X2 reality (Ent/Ev)

Definition: “The temporal subsequence of (R) a reality (i. e., of an event) with regards
to another reality (X1, X2)”; or: “The local position of a reality (i. e., an entity) as
being further back (R) than another reality (i. e., entity).”¹²¹TN
§ 280. Lexemes that indicate local or temporal distance have a similar development
(e. g., ἐγγύς, “near”; μακράν, “far”; cf. § 136). The lexeme ἐγγύς can carry a sense of
local proximity ¹²² or temporal proximity.¹²³ |129-M These two senses make the two con-
noted objects in the formula polyvalent:

X1

X2

 However, see Heb 9:3, μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ ἡ λεγομένη ἅγια ἁγίων, “after/
behind the second curtain is the tabernacle called the most holy place.”
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of a simultaneous presence (R) of two or more realities (X1, X2).”
 Cf. e. g., διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι Ἰερουσαλὴμ αὐτόν, “because he was close to Jerusalem” (Luke 19:11);
ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως, “the place was near the city” (John 19:20); ἦν δὲ ἡ βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν
Ἱεροσολύμων, “Bethany was near Jerusalem” (John 11:18).
 Cf. e. g., ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἐορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “The Passover, the feast of the Jews, was
near” (John 6:4); γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγυς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν, “you know that summer is near” (Mark 13:28); ὁ
γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς, “because the time is near” (Rev 1:3).
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 173

R proximity
[location/temporality]
ύς X1 reality
[entity/event]
X2 reality
[entity/event]

The lexeme μακράν, “far,” only has a local sense, which is sometimes used meta-
phorically.¹²⁴ The formula is similar to the formula of ἐγγύς, but X1 and X2 will be
changed to Ent1 and Ent2. In the development, the seme of distance will be specified
by a seme of location.
§ 281. Lexemes that denote a relation of temporal immediacy, such as εὐθύς, εὐθέως,
and παραχρῆμα (cf. § 136), connect two events (Ev1, Ev2): |130-M

Ev1

Ev2

R immediacy
temporality
ε ύς Ev1 dynamism
resultativity
Ev2 dynamism
resultativity

 For the local sense of μακράν, cf. ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων, “far from them was a
herd of pigs” (Matt 8:30); ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος, “while he was still far off” (Luke 15:20). For
a metaphorical translation of μακράν, cf. οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, “you are not far
from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34).
174 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Definition: “An immediate temporal succession (R) between two events (Ev1,
Ev2).”¹²⁵TN
Contextually, εὐθύς can indicate “narrative immediacy” when it connects two events
that imply movement and when it merely indicates that nothing worthy of mention
occurred between them.¹²⁶
§ 282. Morpholexemes like ὥσπερ, “as” (cf. § 136), which indicate similarity or corre-
spondence, connote two events (Ev1, Ev2).¹²⁷

Ev1

Ev2
|131-M

R similarity/correspondence
σ ε Ev1 stativity/dynamism
Ev2 stativity/dynamism

Definition: “Similarity or correspondence (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”¹²⁸TN

§ 283. The causal use of ὅτι, which is similar to διά with the accusative (cf. § 278),
precedes clauses rather than lexemes. It should be noted, however, that the causal
relation established by ὅτι between the two events does not determine which
event is the cause or the effect. In John 20:29 (ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας, “because
you have seen me, you believe”), ὅτι introduces the cause. In other texts, ὅτι intro-
duces the perceptible result that shows the existence of the cause.¹²⁹ The causal re-

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of immediate temporal succession (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”
 Cf. e. g., καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος, “when they left
the synagogue, they arrived immediately/came directly to Simon’s house” (Mark 1:29).
 For ὥσπερ with a stative event, see ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικός, “let [sc. this one] be to you as a
pagan” (Matt 18:17); with a dynamic event, see μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, “do not babble
like the pagans” (Matt 6:7); ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὥσπερ λέων μυκᾶται, “he cried out in a great voice,
as a lion roars” (Rev 10:3).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of similarity or correspondence (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”
 Cf. e. g., ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, “… in as much as/given that/the
evidence is that from his fullness we have all received” (John 1:16); ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 175

lation between the events appears in the formula for ὅτι, but without specifying the
sense of the relation:

Ev1

Ev2
The development can be as follows, taking into account that at least one of the con-
noted events must be a dynamic result:

R causality
ι Ev1 occurrence
Ev2 occurrence (result)
|132-M

Definition: “A cause-effect relation (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”¹³⁰TN

The completive ὅτι (“that” in indirect speech) and the recitative ὅτι (introducing a
quotation in direct speech), which bring together two propositions, omit the causal
seme in its development and replace it with a transitive relation.¹³¹
§ 284. The possessive lexemes ἐμός/μου, “my/mine”; σός/σου, “your/yours”; αὐτοῦ/
αὐτῆς, “his” (cf. § 138), denote a relation of possession (R) between a personal sub-
ject and the possessed reality (X). Possessive lexemes connote a speaker (Ev–R1–Ent)
who may or may not be the possessing subject (R). The formula for ἐμός and its de-
velopment is as follows:

ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν, “we worship that which we know, because salvation comes from
the Jews” (John 4:22); ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας
ὑμῶν, “the evidence that you are sons is that God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of a cause-effect relation (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”
 Cf. e. g., θεασάμενος ὅτι πολὺς ὄχλος ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτόν, “seeing that a large crowd was ap-
proaching him” (John 6:5); ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι οὐ πρῶτον ἐβαπτίσθη, “he was surprised that he did
not first wash himself” (Luke 11:38); λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, “you say, ‘you are blaspheming’”
(John 10:36).
176 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

R2 Ev R1 Ent

R possession R1 agentivity
identity Ev dynamism
ς
reference (to X) resultativity
Ent individuality verbality
personhood R2 transitivity
X reality (polyvalent)
|133-M

Definition: “A relation of possession (R) that a personal subject (Ent) expresses (Ev)
about himself or herself (R) with regards to a reality (X).”¹³²TN
With the lexemes σός/σου there is a third connotation, namely, the subject (Ent2) to
whom the possession is attributed:

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

R Ent2

In the development, the identity seme in R is substituted with the semes of otherness
and interlocutivity, while the semes of individuality and personhood are added to
Ent2.

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The signal of a relation of a possession (R) that a personal subject (Ent) expresses (Ev)
about himself or herself (R) with regards to a reality (X).”
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 177

6.3.2 Determination Lexemes

§ 285. Definite articles in Greek (ὁ, ἡ, τό; cf. § 139) are morpholexemes of determina-
tion that identify (D) an entity, attribute, or event (X) by means of a textual or situa-
tional anaphoric reference:

D+R X

D identification
R anaphoricity
X reality (Ent/A/Ev)

Definition: “Identification (D) of a reality (X) that is related to a previous reference or

knowledge of this reality (R).” |134-M
§ 286. Deictic determinative lexemes include ἐγώ, “I”; σύ, “you”; and αὐτός, “he.” In
such cases, they designate and identify a person (Ent) and his or her relation (R) of
sameness (“I”) or otherness (“you,” “he”) to the speaker (cf. § 141). Like the posses-
sive lexemes (cf. § 284), deictic determinative lexemes connote an act of speech (Ev)
made by an individual or a group (Ent1). Thus, the formula and development for ἐγώ
are:¹³³

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

D + Ent + R

 For the formulas of σύ, αὐτός, etc., see the discussion of possessive lexemes in § 286.
178 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

D designation Ent1 individuality

identification personhood
Ent individuality singularity
personhood R2 agentivity
singularity Ev dynamism
R identity resultativity
(between Ent and Ent1) verbality
R2 objectivity

Definition: “A designation and identification (D) about (R) oneself (Ent) made by (R1)
a personal subject (Ent1) in (R2) a verbal expression (Ev).”
§ 287. Like personal deictic lexemes (cf. § 286), the deictic identifiers οὗτος, “this,”
and ἐκεῖνος, “that” (cf. § 142) connote an act of speech (Ent, R1, Ev). In a local or
temporal sense, these lexemes denote not only a designating and identifying deter-
mination (D), but also a relation (R) that marks the difference between them. The re-
lation (R) has |135-M two objects, namely, a polyvalent reality (X, Ent/A/Ev) and this
reality’s proximity to or distance from the speaking subject (Ent).

R2 Ev R1 Ent

D+R

D designation R1 agentivity
identification Ev dynamism
R proximity resultativity
ο ο (to Ent)
subjectivity verbality
reference (to X) R2 transitivity
Ent individuality X reality (Ent/Ev)
personhood

Definition: “A specifying designation (D) expressed verbally (R2, Ev) by (R1) a person
(Ent) about his or her proximity (R) to an entity or an event (X).”
With ἐκεῖνος, the seme of proximity is changed to non-proximity. If these deictic lex-
emes function as pronouns or substantival adjectives (e. g., “this,” “that”), the poly-
valent X becomes denoted rather than connoted: |136-M
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 179

R2 Ev R1 Ent

D+X+R

These deictic lexemes can have a textual or situational anaphoric function (cf. § 287).
When this occurs, the relation of proximity does not have the speaker as its object,
but rather a previously mentioned X.
§ 288. Local and temporal deictic lexemes are parallel to personal and identifying
deictics (cf. § 143). Among the local deictics are ὧδε, “here,” and ἐκεῖ, “there.”
These also connote a speaking (R1, Ev) subject (Ent1) and denote a determination
and a relation. The determination (D) designates and identifies a place (Ent2). The
relation of proximity or non-proximity (R) is viewed from the perspective of the
speaker (Ent1) and refers to a designated place (Ent2):

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

D+R

Ent2

D designation R1 agentivity
identification Ev dynamism
ε R proximity/non-proximity resultativity
ε subjectivity verbality
Ent1 individuality R2 transitivity
personhood Ent2 entity
location
|137-M

Definition: “A designation that identifies (D) a place (Ent2) based on its proximity (R)
to the subject (Ent1) who (R1) verbalizes it (Ev, R2).”
180 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

In contrast to local deictic lexemes, the lexemes ποῦ, “where?” and the enclitic
πού, “anywhere, somewhere,” belong to the same domain. The interrogative ποῦ has
a (direct or indirect) interrogative sense and a stative seme of location¹³⁴ or direc-
tion.¹³⁵ Its formula is similar to the formula of ὧδε and ἐκεῖ except that it joins the
determination (D) with an attribute of unknown (A) and omits the proximity/non-
proximity seme in the relation (R):

D identification R1 agentivity R2 transitivity

A non-cognition Ev dynamism Ent2 entity
Ent1 individuality resultativity location
personhood verbality R towardness

Definition: “The identification (D) of a place (Ent2) that is unknown (A) to (R) a speak-
ing (Ev) subject (Ent1).”
The indefinite lexeme πού can have a local sense, i. e., “somewhere.”¹³⁶ Other times
the lexeme has a limiting sense, i. e., “more or less” and “somehow.”¹³⁷ In both cases,
the formula and its development are the same as with ποῦ, except that Ent2 is sub-
stituted with a polyvalent X.
§ 289. The temporal deictic lexemes νῦν, “now,” and τότε, “then,” have a formula
that parallels the local deictic lexemes. They denote a relation of simultaneousness
or non-simultaneousness |138-M with the narrator’s present.¹³⁸ Other meanings of
these deictics can be examined contextually. The temporal interrogative lexeme
πότε; “when?” and the indefinite ποτέ, “sometime” (past or future) behave as tem-
poral deictics like the local lexemes ποῦ and πού.
§ 290. The maximizing morpholexemes λίαν, “very,” and σφόδρα, “great,” “in large
measure,” “exceedingly” (cf. § 144) are determination lexemes that are used in four

 Cf. e. g., ποῦ ἐστὶν ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; “where is the king of the Jews who is born?”
(Matt 2:2); οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ, “he does not have anywhere to lay his head” (Matt 8:20).
 Cf. e. g., οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει, “you do not know where it comes from or
where it goes” (John 3:8).
 Cf. e. g., διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις, “someone testifies somewhere” (Heb 2:6); εἴρηκεν γάρ που
περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης, “for some passage has said about the seventh day” (Heb 4:4).
 Cf. e. g., ἑκατονταετής που ὑπάρχων, “when he was about 100 years old” (Rom 4:19); φοβούμε-
νοι δὲ μή που κατὰ τραχεῖς τόπους ἐκπέσωμεν, “fearing that somehow we might run against rough
shores/rocks/cliffs” (Acts 27:29).
 Cf. e. g., νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται, “now I feel troubled” (John 12:27); εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν
κατοικεῖτε, “in which you now dwell” (Acts 7:4); εἶχον τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον, “at that time they
had a notorious prisoner” (Matt 27:16); τότε οἰ δίκαιοι ἐκλάμψουσιν, “then the righteous will
shine” (Matt 13:43).
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 181

possible ways: (1) with attribute lexemes of dimension;¹³⁹ (2) with temporal lex-
emes;¹⁴⁰ (3) with event lexemes related to the state of the soul;¹⁴¹ and (4) with dy-
namic event lexemes.¹⁴² The following formula and development applies for each
of these:

D R X

D maximality
λα R specification
σ α X reality (Ent/A/Ev)

Definition: “A maximizing-determination (D) that specifies (R) a reality (X) (i. e., a di-
mension, time, emotion, action, or process).” |139-M
§ 291. Other lexemes or morpholexemes, like πᾶς, “all,” and ἕκαστος, “each” (cf.
§ 144), also denote a determination. For its part, πᾶς is applied to personal global
collectives and to specific groups,¹⁴³ as well as to events.¹⁴⁴ It can have a distributive
sense and can be used with temporal lexemes.¹⁴⁵ The formula for πᾶς and its primary
contextual semes are as follows:

 Cf. e. g., εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν, “to a very high mountain” (Matt 4:8); ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα, “be-
cause [sc. the stone] was very big” (Mark 16:4); ἦν γὰρ πλούσιος σφόδρα, “because he was very rich”
(Luke 18:23).
 Cf. λίαν πρωΐ, “very early” (Mark 16:2).
 Cf. e. g., Ἡρῷδης … ἐθυμώθη λίαν, “Herod was exceedingly angry” (Matt 2:16); ἐχάρην λίαν, “I
rejoiced greatly” (2John 4); ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα, “they were very afraid” (Matt 17:6).
 Cf. e. g., λίαν γὰρ ἀντέστη τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις, “for he greatly opposed our words” (2Tim 4:15);
ἐπληθύνετο ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν μαθητῶν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ σφόδρα, “the number of disciples in Jerusalem
increased drastically” (Acts 6:7).
 For πᾶς with personal collectives, cf. πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα, “all of Jerusalem” (Matt 2:3); πᾶς ὁ
ὄχλος, “all the crowd” (Matt 13:2); for πᾶς with specific groups, cf. πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς, “all the
High Priests” (Matt 2:4).
 Cf. e. g., πάντα τᾶ ἔργα αὐτῶν, “all of their actions” (Matt 23:5); πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους,
“all these words” (Matt 26:1); ἐκ πάσης τῆς προσδοκίας, “with full expectation” (Acts 12:11); μετὰ
πάσης παρρησίας, “with all freedom” (Acts 28:31); ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει, “in every [sc.
gift of] speech and knowledge” (1Cor 1:5).
 For πᾶς with a distributive sense, cf. πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος, “everyone who is angry” (Matt 5:22); πᾶς
ὁ πίνων, “everyone who drinks” (John 4:13); for πᾶς with temporal lexemes, cf. ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, “on
every occasion/in each moment” (Luke 21:36).
182 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

D R X

D totality
[numerosity/globality]
ς R predication/specification
X reality (Ent/A/Ev)

Definition: “Totality (D) predicated about (R) a reality (X).”

When accompanied by a definite article (cf. 1Cor 15:28; 2Cor 5:5), the formula also
denotes an entity:

D + Ent

The substantival use of ἕκαστος applies it to people and as an adjective to things.¹⁴⁶

The substantival usage causes the entity (Ent) to be denoted. The relation (R) refers to
the group (Ent1) in which each of the individuals is included. |140-M

D + Ent R Ent1

D designation R inclusivity
totality Ent1 individuality
ασ ς distribution plurality
singularity collectivity
Ent individuality
singularity

 For ἕκαστος with people, cf. e. g., ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, “each one to his brother” (Matt
18:35); ἵνα ἕκαστος βραχὺ λάβῃ, “so that each one might receive some” (John 6:7); ἕκαστος ὑμῶν
λέγει, “each of you says” (1Cor 1:12). For ἕκαστος with things, cf. ἕκαστον δένδρον, “each tree”
(Luke 6:44).
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 183

Definition: “A designation about each (D) of the individuals (Ent) included in (R) a
group (Ent1).”
§ 292. Cardinal numerical lexemes (cf. εἷς, “one,” δύο, “two”; cf. § 144) are specifying
quantifiers that denote a determination:¹⁴⁷

D R X

D quantification
numerosity
ε ς, etc. [unity/duality, etc.]
R predication/specification
X reality (Ent/Ev)

Definition: “A numerical quantification (D) about (R) a reality (X).”

§ 293. Ordinal lexemes (e. g., πρῶτος, “first”; δεύτερος, “second”; cf. § 145) denote a
relation to a reality (X: Ent/Ev) whose place they determine, and to an ordinal series,
which constitutes a group of related elements (Ent + R1). |141-M In the New Testament,
πρῶτος can denote (1) temporal priority;¹⁴⁸ (2) priority in reference;¹⁴⁹ (3) priority in
excellence or importance;¹⁵⁰ and (4) the local position of an entity in a series relative
to the other members of the series, i. e., being the first of several entities, viz. priority
of place.¹⁵¹ The formula of ordinal lexemes should account for these contextual
meanings: the determination (D) indicates a reality’s priority (X) in relation (R) to
other components of a series or group (Ent + R1).

 Cf. e. g., ἓν τάλαντον, “one talent” (Matt 25:24); εἷς ἄνθρωπος, “one [sc. single] person” (John
11:50); δύο ἀδελφούς, “two brothers” (Matt 4:18); ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ, “three years and six months”
(Luke 4:25); δώδεκα ὧραι, “twelve hours” (John 11:9).
 Cf. e. g., ἡ πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων, “the first [sc. day] of the feast of unleavened bread” (Matt 26:17); ὁ
πρῶτος γήμας ἐτελεύτησεν, “after the first [sc. of seven brothers] married, he died” (Matt 22:25); ὁ
πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ᾿Aδάμ, “Adam, the first man” (1Cor 15:45). This contextual meaning specifies Ent
as a numerical series of elements that are progressively organized and related (Ent + R1).
 Cf. e. g., προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν, “when he approached the first [sc. of those previously
mentioned], he said to him …” (Matt 21:28).
 Cf. e. g., ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, “the one who wants to be first among you” (Matt
20:27); ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων, “the first commandment of all” (Mark 12:28).
 Cf. e. g., σκηνὴ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη, “a tabernacle was built, [sc. when entering] the first”
(Heb 9:2).
184 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

D+R

Ent + R1

D priority
R reference
ς X reality (Ent/Ev)
Ent entity
plurality

Definition: “The priority (D) of a reality (X) in relation to (R) other elements of a series
or group (Ent + R1).” |142-M
§ 294. Lexemes such as ἀρχή, “beginning,”¹⁵² and τέλος, “end,” denote a determina-
tion or demarcation within a temporal local continuum, within an action, or within a
series (cf. § 146). For example, ἀρχή denotes a determination (D) from the initial
point of a continuum or series (X) and a relation (R) to this:

D+R X

 The lexeme ἀρχή in its most common contextual meaning (derived from ἄρχομαι, “to com-
mence,” “to begin”) can be translated as “start,” “beginning,” “origin”; cf. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κόσμου ἕως
τοῦ νῦν, “from the beginning of the world until now” (Matt 24:21); ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “start
[sc. origins] of the good news/gospel” (Mark 1:1); ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, “the beginning of the pains” [series]
(Mark 13:8); ἀρχὴν τῶν σημεῖων, “beginning of the signs” [series] (John 2:11); τηλικαύτης σωτηρίας,
ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, “so exceptional a salvation, which was declared in the
beginning by the Lord” [action] (Heb 2:3). Other contextual meanings appear in the New Testament
that are related to ἀρχή, such as ἄρχων (“master,” “ruler”; from ἄρχω, “to command”). The lexeme
can refer to human beings (Luke 12:11) or to spiritual beings in authority (cf. Eph 1:21; 3:10; Col 1:16). In
this case, an entity is present in the denotation. The lexeme τέλος has a development that parallels
ἀρχή.
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 185

D initiality
R inclusivity
X reality
[continuum/series]
[temporality/occurrence]

Definition: “The initial point (D) of (R) a continuum or series (X).”

§ 295. The lexeme ἡμέρα, “day,” is another determination or demarcation in a tempo-
ral continuum. As in modern languages, ἡμέρα can mean: (1) a span of 24 hours;¹⁵³
(2) in opposition to night, the period of light within the span of 24 hours;¹⁵⁴ |143-M (3)
due to Semitic influence, ἡμέρα can mean a period of time.¹⁵⁵
There are two ways to construct the common formula of these three contextual
meanings. The limitation in the time affecting the lexeme can be expressed simply as
a period of time whose duration will be specified by context. The other possibility is
to consider the period of 24 hours as the main contextual meaning from which the
other two meanings arise, based on context, by changing semes. In both cases,
the temporal continuum (χρόνος) is viewed as an entity (Ent) that substantivizes a
temporal action (Ev; cf. § 233). By adopting the first contextual meaning, the formula
and development can be constructed as follows:

D+R [Ent = Ev]

D demarcation
duration
α R inclusivity
Ent quasi-entity
Ev dynamism
imperfectivity
temporality

 Cf. e. g., μεθ’ ἡμέρας ἕξ, “after six days” (Matt 17:1); προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας
ἑξήκοντα, “they will prophesy for one thousand two hundred and seventy days” (Rev 11:3).
 Cf. e. g., τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας, “three days and three nights” (Matt 12:40); οὐχὶ δώδεκα
ὧραί εἰσιν τῆς ἡμέρας; “are there not twelve hours in a day?” (John 11:9).
 Cf. e. g., ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῷδου, “in the days [sc. during the reign] of Herod” (Matt 2:1); τὴν ἡμέραν
τὴν ἐμήν, “my day [sc. the time of Jesus’s activity]” (John 8:56); ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, “in the time of
the [sc. divine] visit” (1Pet 2:12).
186 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Definition: “A demarcated period (D) within (R) a temporal continuum (Ent = Ev).”
Contextual meaning 1 will specify the demarcation as “24 hours” (i. e., as the dura-
tion of the earth’s rotation on its axis). Contextual meaning 2 will add an attribute (A)
of luminosity:

D+A+R Ent

§ 296. The lexeme ὄνομα (cf. § 169) also denotes a determination. Its primary contex-
tual meanings are: (1) the proper name of a person or place, |144-M or a person’s nick-
name;¹⁵⁶ (2) a title that corresponds to a person and describes (a) his or her condi-
tion, or (b) the quality of his or her being;¹⁵⁷ (3) renown, reputation;¹⁵⁸ (4) by
metonymy, a person or individual.¹⁵⁹
Contextual meaning 1 can be considered primary. Both the determination (D) and the
relation (R) to the named person or thing (Ent2) will be denoted elements. The two
connotations include the named entity (Ent2) and the act of communication (Ev)
by a subject (Ent1):

 Cf. e. g., τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστιν ταῦτα, “these are the names of the twelve
apostles” (Matt 10:2); ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, “with the name Jairus” (Mark 5:22); ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης,
“his name was John” (John 1:6); χωρίον οὗ τὸ ὄνομα Γεθσημανί, “a place called Gethsemane”
(Mark 14:32); εἰς πόλιν … ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρέτ, “to a city with the name Nazareth” (Luke 1:26). For a nick-
name, cf. ἐπέθηκεν τὸ ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, “he gave Simon the nickname Peter/Rock” (Mark
3:16).
 For ὄνομα as a title, cf. ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, “gave him the title [‘Lord’],
which is above every title” (Phil 2:9); εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου, “for/because of the name/title ‘prophet’”
(Matt 10:41). For ὄνομα describing the quality of being, cf. ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου, “may your name
[sc. the name/title ‘Father’] be hallowed/kept sacred” (Matt 6:9); διαφορότερον παρ’ αὐτῶν
κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα, “he has inherited a more excellent title [sc. that of ‘Son’] than theirs”
(Heb 1:4).
 Cf. e. g., φανερὸν γὰρ ἐγένετο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, “for his reputation has been made public” (Mark
6:14); ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς, “you have a reputation of being alive” [or also, “you supposedly are alive”]
(Rev 3:1).
 Cf. e. g., ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομα μου, “you will be hated by everyone be-
cause of me” (Mark 13:13); ἦν τε ὄχλος ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτῷ, “and the multitude of individuals
was/were [gathered together] at the same place” (Acts 1:15); παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, “they ordered them not to speak about the person of Jesus” (Acts 5:40); ἀσπάζου τοὺς
φίλους κατ’ ὄνομα, “greet each of the friends personally” (3John 15); ἔχεις ὀλίγα ὀνόματα ἐν
Σάρδεσιν, “you have a few people in Sardis” (Rev 3:4).
 6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes 187

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

D+R

Ent2 |145-M

D designation R1 agentivity
exclusivity Ev dynamism
α1 identification resultativity
R reference verbality
Ent1 individuality R2 transitivity
personhood Ent2 entity
singularity

Definition: “An exclusive designation (D) that points out (R) a singular entity (Ent2)
and is spoken (Ev, R2) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1).”
Contextual meaning 2 (“title”) adds a quality to its semes. Contextual meaning 3 (“re-
nown,” “reputation”) can be viewed as the frequent communication of a person’s
name. The seme of frequency specifies Ev, and the seme of plurality specifies Ent1,
which is qualified by an attribute (A) of numerosity. Contextual meaning 4 (“individ-
ual,” “person”) includes Ent2 as a denoted element in the box. The class of determi-
nation becomes a connoted element, since it is referred to by the relation. The event
(Ev) is interpreted as cognitive rather than as communicative:

R2 Ev R1 Ent1

Ent + R

D |146-M
188 Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis

Ent individuality R1 agentivity

personhood Ev dynamism
α4
R reference resultativity
Ent1 individuality cognition
personhood R2 objectivity
D nameability
identifiability

Definition: “A person (Ent) who is (R2) recognized (Ev) by (R1) another person (Ent1)
and can be referred to (R) with a name that designates and identifies him or her (D).”
|147–48-M
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)¹TN
§ 297. This chapter presents examples of changes that can occur to the semic nucleus
of lexemes because of the influence of context. Such changes in the nucleus lead to
changes in the nuclear configuration, which give rise to different sememes (i. e., con-
textual meanings). As has been seen (cf. §§ 86, 207), “nuclear configuration” refers to
the structure and organization of the nuclear semes of a lexeme. The semes are struc-
tured based on relations of presupposition and implication. In many cases the nucle-
ar semes are organized into various semic groups. Context can modify the semic
structure of a lexeme’s nucleus—for example, by altering the semes by means of a
figurative usage, which makes it possible for each semic group to occupy a central
position. Nuclear semes can also be identified by developing the semantic formula
(cf. the previous chapter regarding the denoted and connoted elements of lexemes).
In what follows, we will examine the semantic formulas of several lexemes, the de-
velopment of these formulas, and the manner in which context can produce various
configurations of the semic nuclei of these formulas.

7.1 Lexemes with Figurative Meanings: καρδία

§ 298. The lexeme καρδία, “heart,” provides an example of an entity lexeme whose
meaning varies in context. In the New Testament, καρδία is used almost exclusively
with reference to human beings. The lexeme’s common meaning denotes an organ of
the body, which constitutes sememe 1, a somatic domain. According to dictionaries
of the New Testament,² this lexeme (in opposition to the Semitic understanding of
πνεῦμα, “spirit,” in the Gospels) denotes the inner-parts of a person, including the
intellect, the will, and the emotions when these are viewed in their permanent
and established nature (i. e., convictions, attitudes and choices, fears, and loves).
The figurative sense of the lexeme is not difficult to grasp, since καρδία is used in
various contexts as the seat of a person’s inward |149-M purity and cleanliness,³ as
the location of a mental capacity,⁴ or as a favorable disposition towards the gospel.⁵
These usages constitute sememe 2, a psychological domain. There are also passages
in the New Testament and LXX in which καρδία is applied to inanimate things.⁶ This

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 149 – 64 in the original text of Mateos.
 Cf. BDAG, 508 – 09; BAA 818 – 21; L&N § 26.3.
 Cf. e. g., μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, “blessed are the pure of heart [sc. those inwardly pure]”
(Matt 5:7; cf. 15:8, 18; 18:35; 22:37).
 Cf. e. g., συλλυπούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, “grieved by the stubbornness of their
mind” (Mark 3:5; cf. 2:6, 8; 6:52).
 Cf. e. g., οἵτινες ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον, “those who have heard the mes-
sage with a noble and good heart [sc. disposition]” (Luke 8:15; cf. 1:17, 51; John 12:40; 13:2).
 Cf. e. g., ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, “in the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-013
190 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

constitutes sememe 3, a domain of location. In light of these three possible sememes,

καρδία is an example of a lexeme with heterogeneous meanings, suggesting that one
of the sememes should be seen as primary and the others as derivatives that emerge
when the nuclear configuration changes or when semes are substituted, neutralized,
or omitted (cf. §§ 86, 207– 08).
§ 299. Sememe 1 of καρδία has a complex formula. In this usage, καρδία denotes the
classes of entity (Ent) and relation (R), since καρδία is located in human beings. The
lexeme necessarily connotes a living (Ev1 + A) human subject (Ent1) for whom the
heart is an integral part, as well as an activity (Ev2) that both enables and manifests
(R3) the “life” and “vitality” (Ev1 + A) of the subject:

Ent1 R1 [Ev1 + A]

Ent + R R3

R2 Ev2

Both in the formula and in the development that follows, three semic groups can be
observed, including (1) the “organ” (Ent + R), |150-M related (by belonging) to (2) a “liv-
ing human being” (Ent 1, R1, Ev1 + A), and to (3) the “characteristic activity” of the
organ (R2, Ev2). There is also a transverse relation (R3) linking semic groups 2 and 3
by designating the activity enabled by Ev2 and revealing the presence of vitality Ev1 +
A (group 2). The formula’s development comprises the following semes:

α α, sememe 1
Semic group 1 (entity) semic group 2 (stativity) Semic group 3 (dynamism)
Ent entity Ent1 individuality R2 agentivity
corporeality (s) humanity (s) Ev2 dynamism
having organs (s) R1 attribution activity (s)
R possession Ev1 stativity R3 potentiality
location duration manifestation
interiority (s) A vitality
centrality (s) corporeality (s)

Definition of sememe 1: “A bodily organ (Ent) located in (R) a human being (Ent1) that
sustains (R2) activity (Ev2), which makes possible the manifestation of (R3) the phys-
ical life (Ev1 + A) of (R1) the human being (Ent1).”
 7.1 Lexemes with Figurative Meanings: καρδία 191

§ 300. In the New Testament, καρδία frequently has a figurative sense that parallels
the anthropology of certain texts in the LXX and translates or serves as an equivalent
for the Hebrew term leb. ⁷ In such cases καρδία denotes the interior of human beings,
their mental life, and their stative or permanent condition, in contrast to πνεῦμα,
which denotes cognitive acts, decisions, or manifestations of feeling that proceed
from this |151-M inward part. Thus, πνεῦμα refers to the mental life in its active and oc-
casional aspects. This particular meaning of καρδία constitutes sememe 2. It is de-
rived from sememe 1 by modifying the nuclear configuration and by substituting
semes: a part of semic group 2—represented as [Ev1 + A] and translated as “life,” “vi-
tality”—becomes denoted and replaces the denoted entity, resulting in the following
formula:

Ent

[Ev + A] + R R2

R1 Ev1

In the development of this sememe, semic group 1 (entity) disappears and is replaced
by semic group 2 (stativity). The following substitution of semes occurs: the denoted
event (Ev) is a durative, permanent state (like Ev1 in sememe 1). The attribute (A),
which in sememe 1 was developed with the semes of vitality and corporeality, is
now developed with the semes of vitality and intellectuality, and represents the
human being as a subject with regular and steady attitudes and dispositions. The re-
lation (R) loses the seme of location but it keeps the semes of possession and inte-
riority. Interiority is specified with a seme of subjectivity. The seme of centrality is
substituted with essentiality, since the interior is a component of the human person
(Ent). In the connoted relations, R2 (now R1) replaces the seme of agent with source.
R3 (now R2) loses the seme of potentiality but keeps the seme of manifestation. The
development of the formula for sememe 2 is thus: |152-M

 Cf. BDAG, 509.

192 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

α α, sememe 2
Semic group 1 (stative) Semic group 2 (dynamic)
Ev stativity Ent individuality
duration humanity (s)
A vitality R1 origin
intellectuality (s) Ev1 dynamism
R possession activity
interiority (s) habituality
subjectivity (s) intellectuality (s)
essentiality (s) R2 manifestation (s)

Definition of sememe 2: “The permanent state (Ev) of mental capacity (A) of (R) a
human being (Ent) [i. e., the joining of his or her faculties, attitudes, and interior dis-
positions (A)], giving rise to (R1) mental activity (Ev1), which is indicative of (R2) this
being’s humanity.”
§ 301. In sememe 3, καρδία is applied to inanimate beings. This attribution causes all
the semes relating to life and its activity to disappear. Referring to an entity (Ent), the
lexeme only denotes a relation (R), which is specified with the semes of location, in-
teriority, and depth:

R Ent

R location
interiority
depth
Ent entity
inanimateness |153-M

Definition: “A location deep in the interior of (R) an inanimate entity (Ent).”

§ 302. Thus far, we have identified what we believe to be the primary sememe of
καρδία as well as two further semes. However, another option would be to establish
a common semic nucleus shared by all three sememes of καρδία, which would result
in a formula like that of sememe 3. The semic development, however, would be nar-
rower than our development of sememe 3, since the seme of location would be elim-
inated because of sememe 2, and the seme of depth would be absent because of se-
memes 1 and 2:
 7.2 Lexemes with Stative and Dynamic Aspect: σῷζω 193

R interiority
Ent entity

This formula and its development would be unrecognizable in most cases where the
lexeme καρδία, “heart,” is discussed (cf. §§ 207– 09).

7.2 Lexemes with Stative and Dynamic Aspect: σῷζω

§ 303. The verb σῷζω, “to save,” presents different challenges. In the perfect tense
(σεσωκέναι, σέσωσθαι), this verbal lexeme has a stative aspect, denoting a situation
of security or “salvation,” and connoting the act by which a negative situation has
become a positive one.⁸ In the aorist tense (σῶσαι, σωθῆναι), the aspect of σῷζω
is dynamic, denoting the act by which someone ends a negative, dysphoric situation
and connoting the resulting state of security/salvation.⁹ The present and imperfect
tense(s) are used primarily to denote the repetition of a salvific act.¹⁰ Therefore,
σῷζω has three semic groups, two of which are stative and one dynamic. The connot-
ed stative group refers to the negative situation (Ev1 + A1) from which someone is
saved. It can denote: (1) the dynamic semic group (aorist), indicating the saving ac-
tion (Ev), or (2) the stative semic group (perfect), signaling the resulting state (Ev2 +
A2). According to context, one of these denoted groups is predominant. Depending
on which tense is used (aorist or perfect), σῷζω will have two nuclear configurations:
the dominant group will be denoted and the other connoted. |154-M The aspect is com-
bined with a temporal sequence, since the duration of the initial negative state gives
way to the moment of “liberating, saving” action, which causes the negative state to
end and the positive resulting state to commence. In the formula, three boxes ac-
count for the dynamic event (Ev), the negative state (Ev1 + A1), and the positive
state (Ev2 + A2) resulting from the saving action (Ev). The first formula depicts the
dynamic event as predominant:

 Cf. e. g., ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε, “your faith has saved you/has healed you” (Matt 9:22 par.; cf.
Acts 4:9; Eph 2:5, 8).
 Cf. e. g., Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα, “Lord, save us, we are perishing” (Matt 8:25; cf. 14:30; 16:25).
The same is true of the future tense (cf. Matt 9:21; 10:22; and once in the present punctiliar, 1Pet 4:18).
 Cf. e. g., ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ ἐσῴζοντο, “all who touched him/it were healed” (Mark 6:56; cf.
Acts 2:47; 27:40; 1Cor 1:18; 1Pet 3:21; Jude 23).
194 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

R1 Ent1

Ev

R2 Ev1 + A1 R3 Ev2 + A2

R Ent2 R

In the second formula the stative group is predominant:

Ev2 + A2 R3 Ev1 + A1 R2 Ev R1 Ent1

R Ent2 R

The formula is developed by explicating the composition of the semic groups that
comprise the nuclear configurations. |155-M

Stative group 1 Dynamic group Stative group 2

Ev1 stativity Ev dynamism Ev2 stativity
situation resultativity situation
endangerment security
A1 dysphoria A2 euphoria
Ent2 individuality Ent1 individuality Ent2 individuality
humanity personhood humanity
R attribution R1 agentivity R attribution
R2 transitivity
elimination
R3 transference

Definitions:
Configuration 1, σῶσαι, predominance of figure 1 in the dynamic group: “An action
(Ev) by which (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) eliminates (Ev, R2) a dysphoric (A1) situa-
tion of danger (Ev1) in which (R′) one or more human individuals (Ent2) find them-
 7.3 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of a State in Action: φιλέω 195

selves (R′); this is accomplished by bringing about (R3) a secure, euphoric (A2) situa-
tion (Ev2).”¹¹TN
Configuration 2, σεσωκέναι, predominance in the stative group: “The secure, euphor-
ic (A2) situation (Ev2) of (R′) one or more human individuals (Ent2), which is brought
about by (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) who (R2) eliminates (Ev) a previously danger-
ous, dysphoric (A1) situation (Ev1).”¹²TN

7.3 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of a State in Action:

φιλέω
§ 304. The verb φιλέω, “to like,” is an event lexeme that denotes a disposition of the
soul which manifests itself in action. Its formula, therefore, denotes two events: a du-
rative stative event (Ev) which expresses a steady disposition (A, benevolence), and a
resultative dynamic event (Ev′) which represents an occasional activity in which the
durative stative event ([Ev + A]) is manifested. Therefore, φιλέω also denotes a rela-
tion (R) between the two events that can be determined as manifestation. Since this
relation is located between the two events and is the point of manifestation for the
two denoted events, we take it as the point of departure for the construction of the
nuclear configurations. In contrast to σῷζω (cf. § 303), where the two events are
not simultaneous but rather successive, the disposition ([Ev + A]) in φιλέω coexists
with its manifestation (R), the resultative dynamic event (Ev′). Therefore, both events
are denoted and included in the box. There are two connoted relations: one (R1) to
the subject of the disposition and possibly also of the activity (Ent1), and the
other (R2) to the object of |156-M the disposition and possible receptor of the activity
(Ent2). The formula and development are:

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The elimination (Ev) by (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) of a dysphoric (A1) situation of
danger (Ev1) in which (R′) one or more human individuals (Ent2) find themselves (Ev1); this is accom-
plished by bringing about (R3) a secure, euphoric (A2) situation (Ev2).”
 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “One or more human individuals (Ent2) who (R′) find themselves in a secure, euphoric
(A2) situation (Ev2), which is brought about by (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) who (R2) eliminates (Ev) a
previously dangerous, dysphoric (A1) situation (Ev1).”
196 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

R1 Ent1

R2 Ent2

ι έ
Stative group Dynamic group Receptor group
Ev stativity dynamism R2 towardness
duration resultativity Ent2 individuality
disposition occasion personhood
subjectivity
A benevolence Agent group
R1 attribution
Axis agentivity
R manifestation Ent1 individuality
personhood

Definition: “A benevolent (A) interior disposition (Ev) of a (R1) personal subject (Ent1)
towards (R2) another subject (Ent2), manifested in (R) an action or process (Ev′) per-
formed by (R′) the subject (Ent1).”
As a lexeme, φιλέω can also have a non-personal object¹³ and can be translated “to
take pleasure in,” “to be fond of.” To account for the two contextual meanings under
the same formula, |157-M it is necessary to substitute the personal object Ent2 with X,
which represents an entity or event. If φιλέω and other verbs of interior disposition
occur in context with a punctiliar aspect, (e. g., ἀγαπάω, μισέω), they can emphasize
manifestation instead of disposition.¹⁴ In such cases, the dynamic group occupies the
first position in the nuclear configuration. The denoted elements will be:

Ev + R + [Ev + A]

 Cf. e. g., φιλοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς … ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι, “they love to pray standing in the
synagogues” (Matt 6:5; cf. 23:6; Luke 20:46; Rev 22:15).
 Cf. e. g., ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, “the one I kiss” (Matt 26:48; cf. Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47, in these three in-
stances with a seme of deceit).
7.4 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action: δικαιοσύνη 197

Definition: “An action (Ev′) that reveals (R) the benevolent (A) interior disposition
(Ev) of (R1) a human subject (Ent1) towards (R2) another (Ent2).”¹⁵TN

7.4 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality

in Action: δικαιοσύνη
§ 305. The abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνη denotes a quality (A: “straight,” “upright,”
“righteous,” “just”) that is manifested in action (cf. §§ 148, 160). It is similar to
φιλέω but has unique characteristics because of its diverse subjects. We shall now
consider several examples of δικαιοσύνη in the New Testament, taking particular no-
tice of two details, namely, (1) whether the stative or dynamic character is predom-
inant, and (2) the quality of its implied subjects. As an abstract lexeme,
δικαιοσύνη connotes neither an attributed subject nor an action. In context the sub-
ject can be explicit or implicit.

1. Subjects: people → people

Matt 5:6: οἱ πεινῶντες … τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “those who hunger for this justice.”

The anaphoric article τήν refers to the situation in vv. 5:4– 5 created by the overthrow
of unjust situations. Thus, a state of righteousness between two people is discussed,
which is the result of people treating one another fairly. This righteousness proceeds
from faithfulness (quality/attitude) to a just rule that regulates human relationships.
Two verses illustrate this meaning. Paul admonishes the Roman believers to
παραστήσατε … τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ Θεῷ, “present your members
as instruments of righteousness to God” (Rom 6:13). Here, an activity (“presenting
members as instruments”) proceeds from inward faithfulness to a rule, which estab-
lishes proper human relationships. |158-M A second example can be seen in the phrase
ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “the one who does righteousness” (1John 3:7). The verb
ποιέω gives the abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνην the sense of just action towards other
people.

2. Subjects: God → people

Rom 1:17: δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ [τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ] ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως
εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, “for God’s righteous-
ness is revealed in it (sc. the gospel) from faith to faith, as is written, ‘The righteous
will live by faith.’”

 translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Ma-
teos, namely, “The manifestation (R) in action (Ev′) of a benevolent (A) interior disposition (Ev) of
(R1) a human subject (Ent1) towards (R2) another (Ent2).”
198 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

The parallel established in the text between this phrase and the preceding verse¹⁶
shows that the gospel is a saving power for everyone who believes, because by it (in-
strumental ἐν, i. e., by its proclamation), a divine action becomes visible, making
people “righteous” and granting them life (= salvation), on the one condition that
they have faith. The sense of δικαιοσύνη therefore is primarily dynamic, designating
a divine action towards people who believe. It is a sovereign and gracious act
(cf. 3:21: χωρὶς νόμου, “apart from law”) that frees the guilty (cf. 3:22: πάντες γὰρ
ἥμαρτον, “because everyone has sinned”) from the penalty of death (1:17: ζήσεται,
“[he] will live). In a forensic context, δικαιοσύνη can be translated as “amnesty”
(cf. Rom 3:21– 22, 26).

3. Subjects: people → God

Luke 1:75: λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ, “to serve him in holiness and
righteousness.”

The parallel usage of δικαιοσύνῃ and ὁσιότητι indicates a stative sense, viz. a per-
son’s proper attitude towards God, being true to his right standard. An example is
seen in Rom 9:30, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, “righteousness by faith.” Here,
δικαιοσύνη denotes a person’s state towards God, while it also connotes that this
state can be obtained (by this person) through faith as the instrument or condition
(cf. Gal 2:21; Phil 3:6, 9).

4. Subjects: people → God/people

Sometimes a person’s attitude towards God cannot be separated from his or her at-
titude towards other people: cf. Matt 6:33, ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν
δικαοσύνην αὐτοῦ, “but seek first his reign and righteousness.” The audience’s first
concern should be that God reigns and that their attitude towards God and each
other corresponds to his reign. The single possessive αὐτοῦ in 6:33 indicates the in-
timate connection between the objects (hendiadys).

To establish the semantic formula of the abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνη, it is necessary

to note that the attribute (δίκαιος) becomes a composite ([Ev + A]), which denotes a
qualified state, viz. an interior attitude. As with φιλέω there is an axis of manifesta-
tion (R) that can give rise to two nuclear configurations: in one the stative aspect ([Ev
+ A]) will be predominant, but in the other the dynamic aspect (Ev′) will be predom-
inant. As an abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνη forgoes the connotation of a subject at the
lexemic level. The denoted quality is faithfulness (A) to (R1) a right standard (Ev1),
which is conceived of as an entity (Ent = [Ev1 + A1]). The denoted dynamic event
(Ev′) indicates the manner of |159-M habitual behavior towards (R2) others (Ent2),

 Cf. δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν [τὸ εὐαγγέλιον] εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τὸ πιστεύοντι, “for it (sc. the gos-
pel) is a power for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16).
7.4 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action: δικαιοσύνη 199

which manifests (R) faithfulness. If the stative group is predominant, the formula’s
structure and development are:

R1 [Ent1 = Ev1 + A1]

R2 Ent2

ι αι σύ , sememe 1
Stative group Dynamic group Receptor group
Ev stativity Ev dynamism R2 transitivity
duration resultativity Ent2 individuality
attitude habituality personhood
subjectivity
A quality Regulation group
faithfulness R1 attribution
Ent1 quasi-entity
Axis Ev1 regulation
R manifestation A1 integrity

Definitions
Sememe 1: “A disposition (Ev) of faithfulness (A) to (R1) a right standard (Ent1 = Ev1 +
A1), which is manifested by (R) habitual conduct (Ev′) towards (R2) a personal sub-
ject (Ent2).”
If the dynamic group is contextually predominant, the denoted elements of the for-
mula and development will look as follows: |160-M

Ev + R + [Ev + A]
200 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

ι αι σύ , sememe 2
Dynamic group Stative group
Ev dynamism Ev stativity
resultativity duration
habituality disposition
subjectivity
Axis A quality
R manifestation faithfulness

Sememe 2: “A manner of habitual conduct (Ev′) towards a personal human subject

(Ent2) that manifests (R) a disposition (Ev) of faithfulness (A) to a right standard
(Ent1 = [Ev + A]).”¹⁷

7.5 Abstract Lexemes with Three Semic Groups: βασιλεία

§ 306. The noun βασιλεία is an abstract lexeme that forms three characteristic se-
memes in context. Of the numerous instances in which it appears (162 times in the
New Testament), we choose representative examples that allow us to establish the
semantic formula in its distinct configurations.
1. When βασιλεία is presented as a demarcated space, it means “kingdom.”¹⁸
2. When its arrival is announced, βασιλεία means God’s “reign” over humanity.¹⁹
|161-M
3. When an attribute of a person is in view, βασιλεία means “royalty,” “king-
ship.”²⁰

 Context can specify the law to which faithfulness is professed; cf. e. g., μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην
τὴν ἐκ νόμου, “not having my own righteousness, which comes from [sc. faithfulness to] the law”
(Phil 3:9); δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Rom 9:30);
χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ πεφανέρωται, “without the law [sc. apart from the law] the righteous-
ness [sc. pardon] of God [sc. which God gives] is manifested” (Rom 3:21).
 Cf. e. g., οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, “he cannot enter the kingdom of God”
(John 3:5; cf. also Matt 5:19 – 20; 8:11; 12:25 – 26; 13:41, 43; 16:19; 19:23 – 24; 21:31; 23:13; 26:29; Mark 6:23;
12:34; Luke 4:5; 11:29; 1Thess 2:12; Heb 12:28; Rev 16:10).
 Cf. e. g., ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, “God’s reign is/has come near” (Mark 1:15); ἐλθέτω ἡ
βασιλεία σου, “may your reign come” (Matt 6:10). See also Mark 11:10; Luke 1:33; 4:43; 9:2, 11, 60;
Rom 14:17; 1Cor 4:20.
 Cf. e. g., τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ, “the Son of Man who comes in
his royalty/as a king” (Matt 16:28); ἄνθρωπός τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χὼραν μακρὰν λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ
βασιλείαν, “a noble man journeyed to a far/distant land to obtain royalty/the title of king for himself”
(Luke 19:12). See also Luke 19:15; 23:42; John 18:36.
 7.5 Abstract Lexemes with Three Semic Groups: βασιλεία 201

These three contextual meanings indicate a stative attribute of kingship (A), an ac-
tivity of ruling (Ev), and, third, both the subjects (Ent1) and the territory (Ent2, king-
dom) over which the rule is exercised. Three semic groups proceed from these ele-
ments. The dynamic element is always denoted. A semantic formula can be
established, which will have three configurations:
Configuration 1: βασιλεία, “royalty.” The denoted elements include a stative element
(A), which is dominant, and a dynamic element (Ev). These are joined together by a
relation (R) of implication. The second stative element is connoted (Ent1 + Ent2):

A + R + Ev R1 [Ent1 + Ent2]

Configuration 2: βασιλεία, “reign.” The same elements from the previous formula are
denoted, but the dynamic element is primary in the formula.

Ev + R + A R1 [Ent1 + Ent2]

Configuration 3: βασιλεία, “kingdom.” The previously connoted elements (Ent1 +

Ent2) become dominant and occupy the first position in the denotation.

[Ent1 + Ent2] + R1 + Ev R A

The development of the distinct elements form the following semic groups: |162-M

Stative group 1 Dynamic group Stative group 2

A quality Ev dynamism Ent1 collectivity
dignity activity humanity
kingliness domain Ent2 location
governance extension
R competency R1 transitivity
202 Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)

Definitions:
Configuration 1: “Kingliness (A) that proves competence (R) to rule (Ev) over (R1) sub-
jects (Ent1) and a territory (Ent2)”: royalty. ²¹TN
Configuration 2: “An action of ruling (Ev) with (R) kingliness (A) over (R1) subjects
(Ent1) and a territory (Ent2)”: rule, reign.
Configuration 3: “The subjects and territory ([Ent1 + Ent2]) over which (R1) the activ-
ity of ruling is exercised (Ev), which is qualified by (R) kingliness (A)”: kingdom.
In context, βασιλεία often takes a genitive subject.²² In Revelation 1:6 (cp. 1:9 and
5:10), βασιλεία is applied to a group of people who are designated as ἱερεῖς, “priests”
(ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ, “he made us into a kingdom [that is, he
made us] priests to/for/[and yes, even] of God”). The juxtaposition of the entities
βασιλείαν and ἱερεῖς implies identification, and both designate the new personal
condition brought about by the work of Christ. Thus, when viewed alongside
ἱερεῖς, βασιλεία acquires a distributive character, making it equivalent to βασιλεῖς,
“kings.” So, for example, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “and they will rule over
the earth” (Rev 5:10). When βασιλεία is used in opposition to ἱερεῖς (plural), it
means a collective royalty in which each person participates, a “royal lineage.”
|163–64-M

 translator’s Note: Beginning at this point, Mateos offers translational equivalents after his def-
initions. I indicate these equivalents in italics in order to differentiate them from the definitions.
 Cf. e. g., τῶν οὐρανῶν, “of heaven” (Matt 3:2). See also Matt 21:31, 43.
PART III Method. A Methodology of the Diccionario
Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento
(J. Peláez)
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of
Lexemes¹TN
§ 307. In chapter 2, we took a detailed look at three important dictionaries of the New
Testament. Zorell’s dictionary, due to the time in which it was composed, does not
make use of criteria for semantic classification and lacks the extensive information
available in the Bauer dictionaries. Nevertheless, Zorell’s dictionary presents the var-
ious lexemes’ diverse contextual meanings in a clear manner and frequently shows a
keen sense for lexicography. Although Bauer masterfully classifies the meanings of
lexemes based on syntactical and contextual criteria, his dictionary squarely con-
forms to the traditional model of bilingual dictionaries. Modern advances in seman-
tics are not incorporated. The sixth edition, overseen by K. and B. Aland and their
team of collaborators, has neither changed the dictionary’s methodology nor con-
ducted a fresh evaluation of meanings. The dictionary of Louw and Nida provides
a qualitatively different approach when it comes to lexicography, since, for example,
the entries are not ordered alphabetically and a lexeme’s different contextual mean-
ings are placed in various entries. In L&N’s introductory pages, the authors explain
the basic principles that guide their semantic analysis. As we argued, however, these
principles were not applied in a systematic manner, especially with regards to com-
ponential (semic) analysis.²
It should be noted that the dictionary we are preparing does not seek to adapt or
revise an already existing dictionary. Linguistic advances in recent years, particularly
in the area of semantics, make it possible to approach the task with new insights.
Choosing a limited corpus like the writings of the New Testament enables a complete
analysis and a thorough examination of every lexeme in every context in which it oc-
curs. In this manner the usages of various New Testament authors can be identified
in a more accurate manner. |65-P
Before beginning, it is important to indicate the methodological approach we
have used in composing DGENT. A semantic analysis can proceed from various per-
spectives. First, a lexeme can be analyzed by means of a semiological analysis, which
examines lexemes abstractly in langue in order to determine their nuclear semes and
semic nucleus. Secondly, semantic analysis can focus on the usage of a lexeme in
parole in order to identify a lexeme’s various contextual meanings, which are pro-
duced by the addition, neutralization, or substitution of semes in the semic nucleus.
A third option is to conduct a semiotic analysis, which examines lexemes in parole in

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 65 – 85 in the original text of Peláez. We feel it
necessary to include this thorough summary of Mateos’s theory for several reasons. First, it shows
how Mateos’s colleague understood and applied his theory. Secondly, it establishes the theory that
was applied to DGENT. Lastly, it shows the aspects of agreement and possible disharmony among
the interpreters.
 Cf. also Louw and Nida, Lexical Semantics, which we discussed in chapter 2.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-014
206 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

order to discover the mutual relations between lexemes in a discourse that provide
the key for reading the text.³ We make use of the first two options for DGENT.

8.1 Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class

§ 308. The first step for composing DGENT consists in grouping the lexemes of the
New Testament into semantic classes, rather than grammatical classes. This step dis-
tinguishes DGENT from the three dictionaries discussed in chapter 2. Bauer and Zor-
ell examine the lexicon of the New Testament based on grammatical classes. Louw
and Nida do so by dividing the lexicon into semantic domains. Our dictionary, how-
ever, is structured based on semantic classes. Since semantic classes provide the
basis for our dictionary, we shall clarify how these differ from the grammatical
classes.

8.1.1 Grammatical Classes

§ 309. Grammatical classes⁴ correspond to the so called “parts of |66-P speech.” Al-
though there have been various methods proposed for classifying and naming gram-
matical classes, we follow the traditional classification used in grammars of the
Greek New Testament, which refer to main parts of speech (nouns and verbs), to sec-
ondary parts of speech (adjectives and adverbs), to relations (prepositions, conjunc-
tions, and particles), and to auxiliaries (articles and pronouns). Although this ap-
proach is widely used, it does not follow a consistent semantic criterion. Nouns,
for example, include words that signify entities (e. g., ἄνθρωπος, “human being”;
ζῷον, “animal”; οἶκος, “house”), attributes (e. g., ἀγαθωσύνη, “goodness”), events
(e. g., ἀγγελία, “message”), relations (e. g., ὁμοιότης, “likeness”), and determinations
(e. g., ἐνιαυτόν, “year”). Adjectives are traditionally thought to indicate proximity or
dependence (criterion of collocation without reference to semantic content). Adjec-
tives can be considered modifiers without specifying which class of word they mod-
ify or the sense in which they do so. Grammatically, verbs are used to express the
main point of a sentence. Adverbs are said to augment verbs. Adverbs, like adjec-
tives, can be considered modifiers, except that they specify the sense of verbs. Prep-
ositions are said to mark the start of a syntagm. Conjunctions have syntactic func-
tions, while interjections (which are particles) emphasize an expression or an
intermediate position. Articles also have syntactic functions, while pronouns func-
tion as substitutes for nouns.

 We analyze the lexicon of the New Testament by applying the semantic theory of Mateos.
 Cf. the discussion about grammatical classes in § 92.
 8.1 Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class 207

8.1.2 Semantic Classes⁵

§ 310. A semantic class is a set of |67-P words that have the same dominant semantic
feature (i. e., the same dominant seme). Accordingly, semantic classes categorize
words based on the nature of their conceptual content. Semantic classes are based
on infra-linguistic concepts that break down an intuitive perception of reality. People
have an experience of the world in which they find themselves, which serves as their
point of view in order to orient and situate themselves: “For this they classify and
name entities (things) and events (states, actions, processes), both of which are de-
scribed by means of attributes (quality, quantity) rooted in established relations.
These are actualized, situated, and objectified in time and space, for which we
use the term determination” (§ 93). Thus, building on the theory of E. A. Nida,⁶ we
make use of five semantic classes, which include entity (Ent), attribute (A), event
(Ev), relation (R), and determination (D).
§ 311. Entity lexemes classify and name concepts. These lexemes also refer to con-
cepts with unnamable referents (e. g., θεός, “God”; ἄγγελος, “angel”) and to con-
cepts without referents (e. g., fictional things, such as δράκων, “dragon”). There
are also quasi-entity lexemes, which are lexemes that do not denote entities them-
selves (real or fictional), but other realities that are thought of as entities although
they are not, because, by being a usual source of an activity, process, or action, or
a result of these, they seem to have a particular permanence and can be designated
as perceivable objects. These events or results of events, viewed by means of an en-
tity, are represented as [Ent = Ev]. Examples of quasi-entities include nouns that de-
note a person’s interior (e. g., καρδία, “heart,” used metaphorically in the New Testa-
ment), faculties from which actions or activities originate (e. g., νοῦς, “mind”), the
action or process of verbal expression (e. g., λόγος, “word”; εὐαγγέλιον, “gospel”)
of writing (e. g., γράμμα, “letter”; νόμος, “law”) or of volition (e. g., δόγμα, “opinion”;
θέλημα, “will”). |68-P As a result of a process of mental abstraction, some quasi-enti-
ties denote a duration (e. g., ἡλικία, “age”), a designation (e. g., ὄνομα, “name”) or a
quantity (e. g., ἀριθμός, “number”). Quasi-entities sometimes include entities that ex-
press result. The result can be from a physical activity that changes another entity
(e. g., μίασμα, “blemish”; ἴχνος, “footprint”), from a relational activity between two
or more personal subjects (e. g., διαθήκη, “alliance”), or from a repeated and habit-
ual activity of a human subject or group (e. g., ἦθος, “custom”).
§ 312. Attribute lexemes name qualities or modalities attributed to things (e. g.,
ἀγαθός, “good”; μέγας, “big”) or to action (e. g., ἀκριβῶς, “exactly”).
§ 313. Event lexemes refer to states (e. g., κάθημαι, “to be seated,” “to sit”; καθεύδω,
“to sleep”) and activities—i. e., processes (e. g., ποιέω, “to make”) and actions (e. g.,

 Cf. the discussion about semantic classes in § 93.

 Before J. Mateos (§ 73), Nida had established the existence of four semantic categories in opposition
to the grammatical classes or parts of speech, namely “Object,” “Abstract,” “Event,” and “Relation/
Relational”; cf. Nida, Exploring Semantic Structures, 154.
208 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

βάλλω, “to throw”)—that affect entities or are accomplished by them. Event lexemes
can also affect attributes (cf. ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία, “the patience of
God was waiting,” 1Pet 3:20), other events (cf. γνωστὸν σημεῖον, “known sign,”
Acts 4:16), and relations (cf. ἵνα γένηται ἰσότης, “so that there might be equality,”
2Cor 8:14).
§ 314. Relation lexemes and morpholexemes identify various types of connections,
including familial connections (e. g., πατρικός, “paternal”), temporal connections
(e. g., εὐθύς, “immediately”), and local connections (e. g., πανταχόθεν, “from all
parts”; πρός + acc., “towards”). Relation lexemes also specify connections between
objects and/or events, such as causality (e. g., ὅτι, διότι “because”), consequence
(e. g., ὥστε, “so that”), purpose (ἵνα, “in order that,” “with the goal that”), and like-
ness (ὁμοιότης, “likeness”).
§ 315. Determination lexemes and morpholexemes demarcate and specify other lex-
emes. Demarcation is accomplished by numeric quantifiers (e. g., δύο μαθηταί, “two
disciples”), by generic quantity (e. g., θερισμὸς πολύς, “plentiful harvest”), and by
lexemes that indicate moments or extensions in space or time (e. g., τέλος, “end”;
μίλιον, “mile”; ἡμέρα, “day”). Specification or naming presupposes an act of commu-
nication: a speaking subject creates the space-time of discourse. In this context, de-
termination lexemes actualize, objectify, identify, and situate in time and space:
1. Determination lexemes actualize and objectify by transferring a lexeme from
the abstract sphere of langue to the concrete sphere of parole. Objectifying determi-
nation can individualize,⁷ totalize,⁸ or generalize.⁹
2. Determination lexemes identify proper names and personal pronouns.¹⁰ |69-P
3. Determination lexemes situate lexemes in time and space by means of demon-
stratives,¹¹ by adverbs of time,¹² and by adverbs of place.¹³
The substantival article is an important kind of determination, since it locates a
subject within an attribute, event, or relation (lexeme).¹⁴
§ 316. As this summary suggests, grammatical and semantic classes do not coincide.
The grammatical class of noun can express any of the five semantic classes. This im-
plies that there are entity nouns, such as ἄνθρωπος, “human being,” attribute
nouns, such as ἀγαθοσύνη, “goodness,” event nouns, such as μετάνοια, “repent-
ance,” relation nouns, such as ἰσότης, “equality,” and determination nouns, such
as ἡμέρα, “day.” The grammatical classes are thus broader than the semantic classes

 E. g., ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “the human being” (who was previously mentioned, anaphoric).
 E. g., οἱ δώδεκα, “the twelve”; ὁ κόσμος, “the world.”
 E. g., ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος, “the (completely) good man.”
 E. g., Ἰωάννης, “John”; ἐγώ “I”; σύ, “you”; ἡμεῖς, “we.”
 E. g., ὅδε, “this,” “here”; οὖτος, “this”; ἐκεῖνος, “that.”
 E. g., νῦν, “now”; σήμερον, “today”; αὔριον, “tomorrow.”
 E. g., ὧδε, “here”; ἐκεῖ, “there.”
 E. g., ὁ ἀγαθός, “the good one” (Ent + A); οἱ ἄρχοντες, “those who rule” (Ent + Ev); οἱ ἔξω, “those
from outside” (Ent + R).
 8.1 Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class 209

(cf. §§ 73 – 74). Having shown the differences between nouns and semantic entities,
we can now consider how the other semantic classes relate to grammatical classes:
1. Attributes are expressed grammatically by adjectives and adverbs,¹⁵ by the
genitive case (with or without an article),¹⁶ and sometimes with prepositional phras-
es.¹⁷
2. Events are expressed by verbs,¹⁸ nouns,¹⁹ and sometimes by adjectives.²⁰
3. Relations are expressed by prepositions²¹ and by nouns and verbs.²²
4. Determination is expressed by definite articles, demonstratives and other
quantifiers (e. g., μάλιστα, “very”; πᾶς “all”), including numerals (e. g., εἷς, “one”;
δύο, “two”). Common nouns, such as ὥρα, “hour,” and μίλιον, “mile,” as well as
proper names of person and place, such as Παῦλος, “Paul,” and Γαλιλαία, “Galilee,”
also denote the class of determination.
§ 317. The differences between grammatical and semantic classes have now been ex-
plained. Since the grammatical classes are broader than the semantic classes, a pre-
liminary step |70-P for preparing DGENT will be the thorough categorization of the lex-
icon of the New Testament into grammatical classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.).
This will enable the semantic class(es) of each lexeme to be determined, which will
then enable the lexicon of the New Testament to be organized based on the semantic
classes. The semantic methodology of our dictionary (DGENT) is thus practical, since
the lexicon of the New Testament is categorized into semantic classes based on the
familiar terrain of grammatical classes. In order to begin this work, we have chosen
to focus on nouns, since these provide numerous examples for each of the semantic
classes and can serve as a pattern for the classification of the rest of the grammatical
classes. In another monograph, the classification of all the nouns in the New Testa-
ment will be undertaken in detail.²³TN
§ 318. We shall now present some examples of nouns categorized according to the
five semantic classes. Each Greek lexeme is accompanied by a translational equiva-
lent, which usually corresponds to the lexeme’s first Latin equivalent in Zorell’s dic-
tionary.

 E. g., ἀγαθός, “good”; κακῶς ἔχειν, “to feel bad.”

 E. g., τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, “the sinful body.”
 E. g., διδαχή κατ’ ἐξουσίαν, “teaching with authority.”
 E. g., ἀγγέλλω, “to announce”; γελάω, “to laugh”; φοβέομαι, “to fear.”
 E. g., ἀγγελία, “announcement”; γέλως, “laughter”; φόβος, “fear.”
 E. g., ἀγαθοποιός, “beneficent,” “doing good.”
 E. g., ἀπό, “from”; σύν, “with”; ἐπί “over.”
 E. g., ἰσότης, “equality,” and οἰκέω, “to dwell.”
 Translator’s Note: Due to constraints in time and finances, this monograph has not yet been
completed.
210 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

Entity nouns (Ent):

ἄνθρωπος “human being”

βίβλος “book”
βουνός “hill”
δαιμόνιον “demon”
ἐκκλησία “assembly”
ἰχθύς “fish”
κλέπτης “thief”
κόφινος “basket”
μάστιξ “whip”
νόμισμα “coin”

Once the classification of entity nouns is achieved, “connecting-entities” will refer to

those nouns that designate (1) the part of a whole to which a noun belongs and apart
from which it cannot be conceived, such as ἀγκάλη, “arm”; or (2) whose existence is
a result of a previous process, such as σποδός, “ash,” which is included in the group
“earth” and is the result of the combustion of a solid. Other examples of connecting-
entities include:

ἀκροβυστία “foreskin”
ἁρμός “joint,” “junction”
κεφαλή “head”
χρώς “skin,” “fleshy part of the body” |-P

Polyvalent nouns are those nouns whose semantic class can only be determined in
context:

βδέλυγμα “an abominable action or thing”

ἐγκοπή “impediment,” “hindrance”
περίσσευμα “that which remains over,” “surplus”
ὑπογραμμός “model,” “outline”

Quasi-entity nouns include:

διαθήκη “testament,” “covenant,” “alliance”

δόγμα “opinion,” “verdict,” “decree,” “order”
ἐντολή “command”
ἔπος “word,” “speech”
καιρός “time,” “moment,” “occasion”
μίασμα “blemish”
νοῦς “mind”

Attribute nouns (A) include:

ἀγαθοσύνη “goodness”
ἀτιμία “dishonor”
εὐπρέπεια “beauty”
μακροθυμία “long-suffering,” “patience”
 8.2 The Semantic Formula 211

Event nouns (Ev) include:

ἀδικία “injustice”
ἀνάκρισις “interrogation,” “inquiry,” “examination”
ἐπαγγελία “announcement,” “promise”
λατρεία “worship”
προσευχή “prayer”
προφητεία “prophecy”

Relation nouns (R) include:

ἀναλογία “analogy,” “proportion”

διαστολή “distinction”
ἰσότης “equality”
ὁμοιότης “similarity”

Determination nouns (D) include:

ἑσπέρα “evening”
ἔτος “year”
ἡμέρα “day”
μερίς “part,” “portion”

Proper names of person and place also belong to the class of determination. |72-P Ar-
riving at a classification by means of this procedure provides a first step towards a
semantic classification of lexemes in the New Testament. By organizing nouns into
semantic classes, their semantic formulas can be determined, which then makes it
possible to group together lexemes with similar formulas.

8.2 The Semantic Formula

§ 319. The first step for the production of our dictionary is the classification and
grouping of the lexemes based on semantic classes (cf. § 93). The second step is to
establish each lexeme’s semantic formula (cf. § 74). The structures of the formulas
differ depending on whether a lexeme denotes one or several semantic classes. Lex-
emes that denote one class have simple structures, and lexemes that denote several
classes have complex formulas. In addition to the denoted class(es), lexemes some-
times connote necessary relations with one or more semantic classes. We understand
the semantic formula to be comprised of the semantic class(es) denoted by a lexeme
plus the relations necessarily connoted by it. Therefore, the semantic formula (i. e.,
the elemental structure of a lexeme) is based on a lexeme’s semantic nucleus. Estab-
lishing the semantic formula is of primary importance, since it constitutes a starting
point for the analysis (cf. § 74).
212 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

8.2.1 Denotation and Connotation

§ 320. Denotation refers to the features that are necessary and sufficient for identify-
ing a concept according to its use in a linguistic community. Some lexemes, such as
ἄνθρωπος, “human being”; γή, “earth”; κάμηλος, “camel”; and πῦρ, “fire” only de-
note one class, namely, the semantic class of entity:

Ent
|73-P

§ 321. Other lexemes denote two or more semantic classes and therefore have com-
plex structures. For example, the lexemes παρθένος, “virgin,” and στεῖρα, “sterile,”
both denote an entity (Ent, woman) and a state (Ev, virginity/sterility). Their formula,
therefore, is:

Ent + Ev

§ 322. Other lexemes, such as ἀγέλη, “herd,” and κτῆνος, “flock,” denote three se-
mantic classes, since they denote a plural or collective entity (Ent), togetherness
(R), and a certain quantity (D). “Herd” and “cattle” denote a large group (D) of ani-
mals (Ent) gathered in the same place (R):

Ent + R + D

§ 323. In addition to denoting one or several classes, lexemes sometimes connote a

necessary relation to one or several semantic classes. Connotation can be objective or
subjective. Objective connotation is constituted by the relations necessarily required
by the concept that are more or less consciously associated with it (although not di-
rectly integrated in it) and are discovered by reflection. There can be relations of pre-
supposition, purpose, agent, completion, etc. Subjective connotations, which include
associations and emotions of individuals or groups, are not considered in semantic
analysis. These belong to narrative analysis.
§ 324. Entity lexemes take various numbers of connotations. Entity lexemes with one
connotation denote a subject (Ent) which brings about an activity (Ev) in regards to
(R) an object (Ent1).²⁴ In the formula, the connoted elements (R and Ent1) are placed

 Cf. e. g., βαπτιστής, “one who baptizes”; κατάσκοπος, “spy”; ὁδηγός, “guide.”
 8.2 The Semantic Formula 213

outside the box and the relation of towardness (R) is indicated with an arrow (→) di-
rected toward the recipient of the activity (Ent1). Its formula is represented in the fol-
lowing manner: |74-P

Ent + Ev R Ent1

§ 325. Some entity lexemes require two connotations, such as those that designate
man-made entities. These lexemes connote a person (Ent1) who took part in a process
of fabrication (Ev1, primary connotation) and are differentiated by their intended (R2)
usage (Ev2, second connotation):²⁵

R1 Ev1 R1 Ent1

Ent

R2 Ev2

The arrow’s direction in the upper branch indicates the sense of the action: for ex-
ample, a house (Ent) built by (R1←Ev1) a person (R′1−Ent1). The arrow in the
lower branch indicates the purpose (R2→Ev2, habitation).
§ 326. Lexemes such as ἔγγυος, “one who provides security,” and μεσίτης, “media-
tor,” specify a personal subject (Ent) whose activity (Ev) relates to (R1/R2) two sub-
jects (Ent1/Ent2) distinct from itself:

R1 Ent1

Ent + Ev

R2 Ent2

 Cf. e. g., objects such as κλίνη, “couch”; τράπεζα, “table”; or buildings, such as οἰκία, “house”;
σκηνή, “tent.”
214 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

§ 327. Lexemes such as δότης, “giver,” and μεριστής, “distributor,” designate a per-
sonal subject (Ent) whose activity (Ev) transfers (R1) an object (Ent1) to (R2) a recip-
ient (Ent2): |75-P

Ent + Ev R1 Ent1

R2

Ent2

§ 328. Some lexemes, including ἄγγελος, “messenger”; ἀπόστολος, “apostle,” “sent

one,” “messenger”; κῆρυξ, “herald”; and προφήτης, “prophet,” have three connota-
tions, namely, an acting subject (Ent1), a recipient of the activity (Ent3), and the ver-
bal message, which is an event viewed as a quasi-entity (Ent2 = Ev2) because of its
enduring nature. In each case, these lexemes designate a subject (Ent) sent by
(R1←Ev1) another subject (R′−Ent1, primary connotation) to transmit (Ev) a message
(R2→ [Ent2 = Ev2], second connotation) of the subject (R3) to (→R4) an individual or
group (Ent3, third connotation):

R1 Ev1 R Ent1

R3

Ent + Ev R2 Ent2 = Ev2

R4

Ent3

These formulas depict entity lexemes with up to three connotations. Semantic formu-
las can be more complex than those we have illustrated, for example, by requiring
more than three connotations or by altering the configurations. The examples we
have offered should suffice to demonstrate our semantic methodology. |76-P
 8.2 The Semantic Formula 215

8.2.2 From Formula to Meaning

§ 329. Once the formulas have been established, lexemes with identical formulas can
be grouped together. This, however, does not complete the process of classification,
since one single formula is able to encompass lexemes with very diverse meanings.
Entity lexemes with simple structure can be taken as an example. In their formula,
the entity is denoted without a connotation:

Ent

This formula comprises lexemes as diverse as ἄνθρωπος, “human being”; κύων,

“dog”; and γῆ “earth.”
§ 330. The same occurs with entity lexemes that have complex structures that denote,
for example, a relation of belonging (R):

Ent + R Ent1

This formula accounts for diverse lexemes, including κέρας, “horn”; κρέας, “flesh”;
καρπός, “fruit”; στάχυς, “ear” (of corn), κάλαμος, “reed.” To produce a more specific
classification, it will therefore be necessary to develop the formula by adding one
more step. For this (as explained in what follows), the semantic categories will be
applied to each of the classes contained in the formula. In this way, the generic
semes will be identified so that the semic development can be completed. The
semic development enables lexemes to be distinguished and is the step that precedes
their definition.
§ 331. In summary, the following steps are necessary to classify lexemes and to de-
termine their diverse meanings (the first two steps have already been discussed):
1. Organizing the lexemes into semantic classes based on the grammatical
classes.
2. Establishing the formulas by distinguishing the denoted and connoted ele-
ments. |77-P
3. Developing the semic structure. For this, when relevant, the semantic catego-
ries must be applied to each element in the formula. In this way the generic semes
are obtained. The specific semes will be obtained by the development of the generic
semes and by comparison with other lexemes that have similar meanings (cf. §§ 86 –
90).
4. Formulating definitions that accounts for steps 1– 3 (cf. § 214).
216 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

5. Contexts will give rise to a lexeme’s distinct sememes (i. e., contextual mean-
ings), which result from the addition of occasional semes or from the omission or
substitution of nuclear semes (cf. §§ 215 – 17). In the case of the latter, derived or met-
aphorical meanings are created (cf. §§ 87– 88).
6. Once each of the lexemes has been analyzed and before the dictionary-entry is
composed, lexemes with similar meanings should be compared with the goal of
qualifying and further specifying the meanings.
The entries of our dictionary, therefore, will not ultimately be composed until the
lexicon of the entire New Testament has been comprehensively analyzed. Hence, the
preparatory publications of DGENT ought to be viewed as materials for the diction-
ary’s production. Having illustrated steps 1 and 2 (above), the next task is to complete
the semic development of the lexemes (step 3).

8.3 Semic Development of the Formula

§ 332. Establishing the semantic formula is an intermediate step between the classi-
fication of the lexemes and their semic development. Proceeding in this manner of-
fers two advantages:
1. The formula helps guide the specification of the semes. Instead of haphazardly
identifying the semes, which carries the risk of overlooking some, the formula offers
a pattern for the semic development: the various |78-P elements that comprise a for-
mula are identified by being categorized into denoted and connoted elements.
2. The formula can serve as a paradigm. The semic polyvalence of the elements
that comprise a formula allows the same formula to be used for various lexemes,
which makes it possible to construct semantic domains (i. e., groups of lexemes
with the same structure) and to derive formulas from other formulas by the addition
or substitution of elements.
Thus far we have illustrated how to construct semantic formulas based on a lex-
eme’s denoted and connoted elements. We have also noted that the semantic formula
is not a sufficient criterion for structuring a lexicon, since lexemes with very different
meanings can share the same formula. It is necessary, therefore, to turn to the se-
mantic categories of gender and number (for entity nouns), and aspect and voice
(for event nouns and verbs). Applying the semantic categories to the elements of
the formula produces the semic development of lexemes. At this point it is important
to determine the difference between semantic and grammatical categories.
§ 333. Just as we described the difference between grammatical classes (noun, adjec-
tive, etc.) and semantic classes (entity, attribute, etc.; cf. §§ 308 – 09), we now explain
the difference between grammatical and semantic categories. Grammatical catego-
ries refer to specific markers that—like the symbols used in mathematics of plus
and minus, coefficients, exponents—affect items/units, viz. words already given,
and are normally expressed with morphemes. Grammatical categories include gen-
 8.3 Semic Development of the Formula 217

der and number (nominals and verbals), mode, tense, aspect, and voice (verbals)
and degree²⁶ (of conjunctives, adjectives, and adverbs).
§ 334. As was the case with semantic classes, semantic categories parallel the gram-
matical categories. By applying the semantic categories to the semantic classes |79-P of
entity (Ent) and event (Ev), classemes are obtained. Following Pottier and Greimas,
we use “classemes” to refer to certain generic contextual semes that are defined by
their consistency (i. e., by their presence in every context) and by their iterative char-
acter (i. e., by affecting not only one lexeme, but rather a certain number of lexemes—
affecting syntagmatic units that are broader than just one simple lexeme; cf. § 87).
Thus, in similar fashion to the grammatical categories, semantic categories include
gender, number, aspect, voice, mode, and tense. We shall now consider these catego-
ries in more detail in order to understand how to complete the semic development.

8.3.1 Gender

§ 335. Grammatically, gender can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. Semantically, the

opposition of animate/inanimate serves as the starting point for the category of gen-
der:

animate inanimate

personal non-personal (animal) nnatural artificial

non-human/divine, human
angelic, demonic

masc. fem. masc. fem. masc. fem.

Examples of entities with animate gender would be ἄνθρωπος, “human being”;

νεανίας, “young man”; εὐαγγελιστής, “preacher of the gospel”; μιμητής, “imitator”;
τροφός, “nurse”; ἀσπίς, “shield”; λέων, “lion”; and βάτραχος, “frog.” For purposes
of classification, it is necessary to subdivide animate gender into personal/non-per-
sonal. Within the animate-personal-gender, it is necessary to distinguish between
personal non-human beings (that belong to the supernatural world) and human be-
ings. The opposition non-human/human is important in Greek and in the New Testa-
ment, since the existence and action of gods, angels, and demons is assumed.
Hence, |80-P the gender of non-human personal beings contains three different

 Degree is not a semantic category but is part of the relation and determination classes.
218 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

groups, namely, divine (θεός, “God”; θεά, “goddess”), angelic (ἀρχάγγελος, “archan-
gel”), and demonic (δαιμόνιον/δαίμων, “demon”; διάβολος, “devil”).
Nouns with an animate-personal-human gender have diverse formulas, includ-
ing: (1) personal agents of an activity relating to an object (e. g., βαπτιστής, “baptiz-
er”; βασανιστής, “torturer”); (2) agents of an activity that affects the individual who
performs it (e. g., ἀκροατής, “hearer”; μαθητής, “disciple”); (3) agents of a habitual
activity or occupation (e. g., δανειστής, “moneylender”; τραπεζίτης, “moneychang-
er”; φύλαξ, “guard”); (4) subjects qualified to carry out a habitual activity (γραμμα-
τεύς, “lawyer,” “Torah scholar”; διδάσκαλος, “teacher”).
The animate-personal-human/non-human gender includes masculine nouns
(e. g., θεός, “God”; ἰατρός, “physician”) and feminine nouns (e. g., θεά, “goddess”;
βασίλισσα, “queen”), for which the morphological and semantic gender agree. The
noun παιδίον, “child,” is morphologically neuter but semantically masculine (Matt
2:8) or feminine (Mark 5:39), and in the plural includes both sexes (Matt 11:16).
Non-personal animate beings (i. e., animals) are also specified by their masculine
or feminine gender, although sometimes their gender is determined solely by the ar-
ticle that accompanies them, as is the case with ὁ/ἡ ἄρκος, “bear,” and ὁ/ἡ ὄνος,
“donkey.” With animals, moreover, a particular case involving gender is presented,
namely, the epicene gender (from the Greek ἐπίκοινος, “common”), which refers to
the practice of assigning a single name to masculine and feminine animals²⁷ (cf.
e. g., βάτραχος, “frog”; λύκος, “wolf”; σκορπίος, “scorpion”; ἀετός, “eagle”;
σκώληξ, “worm”). The inanimate gender comprises objects and things that are life-
less, including natural objects (e. g., ὕδωρ, “water”; ἀήρ, “air”; ἥλιος, “sun”;
λίθος, “stone”) and objects which humans either manufacture (e. g., τράπεζα,
“table”; βίβλος, “book”; σανδάλιον, “sandal”) or construct (e. g., ἀγορά, “market”;
ἄμφοδον, “street”; ὑπολήνιον, “wine vat”).

8.3.2 Number

§ 336. After determining the semantic gender of noun-lexemes, |81-P their semantic
number should be considered. The semantic category of number is derived from
the grammatical number. Grammatically,

number applies to verbs, pronouns, and nouns. Grammatical number must be clearly distin-
guished from the quantity expressed by cardinal numbers. The grammatical number of nouns
indicates how the noun’s referent is represented, i. e., whether the referent must be viewed as
a single group or as a member of this group … In this way, ἄνθρωπος not only means “one [sin-

 Carreter, Terminos filológicos, 164.

 8.3 Semic Development of the Formula 219

gle] human being,” but also “human beings” in general, or “the totality of human beings.” Con-
text specifies whether a concrete human or “humanity in general” is being discussed.²⁸

Semantically, number is not based on an opposition between singular and plural,

but on the opposition between individual and non-individual/collective (cf. §§ 91–
100).

individual non-individual/collective

singular non-singular quantifiable non-quantifiable

plural distributive qualified non-qualified

partial/total/corporate/virtual
specific global

This diagram presumes that number is studied in context. For purposes of classifying
the entity nouns (i. e., the field of our investigation), we present only those divisions
that can be deduced from the lexemes apart from context, resulting in an abbreviated
diagram that looks as follows:

individual non-individual/collective

quantifiable non-quantifiable

Accordingly, the application of the semantic category of number to the formula of en-
tity lexemes begins with the opposition of individual and non-individual/collective.
|82-P “Individual” can distinguish nouns with simple formulas, such as ἄνθρωπος,
“human being,” and γυνή, “woman.” Most often, however, lexemes with the seman-
tic number “individual” have complex formulas that can be organized into three
groups, namely, (1) lexemes that denote the subject of an activity or state;²⁹ (2) lex-
emes that denote the subject of a quality or attitude that is manifested in action;³⁰
and (3) lexemes that denote a subject joined to other subjects based on family con-
nections or by association with a group.³¹ “Non-individual/collective” can be speci-

 I. R. Alfagame, Nueva Gramática griega (Madrid: Coloquio, 1988), 119 – 20, 205 – 06. In 210 – 19,
Alfagame discusses the meaning of the singular, neuter plural, and plural.
 Cf. e. g., σωτήρ, “savior”; φονεύς, “murderer”; ἀρσενοκοίτης, “male homosexual”; προσαίτης,
“beggar”; μεσίτης, “mediator.”
 Cf. e. g., ζηλωτής, “enthusiast,” “zealot”; ὑποκριτής, “hypocrite.”
 Cf. e. g., ἀδελφός, “brother”; δίδυμος, “twin”; προπάτωρ, “forefather”; φαρισαῖος, “Pharisee.”
220 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes

fied as quantifiable³² or non-quantifiable³³ collectives (cf. §§ 175 – 80 for a more com-

prehensive discussion of number).

8.3.3 Aspect and Voice

§ 337. By applying the semantic categories of gender and number, it is possible to

classify and differentiate between entity lexemes with simple structure that have
the same formula (i. e., between personal, non-personal and inanimate lexemes).
However, this is not the case with personal animate entity lexemes that denote an
entity and an event [Ent + Ev]. Lexemes of this group denote subjects that perform
or are recipients of a specific action or are found in a specific state. For their classi-
fication, the semantic categories of aspect and voice must be applied to the semantic
event.³⁴

8.3.3.1 Aspect
§ 338. Aspect is linked grammatically to verbs |83-P and is used most commonly in an
aoristic, imperfective, or resultative sense. Aoristic aspect can be divided into incho-
ative, terminative, and complexive senses. Extrinsic occasional aspect can be desid-
erative, volitional, or conative.³⁵ Semantically, aspect is analyzed in parole and is not
confined to verbal lexemes, but can also have significance for nominal lexemes. This
implies that event-nouns (Ev) and entity nouns that have an event in their formula
(i. e., Ent + Ev) both have aspectual semes. Lexemic aspect is based on stative-dy-
namic opposition, subdivided into secondary oppositions:³⁶

 Cf. e. g., γερουσία, “senate,” “council of elders”; λεγιών, “legion”; σπεῖρα, “cohort”; συνέδριον,
“Sanhedrin.”
 Cf. e. g., κλισία, “a group of people eating together”; πρεσβεία, “an embassy,” “a group of ambas-
sadors”; χορός, “a group of singers and dancers”; ἐκκλησία, “assembly”; λαός, “people.”
 It is important to note that the grammatical categories of mode and tense are not applied seman-
tically, since these categories cannot be applied to event-nouns, but only to verbal lexemes.
 Cf. §§ 193 – 96. For other discussions of aspect, see S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the
New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York/Bern/Frankfurt/Paris: Peter Lang, 1989)
(review in FNT 4 [1991]: 73 – 76) and B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1990) (review in FNT 4 [1991]: 217– 22); cf. also S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds., Biblical
Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, JSNTSup 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic, 1993) (review in FNT 7 [1994]: 215 – 22).
 Stative event lexemes include ἀγνωσία, “ignorance”; ἀγρυπνία, “vigil,” “sleeplessness”;
ἀδηλότης, “incertitude”; ἀθανασία, “immortality”; αἰχμαλωσία, “captivity.” Dynamic event lexemes
with imperfective aspect include ἀγωγή, “way of living”; ἀναστροφή, “conduct”; ὁμιλία, “conversa-
tion”; αἴνησις, “praise.” Dynamic event lexemes with aoristic aspect include φίλημα, “kiss”;
φανέρωσις, “manifestation”; ὑπάντησις, “encounter”; ῥιπή, “swing.” There are also dynamic event
lexemes with resultative aspect, such as ἄθλησις, “athletic contest”; ἁγιασμός, “sanctification”;
ἁγνισμός, “purification”; ἀγγελία, “announcement”; φθορά, “decay.”
 8.3 Semic Development of the Formula 221

stativity dynamism

imperfective-aoristic-resultative

8.3.3.2 Voice
§ 339. Nouns that denote an event in addition to an entity contain dynamic or stative
elements (that take on the function of verbs) in their formulas. To classify these lex-
emes, the semantic category of voice must also be applied |84-P in order to determine
whom or what is affected by the acting subject or his or her condition. As a grammat-
ical category, a morphological distinction is made between the active and middle-
passive voice. Voice is an expressive, stylistic way of emphasizing a specific relation
of an event. Occasionally, voice does not carry this nuance, which is the case with
deponent verbs (cf. § 197). Semantically, the category of voice is based on the oppo-
sition of agent/non-agent. This opposition does not overlap with the field covered by
aspect (stative/dynamic), since lexemic aspect directly affects the event, while lexe-
mic voice concerns the relation between the agent-entity and the event. The primary
opposition for voice of agent/non-agent and its subordinate oppositions are as fol-
lows (cf. §§ 197– 202).

agent non-agent

affecting affecting receptive non-receptive

non-subjective subjective (passive voice) (neutral voice)
(active voice) (middle voice)

Nouns that function as event lexemes sometimes have an ambiguous active-passive

voice. Based on their voice, lexemes can be:
1. active: σφαγή, “slaughter”; τεκνογονία, “procreation”; ἄγρα, “hunting”;
2. middle: γέλως, “laughter”; ἀναστροφή, “conduct”; βλέμμα, “glance”; βίωσις,
“way of life”;
3. passive: πάθος, “passion”; ὅραμα, “vision”;
4. neuter: ῥῆγμα, “ruin”; θάνατος, “death.”
We have enough elements to conduct a semantic classification of the entity-
nouns and event-nouns in the New Testament. Mode and tense are not discussed,
since these categories are applied almost exclusively in context, rather than in lan-
gue. Nouns that denote attributes, relations, or determinations will be classified ac-
cording to their formula and semic development. The semantic categories of gender,
number, aspect, and voice cannot be applied to them. |85-P
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development¹TN
§ 340. The preceding chapter explained the necessary steps for classifying entity lex-
emes: After identifying the semantic formula (i. e., the denoted and connoted ele-
ments), the semantic categories of gender and number are applied to the entity in
the formula. In this manner the generic semes that are necessary for completing
the classification are obtained. The semic development of the lexeme thus begins
with the application of semantic categories to the class of entity (Ent). By applying
the semantic categories, the elements of the formula can be fully developed so
that a definition can then be articulated. Since the Greek language is well-re-
searched, the task of defining the meaning of lexemes does not begin from scratch.
Even before examining the different contexts in which lexemes appear, there is al-
ready an idea—perhaps not always a completely accurate one—of their meanings.
Concordances and dictionaries provide a starting point for explaining the meanings
of lexemes based on their semantic content.

9.1 Determining Lexical and Contextual Meaning

Different criteria can be used for determining lexical meaning:

§ 341. When a term has only one contextual meaning, this can be taken as its lexical
meaning. If this contextual meaning, however, appears solely in the figurative sense
in a specific corpus, it is better to adopt the literal sense as the lexical meaning and
then to mention the figurative meaning. The term κανών, for example, does not ap-
pear in the New Testament with the literal sense of “a straight wooden stick,” but
only in the figurative sense as “standard of life,” “rule,” “measure” (Gal 6:16; 2Cor
10:13). To explain the figurative sense semantically, it is helpful to take the literal
sense as the lexical meaning. In the same way, δάκνω, “to bite,” is only used figu-
ratively in the New Testament to express the injuries caused by hostility (cf. Gal 5:15).
§ 342. When a lexeme has several contextual meanings and one can be identified as
unmarked (i. e., as having less semantic content) and others as marked (i. e., as hav-
ing more semantic content or a |86-P more specific meaning),² the unmarked contex-

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 86 – 112 in the original text of Peláez. Themati-
cally it corresponds to ch. 6 in this book and illustrates the practice of semic development of entity
with particular reference to entities.
 A marked term is one that has the mark of correlation (quality or distinct trait), as opposed to un-
marked, which lacks it; cf. Carreter, Terminos filológicos, 272. For J. Dubois, Dictionnaire de linguisti-
que, 413, “A lexeme is said to be marked when it possesses a phonological, morphological, syntac-
tical, or semantic particularity that distinguishes it from other lexemes of the same nature in the same
language. The marked lexeme constitutes the marked case of a binary opposition in which the oppo-
site term, deprived of this particularity, is called unmarked.” Semantically, a marked lexeme refers to

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-015
 9.1 Determining Lexical and Contextual Meaning 223

tual meaning is taken as the lexical meaning, and the other meanings can be ex-
plained by the addition of semes or by a change in the semic configuration.³
§ 343. If all the contextual meanings are marked and differ from each other, the lex-
ical meaning is obtained by abstraction, and in each case the occasional semes that
give rise to the sememe are to be omitted. The meaning of the lexeme may not appear
in the contexts, although it can be found in other texts outside of the chosen corpus.
In the New Testament this occurs with δῆμος (cf. §§ 413 – 16) and with ὑπακούω. By
denoting a person’s response to a question about his or her conduct, ὑπακούω is al-
ways marked, since, according to the nature of the question, the response is specified
as assent or as obedience.
§ 344. When a lexeme has various meanings due primarily to metaphorical usage,
which removes one or several of the nuclear semes, there are two ways to establish
its semic nucleus: (1) the basic meaning can be reduced to the features that are com-
mon to all the contextual meanings (including the metaphorical meanings); or (2)
one contextual meaning can be considered the primary meaning, and the less fre-
quent meanings can be explained semantically by their connection to the primary
meaning.
The first option leads to a dead end. The term καρδία, for example, whose obvi-
ous meaning is “heart” (an organ of the human body; cf. §§ 298 – 302), is only used in
the New Testament in a figurative sense, meaning the interior mental state of a per-
son (i. e., intellect). Additionally, the expression ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, “in the heart of
the earth” (Matt 12:40), applies καρδία to an inanimate entity (i. e., location). If the
first option is followed, where the lexical meaning is constructed with |87-P the fea-
tures common to all the contextual meanings, then the second contextual meaning
(intellect) eliminates the semes of “corporeality” and “having organs” from the first
meaning of καρδία, since it now designates an aspect of the human being’s mental
life. At most, “intellect” will include the semes of inwardness, possession (by a
human being), vitality, and many others. This would cause the definition of καρδία
to become noticeably vague, since it could not explicate the alternatives between en-
tity (organ) and event (state), nor between body and intellect. The confusion would
only worsen if the third sememe were also integrated (i. e., “in the heart of the
earth”), since the seme of vitality could not be retained, because it (i. e., the third se-
meme) simply denotes a local determination. With the lexeme καρδία, therefore, the
three contextual meanings would only share the semes of inwardness and posses-
sion, which would lead to a fuzzy definition of the lexeme: “something that belongs
to an entity and is found in its interior.” It seems clear that no one would recognize
the term καρδία in this definition. Although it is not found in the New Testament, a
simpler and more efficient alternative is to take the somatic contextual meaning as

a lexeme with a seme or semantic feature that distinguishes it in binary opposition from another lex-
eme.
 Cf. our analysis of ἀγρός and ἄνεμος in chapter 10.
224 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

the lexical meaning, and, based on this, to explain the metaphorical sense (i. e., in-
tellect) as a change of the nuclear configuration, which is caused by a substitution of
semes. The same applies to the local contextual meaning.
As another example, the term ἀδελφός is used in some New Testament contexts
to address citizens or fellow countrymen and in other contexts to address members
of the Christian community. If the lexical meaning were determined based on these
contextual meanings, semes of solidarity and of common interests would be identi-
fied, but there would be no seme relating to a blood relationship. The resulting def-
inition of ἀδελφός would be hard to distinguish from other lexemes with similar
meanings, making it nearly impossible to link the definition with the lexeme.
§ 345. In summary: When a lexeme has a meaning from which its other meanings can
be deduced, whether by the addition, substitution, or elimination of semes, it is more
practical to take this meaning as the lexical meaning and the others as sememes de-
rived from it. In this way, the analysis relates to the question about lexemes having a
Grundbedeutung, a base meaning, whose existence is presumed in the various con-
textual meanings. The intended meaning must be clarified by using one of the fol-
lowing rules, namely:
1. the base meaning cannot be altered and as a result, it must remain intact in all
of the contextual meanings, or |88-P
2. the base meaning is the primary meaning because it is simple, obvious, or
common, but it is not necessarily preserved in all of the contextual meanings, al-
though it provides a starting point for explaining them.
The first of these statements cannot be maintained (except in a nuanced manner). To
discern the features that are common to all of a lexeme’s contextual meanings, each
feature must be utilized. Next, one must identify the features that do not proceed
from the contexts in which the term is found. As a result, the difference between lex-
ical meaning and contextual meanings emerges. If a lexical meaning is identified
whose semes are found in every one of the contextual meanings, this could be descri-
bed as a base meaning. As has been seen, however, when there are figurative senses,
this procedure leads to such unintelligible base meanings that they are not useful.
§ 346. In light of this discussion, we refer to the meaning that is taken as a base in
each case as the “lexical meaning.” The other meanings, which we call “sememes” or
“contextual meanings,” are derived from the lexical meaning when the definition is
changed because of context.

9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities

§ 347. To illustrate how a lexeme’s complete semic development is identified, we have

chosen a specific group of nouns in the New Testament, namely, a group of nouns
with a personal animate gender and a collective number (regardless of whether or
not this collective can be quantified). The semic development is presented for each
noun and then definitions are composed. Since classemes of gender and number
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 225

are common to all these nouns, these nouns can only be differentiated by their spe-
cific semes or by the development of the remaining semantic classes. In what fol-
lows, we present the classification of the nouns that will serve as a basis for illustrat-
ing the semic development and definition of lexemes.

9.2.1 Types of Collective Entities

§ 348. The entity nouns analyzed here also denote a relation (R), because they will
always designate a group of individuals or members of a collective who maintain
connections with each other. Some of these nouns also denote an activity or state
(Ev). Although all have a collective number, this can be non-quantifiable, |89-P
such as κλισία, “group of eaters” (§ 356) or quantifiable, such as τετράδιον,
“squad of four soldiers” (§ 371). There are two groups of nouns with the number
“non-quantifiable collective.” One group is composed of lexemes that denote an en-
tity (Ent), a relation (R), and an event (Ev).⁴ The other group includes lexemes that
denote an entity (Ent) and a relation (R).⁵ We shall first discuss the lexemes that de-
note three elements with the goal of shedding further light on our method.
§ 349. Collective entities that denote a relation (R) and an event (Ev): There are nouns
that denote a dynamic or stative event (Ev) in addition to an entity (Ent) and a rela-
tion (R). Some also denote two events (stative and dynamic). The event is dynamic
when the focus is on a group of people who perform an activity. To this group belong
the following, in alphabetical order:⁶TN

κλισία “group of eaters”

κουστωδία “guard,” “group of guards”
πρεσβεία “embassy,” “group of ambassadors”
συνοδία “caravan of people”
στρατιά “army”
χορός “choir,” “group of singers who dance”

The event is stative when it denotes the state of a group:

αἵρεσις “sect,” “faction”

διασπορά “dispersion,” “dispersed people”
λεῖμμα “remnant,” “remainder of people”
ὑπόλειμμα “remainder of people”

 Cf. e. g., κλισία, “group of eaters”; κουστωδία, “group of guards.”

 Cf. e. g., γενέα, “generation”; ἐκκλησία, “assembly”; ἀδελφότης, “brotherhood.”
 Translator’s Note: The Spanish text includes the definite articles and genitive endings for the
lexemes that are listed in this chapter. Since this was not the case in the previous chapter, I have
opted to omit the article and genitive from the lists, but to include them in the more detailed analyses
in §§ 354– 76.
226 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Stative and dynamic events are present when a state and an action are simultaneous-
ly denoted. This occurs with οἰκετεία, |90-P “(group of) slaves in a household,” which
denotes residence (state) and service (activity).
§ 350. Collective entities that only denote a relation (R): When collective entities only
denote a relation (R), the relation can be of three kinds:

1. Relation of descent:

πατριά “family/nation”
φυλή “tribe”

2. Relation of location and simultaneousness

ἐκκλησία “assembly”
ὄχλος “crowd,” “multitude”
συναγωγή “congregation,” “synagogue”

3. Relation of ownership and connection

ἀδελφότης “familial relationship”

δῆμος “populace”
ἔθνος “nation”
λαός “town,” “people”

§ 351. “Quantifiable Human Collective”: Among the nouns with the number “quanti-
fiable collective,” two groups can be established, namely, collective entities with ex-
plicit and implicit quantification. Collective entities with explicit quantification indi-
cate the number of members which comprise the collective, for example, τετράδιον,
“a squad of four soldiers.” Collective entities with implicit quantification describes
lexemes whose number is not determined by the lexeme, but rather by the cultural
context in which it is used. Since the members of the group accomplish a specific
activity, these lexemes denote a dynamic event: |91-P

γερουσία “senate,” “group of old men”

ἐφημερία “division of priests”
λεγιών “legion”
πρεσβυτήριον “senate,” “group of old men”
σπεῖρα “cohort”
συνέδριον “Sanhedrin,” “council”
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 227

9.2.2 Semic Development and Definition of Meaning

§ 352. This section presents examples of collective entities in order to illustrate the
semic development and the composition of definitions. In chapter 10 the lexemes
δῆμος, ἔθνος, λαός, πατριά, and φυλή will illustrate how the semic development
makes it possible to distinguish the meanings of similar lexemes. In order to deter-
mine the semic development, it is first necessary to apply the semantic categories of
number and gender to the class of entity in the formula. When a noun also denotes
an event (Ev), aspect and voice are also applied.⁷TN

§ 353. Excursus: Semes

One point that needs clarification is the concept of “seme” or semantic feature, on which our method
is based. “Seme” is often defined as a “minimal or elemental semantic feature,” which means that it
cannot be broken down into more basic units (cf. § 205). In the actual analysis, however, this theo-
retical definition is not always practical. Such a definition corresponds with the goal of “mechanical
translation,” which, with the help of computers, seeks to break down and reorganize the semes in
order to find the equivalent words between two languages. The amount of information and the
speed of processing with which these computers operate makes it possible to gather, utilize, and com-
bine a level of information that would have been otherwise impossible for the human mind. This
method, although it might be useful for mechanical translation, does not suit the goals of linguistic
description. Furthermore, it strives for conclusions that differ from those of a dictionary such as ours,
since we do not seek to give the |92-P the translational equivalents shared by two languages, but rather
to construct the definition of the lexemes and their corresponding sememes. Therefore, since the
method must be functional, semic precision must be proportionate with the stated goals. For exam-
ple, the seme “humanity” can be broken down into more specific semes, such as entity, corporate-
ness, vitality, sensibility, and rationality. Continually cataloging each of these semes that appear
with humanity would lead to semic developments with unending, repetitive, intelligible lists. There-
fore, with the goal of simplifying the expression without compromising accuracy, words that are really
groups of elemental semes are used as if they were semes. Thus, the seme of entity designates ani-
mate or inanimate material things; the semes animality, humanity, and divinity do not require ex-
planation. Other terms are used in similar fashion.

This procedure can be compared with how natural elements are described. Sci-
ence has demonstrated that each natural element is an accumulation of particles of
different masses and electric charges. If instead of saying “cobalt” or “sulfur,” it was
always necessary to describe all the minimal components of these elements, the lists

 Translator’s Note: At this point it was necessary to change the original Spanish text. In contrast
to Mateos, Peláez opted to put the semantic formulas and semic developments in the footnotes. This
created difficulties, including the presentation of two definitions for each lexeme. In order to clarify
how I have changed the text at this point, I place my translation of the original passage in this foot-
note: “The exposition would be very long and repetitive if we tried to explain the complete semic de-
velopment of each lexeme that we analyze. It will suffice to present the first example (χορός, ‘choir’)
in toto and for the rest to place the diagrams and remarks in the footnotes, given that the procedure
for completing the semic development and for constructing the definition of the lexeme is the same
for all of these nouns.”
228 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

would be unending and intelligible. The terms “cobalt” and “sulfur” are convenient
signs that encompass numerous components. “Semes” function in a similar way
when used in the manner we suggest: they are also signs that enable us to avoid
long, confusing, and repetitive lists.

9.2.2.1 Non-quantifiable Collective Entities with a Dynamic Event (Activity)

§ 354. These lexemes denote an action or process (dynamic Ev). Because this event
relates to a collective (Ent), the action is common, which implies an intrinsic relation
(R).

(1.) χορός, -οῦ, ὁ

§ 355. The term χορός (once in the New Testament) denotes a human collective (Ent)
that performs an activity |93-P (Ev) together (R):

Ent + Ev + R

Based on this formula, the semic development can be determined. This is accom-
plished by identifying the generic semes of the semantic classes. For Ent, the seman-
tic categories of number and gender (explained in the previous chapter) are applied:

Ent collectivity (number)

humanity (gender)

These generic semes are common to groups of lexemes. The second denoted element
is an event (Ev), which in this case is dynamic, since χορός implies singing and
movement. By applying the semantic categories of aspect and voice, the following
generic semes are obtained:

Ev dynamism (aspect)
activity (voice)

The action can be broken down into the specific semes of rhythmic movement and
vocal musicality. The lexeme also denotes a simultaneous relation (R) between the
members of the human collective, since the activity is performed at the same time
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 229

by all the members together. The semes of the relation are simultaneousness/union.
The complete semic development of this lexeme is as follows: |94-P

Ent collectivity (number) (g)

humanity (gender) (g)
Ev dynamism (aspect) (g)
activity (voice) (g)
rhythmic movement (s)
musical vocality (s)
R simultaneousness/union (s)

In this semic development, the generic semes and specific semes have been indicat-
ed by means of (g) and (s), respectively. Together these various semes constitute the
semic nucleus, viz. the group of nuclear semes that comprise the lexeme χορός and
distinguish it from similar lexemes.⁸
Once the denoted and connoted semes of each semantic class in the formula
have been identified, we are able to define the lexeme. The definition integrates
the semes of the semic development in a hierarchical fashion. Thus, χορός can be
defined as “a group of individuals (Ent) who dance and sing (Ev) together (R)”: danc-
ing choir, choir.

Luke : ὡς ἐρχόμενος ἤγγισεν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, ἤκουσεν συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν, “as he was
returning and came near the house, he heard the music and the dancing.”⁹TN

 To facilitate the semic development of the formulas, the Catalogue of Semes can be consulted. As
has been seen, the semic development involves the identification of a lexeme’s generic and specific
semes. The semes are designated as abstract nouns. These constitute a metalanguage so that one
should not be surprised if terms that do not actually exist in the language are constructed.
 Translator’s Note: As Peláez mentioned in the beginning of this section, χορός appears once in
the New Testament. The author thus cites the New Testament passage in which χορός appears. This
illustrates a key aspect for the author, who in chap. 2 criticized Louw and Nida for citing a few exam-
ples of lexemes that are commonly used in the New Testament. By citing each passage in which a
lexeme appears, Peláez seeks to offer a more comprehensive and accurate semantic analysis that
will avoid omitting important evidence. This practice is followed strictly in DGENT. An important
question, however, might be whether the citation of a single verse provides enough context for grasp-
ing a lexeme’s web of connections. In this text, however, Peláez does not consistently list all of the
uses of a word, especially when a word is used commonly in the New Testament; cf. e. g., translator’s
note 11 in this chapter.
230 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

The action of χορῶν in Luke 15:25 is related to ἤκουσεν, indicating that the dancers
were singing.¹⁰TN We proceed by identifying various generic and specific semes of
various lexemes after identifying their semantic formulas. |95-P

(2.) κλισία, -ας, ἡ

§ 356. Like χορός, the lexeme κλισία (once in the New Testament) also denotes a com-
mon and simultaneous activity of a human collective. The collective is an entity, the
activity is eating (Ev), which necessarily connotes food (Ent1) that is consumed
(R1→). At the same time, the lexeme denotes a relation of togetherness between
the eaters (R). The formula and semic development are thus:

Ent + Ev + R R1 Ent1

Ent plurality R1 towardness

humanity Ent1 materiality
Ev activity edibility
self-sustenance
R simultaneousness/union

Thus, κλισία refers to a group that shares a meal together and can be defined as “a
group of human beings (Ent) who eat (Ev) a (R1) meal (Ent1) together (R)”: a group of
eaters.

Luke : καταλκίνατε αὐτοὺς κλισίας ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα, “have them recline in groups
of fifty.”

(3.) πρεσβεία, -ας, ἡ

§ 357. The lexeme πρεσβεία (twice in the New Testament) designates a human group
tasked with carrying out an activity of representation before another individual or
group. In addition to denoting a group (Ent) that performs a common (R) activity
(Ev) (outside of the New Testament it can designate an individual), this lexeme
has a double connotation: first, it connotes the event of delegation (Ev1) by (←R1)

 Translator’s Note: It may be assuming too much to assert that the parallel between χορός and
the aorist verb ἤκουσεν indicates singing. Lively dancing can be heard, and the text does not indicate
that the dancers were those responsible for the music.
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 231

a personal subject (Ent1). Secondly, it connotes the recipient (R3→Ent2) of the activity
of representation. The formula and semic development are as follows:

R2 Ev1 R1 Ent1

Ent + Ev + R

R3 Ent2 |96-P

Ent plurality R1 agentivity

humanity Ev1 delegation
Ev representation R2 transitivity
R simultaneousness R3 towardness
Ent1 individuality / Ent2 individuality /
corporativity corporativity
humanity humanity

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) who are jointly (R) tasked (Ev1) by (R1) a per-
son or group (Ent1) to (R2) represent them (Ev) before (R3) others (Ent2)”: embassy,
delegation, legation.

Luke : πρεσβείαν ἀποστείλας ἐρωτᾷ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην, “he will send representa-
tives/a legation to request conditions of peace.”
Luke : οἱ δὲ πολῖται αὐτοῦ … ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, “his fellow
countrymen sent a delegation after him.”

In cases where πρεσβεία is comprised of one individual, the relation of simultaneous-

ness disappears from the formula and development, and the seme of plurality in the
entity (Ent) will become a seme of individuality.

(4.) συνοδία, -ας, ἡ

§ 358. The lexeme συνοδία (once in the New Testament) designates a human group
whose joint activity is a local movement in the direction of an object. Because it re-
fers to a human group, it denotes an entity (Ent) and also the group’s common (R)
movement (Ev) across the ground. It connotes a direction towards (R1→) a place
(Ent1).
232 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Ent + Ev + R R1 Ent1

Ent plurality R1 direction

humanity Ent1 location
Ev dynamism
movement
displacement
territory
R simultaneousness

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) who go (Ev) together (R) across the ground
towards (R1) a place (Ent1)”: caravan. |97-P

Luke : νομίσαντες αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ, “supposing that he was with the
caravan.”

(5.) κουστωδία, -ας, ἡ

§ 359. The lexeme κουστωδία (three times in the New Testament) designates a group
of individuals who belong to a military that is charged with guarding or custody. In
addition to the denoted group (Ent), an activity (Ev), and a simultaneous relation (R),
κουστωδία connotes a place (Ent1), which is the object of (R1→) the activity of guard-
ing (Ev).

Ent + Ev + R R1 Ent1

Ent humanity R1 transitivity

plurality Ent1 location
military
Ev dynamism
activity
vigilance
R simultaneousness
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 233

Definition: “A group of soldiers (Ent) who simultaneously (R) guard (Ev) a place
(R1→Ent1)”: guard, guards.

Matt : ἔφη αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· ἔχετε κουστωδίαν, “Pilate said to them, ‘take a
guard/some guards’” (cf. v. ).
Matt : ἰδού τινες τῆς κουστωδίας … ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι, “some of the
guards informed the high priests.”

(6.) στρατιά, -ᾶς, ἡ

§ 360. In its most common meaning, στρατιά (twice in the New Testament) is a mili-
tary term which denotes a numerous (D) and hierarchical (R) human collective (Ent)
that is prepared for the activity of war (Ev). It connotes the presence of (R1→) a real or
potential enemy (Ent + Ev1).

[Ent + D] + R + Ev R1 [Ent + Ev1]

|98-P

Ent collectivity R1 towardness

humanity Ent1 collectivity
military humanity
D numerosity Ev1 hostility
R simultaneousness
hierarchy
Ev dynamism
activity
combativeness

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of soldiers (Ent) organized hierarchically (R) who
fight or are prepared to fight (Ev) together (R) against (R1) an enemy (Ent1 + Ev1)”:
army.
This meaning is not found in the New Testament, where στρατιά is used metaphori-
cally for angels (Luke 2:13) and for stars (Acts 7:42), viz. for non-human beings. These
metaphorical senses modify the formula and its development: the semes of humanity
and military disappear from the entity. The activity (Ev) and the connotation of an
enemy (Ent1 + Ev1) are also removed. Only the features of numerosity (D) and hier-
archy/structure (R) remain. The formula is simplified:

[Ent + D] + R
234 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Ent collectivity
angel/astrality
D numerosity
R organization/order

Definition: “A numerous (D) and structured (R) group of angelic beings or of celestial
bodies (Ent)”: heavenly hosts.

Luke : ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου, “the angel was joined by
a multitude of heavenly hosts (i. e., celestial armies).” |-P
Acts : παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς λατρεύειν τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, “he handed them
over to worship the heavenly army/the stars.”

9.2.2.2 Non-Quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event

§ 361. These lexemes denote a state (Ev). Because this event also relates to a collective
(Ent), the state is also common, which implies an intrinsic relation (R).

(1.) διασπορά, -ᾶς, ἡ

§ 362. The term διασπορά (three times in the New Testament) denotes the dispersion
of a human collective into foreign territories. When used as a terminus technicus it
designates the dispersion of Israel (i. e., “the diaspora”). The lexeme is classified
as an event (Ev), which will be dynamic if it denotes an action and stative if it de-
notes a result. It connotes the suffering of (R1→) a numerous (D) human collective
(Ent1). It also connotes the place (Ent2) in which (R2→) the dispersion occurs or
where the dispersed are located. The formula and development are:

R1 [Ent1 + D]

Ev

R2 Ent2
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 235

Ev dynamism/stativity R1 transitivity/resultativity
transfer Ent1 collectivity
multi-directionality humanity
R2 directionality
Ent2 location
multiplicity
foreignness

Definition: “An action or a result of transferring (Ev) a (R1) numerous (D) human col-
lective (Ent1) to (R2) different places in a foreign territory (Ent2).”
In the New Testament, however, this meaning is absent. Instead, two distinct meto-
nyms appear. In each case the metonymy causes the elements that were connoted to
become denoted: |100-P

John : μὴ εἰς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων μέλλει πορεύεσθαι; “he is not about to
go to the dispersion among the Greeks, is he?”

Here, the dispersed (Ev) numerous human collective (Ent + D) becomes the dominant
element in the formula. The foreign (D1) territory (Ent1) where (R) the dispersion has
occurred becomes connoted.

[Ent + D] + Ev R [Ent1 + D1]

Ent collectivity R location

humanity Ent1 territory
D numerosity multiplicity
Ev stativity D1 foreignness
transfer

Definition: “A numerous (D) collective of human individuals (Ent) who have been
transferred (Ev) to (R) different parts of a foreign (D1) territory (Ent1).”
In James 1:1 and 1Peter 1:1, the term denotes the territory where the dispersed are lo-
cated. The formula is identical, and the semic development is as follows:
236 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Ent territory R resultativity

multiplicity residence
D foreignness Ent1 collectivity
Ev stativity humanity
transfer D1 numerosity
multi-directionality

Definition: “Foreign (D) territories (Ent) to which (R) the members of a numerous (D1)
human collective (Ent1) have been transported (Ev).”

James : Ἰάκωβος … ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, “James, to the twelve
tribes that are in the dispersion.”
Peter : Πέτρος … παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας … καὶ Βιθυνίας, “Peter,
to the dispersed sojourners (lit. the sojourners of the dispersion) from
Pontus, Galatia, and Bithynia.” |-P

(2.) λεῖμμα, -ατος, τό

§ 363. The lexeme λεῖμμα (once in the New Testament) denotes a human collective
that survives the destruction or ruin suffered by its people. The human collective
is a semantic entity (Ent) and the survival is an event (Ev). The collective is not het-
erogeneous, since its members belong to (R→) the same people or nation (Ent1) that
has suffered ruin (Ev1), which are connoted elements and thus outside the box.

Ent + Ev + R [Ent1 + Ev1]

Ent plurality Ent1 cf. λα ς (§§ 416–20)

humanity Ev1 disappearance
Ev survival ruin
R possession

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) belonging to (R) a people or nation (Ent1)

who survive (Ev) its (Ent1) ruin or disappearance (Ev1)”: remnant, rest.

Rom : τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται, “the rest will be saved” (see Isa : LXX,
κατάλειμμα).
Rom : καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ λεῖμμα κατ’ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν, “also in the
present time, a graciously chosen remnant has survived (lit. according to a
choice of grace).”
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 237

(3.) αἵρεσις, -εως, ἡ

§ 364. The term αἵρεσις (nine times in the New Testament) occurs in the New Testa-
ment with three different contextual meanings: (1) “faction,” “school,” “sect”; (2) by
metonymy, the “doctrine that gives identity to a school or sect”; and (3) in a narrow
sense, “dissensions or factions within the Christian community.” We consider the
first contextual meaning as primary. The lexeme denotes a group of individuals
(Ent) who are separated or distinct (Ev, stative) from (←R1→) others (Ent1) because
of their common (R) adherence (Ev′, stative) to (R2→) certain beliefs or doctrines.
The connotations, therefore, refer to the groups from which they are distinguished
(Ent1) and to the doctrines they profess (Ent2 = Ev1, quasi-entity). |102-P

R1 Ent1

R2 [Ent2 = Ev1]

Ent collectivity R1 opposition

humanity Ent1 collectivity
Ev stativity humanity
separation R2 towardness
Ev stativity [Ent2 = Ev1] doctrine
commitment
R connection

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) that is separate (Ev) from (R1) others (Ent1)
by its common (R) adherence (Ev′) to (R2) certain creeds or doctrines (Ent2 = Ev1)”:
sect, school, faction.

Acts : ἡ αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, “the sect of the Sadducees.”

Acts : τινὲς ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρεσέως τῶν Φαρισαίων, “some from the sect of the Phari-
sees.”

Metonymy causes what was previously connoted (Ent2 = Ev1, the doctrine) to become
denoted and the previously denoted human collective (Ent) to become connoted. This
causes αἵρεσις to be defined as “professed doctrine held in common by a human
group and which separates or distinguishes it from other groups.”
238 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Acts : κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν, “according to the way (sc. the doctrine),
which they call a sect.”¹¹TN

9.2.2.3 Non-quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event and a

Dynamic Event
§ 365. This group of lexemes denotes the state (stative event) of a human collective
that performs an activity (dynamic event). The lexeme οἰκετεία (once in the New Tes-
tament; Matt 24:45) denotes a human collective that dwells in a house or family
where service is given. The lexeme thus denotes both a stative event (Ev + R, resi-
dence in → a house or family [Ent1]) and a dynamic event (Ev′, service). R1 is expli-
cated by a seme of towardness to (→) the recipient of service (Ent2). |103-P

Ent1

Ent + [Ev + R] + Ev

R1 Ent2

Ent humanity Ent1 habitation

collectivity residence
Ev stativity R1 towardness
(residence) Ent2 humanity
R location individuality
Ev dynamism property
(service)

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) who reside (Ev) in (R) a house (Ent1) and are
at the service (Ev′) of (R1) the owner (Ent2)”: household of servants/slaves.

Matt : ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος … ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ, “the
faithful servant whom the master put in charge of his servants.”

 Translator’s Note: I can only assume that the author illustrates three of the nine passages in
the New Testament in which αἵρεσις occurs for reasons of space and clarity. This occurs with several
lexemes in the remainder of this chapter and with lexemes in chapters 10 – 11.
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 239

9.2.2.4 Collective Entities that only Denote a Relation

§ 366. Lexemes of this group denote some type of relation (R) between the members
of the collective (Ent). According to the kind of relation, the following groups can be
established. There are two broad types:

Relation of Simultaneousness of Location:

(1.) ὄχλος, -ου, ὁ

§ 367. The term ὄχλος (175 times in the New Testament) is always applied to human
collectives. In its unmarked contextual meaning it refers to a crowd of gathered peo-
ple.

[Ent + D] + R

Ent collectivity
humanity
D numerosity
Ev location
simultaneousness
|104-P

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of individuals (Ent) who are present in the same
place (R)”: multitude, throng, crowd of people.

Matt : ἰδὼν Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτόν, “when Jesus saw a multitude around him.”
Mark : ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων, “a crowd with swords and clubs.”

(2.) ἐκκλησία, -ας, ἡ

§ 368. The lexeme ἐκκλησία (114 times in the New Testament) refers primarily to a
numerous group of citizens gathered with a purpose. We take this unmarked mean-
ing as the lexical meaning. The lexeme therefore denotes a certain number (D) of citi-
zens (Ent) and their common location (R). It connotes an activity (Ev) of civil or re-
ligious character as the purpose of (R1→) the assembly.

[Ent + D] + R R1 Ev
240 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Ent collectivity R1 purpose

humanity Ev activity
citizenship civility/religious
D numerosity
R location
simultaneousness

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of citizens (Ent) gathered together (R) to (R1) per-
form a civil or religious act (Ev)”: assembly.

Acts : ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἀπέλυσεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, “having said this, he dismissed the
assembly.”¹² |-P

(3.) συναγωγή, -ῆς, ἡ

§ 369. The term συναγωγή (56 times in the New Testament) is nearly synonymous
with ἐκκλησία. However, it adds the connotation of the building where the gathering
is held. Moreover, the activity performed by the collective is always of a religious na-
ture, and it omits the concept of “citizenship.” The local relation (R) that constitutes
the collective (Ent) adds the connotation of a building (Ent1). The activity (Ev) that
the collective performs is always of a religious character. The number of participants
is not necessarily large, although never less than ten.

Ent1

Ent + R

R1 Ev

 Here the ἐκκλησία consists of citizens (cf. δῆμος, §§ 415 – 17). In light of δῆμος in 19:33 (ἤθελεν
ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ, “he wanted to make his defense to the people”), ἐκκλησία in 19:41 is com-
prised of citizens.
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 241

Ent plurality Ent1 building

humanity R1 purpose
R location Ev activity
simultaneousness religious

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) gathered (R) in a building (Ent1) to (R1) per-
form a religious activity (Ev)”: congregation, synagogual assembly.

Acts : ᾐτήσατο … ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρός τὰς συναγωγάς, “he asked for
letters addressed to the synagogues in Damascus (i. e., to the synagogual
assemblies).”
Acts : λυθείσης δὲ τῆς συναγωγῆς, “when the assembly was dispersed.”

As with Acts 9:2 and including its translation as “synagogue,” the term often does
not denote the building, but the congregation that is gathered within it:

Mark : ἦν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, “in their syn-
agogue/congregation was a man with an unclean spirit.”¹³ |-P

Relation of Belonging or Connection:

(1.) ἀδελφότης, -ητος, ἡ

§ 370. The term ἀδελφότης (twice in the New Testament) denotes a group or human
collective (Ent) in which there are bonds of affection and solidarity (R), which orig-
inate from a relation (R1) to the same father (Ent1), who is not necessarily biological.

Ent + R R1 Ent1

Ent collectivity R1 brotherhood

humanity Ent1 personhood
R solidarity paternality
affection

 The term αὐτῶν is translated as a subject genitive: “they were gathered.”

242 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) united by solidarity and affection (R) based
on their real or figurative filial relation (R1) to a common father (Ent1)”: familial re-
lationship.

Pet : τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε, “love the family of believers/the brothers.”
Pet : τῇ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι, “to your believing family in the [sc. entire]
world.”

9.2.2.5 Quantifiable Collective Entities with Explicit Quantification: τετράδιον,

-ου, τό
§ 371. The term τετράδιον (once in the New Testament) designates a group of four in-
dividuals, viz. soldiers. The quantification (D) is part of the lexeme’s denotation. |107-P

Ent + D

Ent plurality
humanity
military
D quantification (four)

Definition: “A group (Ent) of four (D) soldiers (Ent)”: squad of four soldiers.

Acts : παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιοτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, “handing him
over to four squads having four soldiers [sc. per squad] to guard him.”

9.2.2.6 Quantifiable Collective Entities with Implicit Quantification that Denote a

Dynamic Event

(1.) γερουσία, -ας, ἡ

§ 372. The term γερουσία (once in the New Testament) denotes a council of elders and
in the New Testament designates the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Many of the details re-
garding γερουσία, including its quantification, are cultural data. The old age attrib-
uted to its members is more of an honorific title (senior, senator) than actual data.
The senate is a human collective (Ent). The determination (D) refers to the numerus
clausus of the members of this institution. The recipients (R→Ent1) of the activity (Ev)
are connoted.
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 243

[Ent + D] + Ev R Ent1

Ent collectivity R towardness

humanity Ent1 collectivity
oldness humanity
D quantification Judaism
Ev dynamism
activity
regulation

Definition: “A council (Ent) formed by a specific number (D) of elders or seniors (Ent)
who exercise a judicial function (Ev) in (R) the Jewish community (Ent1)”: senate,
council of elders.

Acts : συνεκάλεσαν τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν |-P γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ,
“they called together the Sanhedrin (i. e., the council of elders) and all the
elders of Israel.”

(2.) πρεσβυτέριον, -ου, τό

§ 373. The term πρεσβυτέριον (three times in the New Testament) designates a council
of elders or seniors. As was the case with γερουσία, it is an honorific title. In the New
Testament this term is applied twice to the Jewish Sanhedrin and once to the group
responsible for a Christian assembly. The lexical meaning is obtained by omitting
these specifications. The collective (Ent) is composed of a specific number (D) of
members. Although not specified, the activity (Ev) is denoted, while the community
(Ent1) which is the object of (R→) this activity is connoted.

[Ent + D] + Ev R Ent1
244 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Ent collectivity R towardness

humanity Ent1 collectivity
oldness humanity
D quantification
Ev dynamism
activity

Definition: “A group of (D) elders or seniors (Ent) that exercises certain functions (Ev)
in (R) a community (Ent1)”: council of elders, senate.
In a Jewish context, πρεσβυτέριον is a term for the Sanhedrin:

Luke : συνήχθη τὸ πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ λαοῦ, “the council of elders of the people
were gathered.”
Acts : καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς μαρτυρεῖ μοι καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, “and the High Priest
and the whole council of elders of the people (can) testify in my favor/about
me/for me.”

In a Christian context, the term designates a group that exercises certain functions in
the community:

Tim : ἐδόθη σοι … μετὰ ἐπιθήσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου, “which was
given to you by the laying on of hands by the group of elders.”¹⁴ |-P

(3.) λεγιών, -ῶνος, ἡ

§ 374. The lexeme λεγιών (four times in the New Testament) in its literal sense des-
ignates a Roman military unit. This meaning can be considered the lexical meaning.
Like the term στρατιά (cf. § 360), λεγιών denotes a hierarchical human collective that
is prepared for the act of war. The soldiers who comprise this group range from 4,000
to 6,000 in number. Like στρατιά, λεγιών connotes the existence of enemies. The for-
mula denotes a hierarchical (R) numerous (D) human collective (Ent) that is prepared
for the activity of war (Ev). The term connotes the existence of real or potential en-
emies (Ent1 + Ev1).

[Ent + D] + R + Ev R1 Ent1 + Ev1

 Regarding the term συνέδριον, -ου, τό in the New Testament, it is a synonym of γερουσία and of
πρεσβυτέριον.
 9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities 245

Ent collectivity R1 towardness

humanity Ent1 collectivity
military humanity
D quantification Ev1 hostility
(4,000 to 6,000)
R hierarchy
Ev dynamism
activity
combativeness

Definition: “A group of 4,000 to 6,000 (D) soldiers (Ent) organized hierarchically (R)
who fight or are prepared for combat (Ev) against (R1) an enemy (Ent 1 + Ev1)”: le-
gion.
In the New Testament, the term is applied solely to non-human beings:

Matt : δώδεκα λεγιῶνας ἀγγέλων, “twelve legions of angels.”

In Mark 5:9, 15 and Luke 8:30, λεγιών is applied figuratively to the demon-possessed
man from the region of the Gerasenes and the spirits that possess him.

(4.) σπεῖρα, -ης, ἡ

§ 375. The difference between σπεῖρα and λεγιών lies in the number of soldiers, since
σπεῖρα is a smaller group comprised of 500 or 600 men. Taking this into account, the
formula, semic development, and definition are the same as for λεγιών. In the New
Testament it refers to the cohort, the tenth part of a legion. |110-P

(5.) ἐφημερία, -ας, ἡ

§ 376. The term ἐφημερία (twice in the New Testament) refers to the weekly rotation of
the priests in their daily service in the Jerusalem temple. It thus refers to a human
collective (Ent) qualified by its sacerdotal character (A) and comprised of a specific
number of individuals (D) who exercise their activity (Ev) in a specific time (D′).

[Ent + A] + D + [Ev + D ]
246 Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development

Ent humanity D quantification

plurality Ev activity
A priestliness D temporality
simultaneousness

Definition: “A specific (D) group (Ent) of priests (A) who perform their function (Ev)
during the same time period (D′)”: priestly division, section.

Luke : ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας A ᾿ βιά, “a certain priest named
Zacharias, of the division of Abijah” (cf. :). |–-P
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual
Meaning (Sememes)¹TN
§ 377. The previous chapter explained how to establish a lexeme’s semic develop-
ment, which precedes the composition of definitions. Once the lexeme is defined,
its translational equivalents are given. In this way the concepts of meaning(s) (de-
scribed by definition[s]) and translational equivalents (an equivalent word or
words in the target language) are clearly differentiated. The next step is to consider
different contexts in which the lexeme is found. Doing so clarifies whether the pro-
posed meaning (i. e., definition) is present in all the contexts in which the term ap-
pears or whether it is necessary to distinguish between various contextual meanings
or semenes. Context often alters the formula and semic development of lexemes, thus
bringing about new meanings. In this way, our theory accounts for the influence of
context on the formation of new contextual meanings. This is one of the novelties of
our dictionary, since other dictionaries do not explain how meaning is produced in
context. Instead, other dictionaries simply observe the existence of diverse contextu-
al meanings without indicating how context influences meaning.
Our dictionary not only seeks to identify the various contextual meanings of lex-
emes, but also to determine the influence of context in each case. This is done by
identifying the contextual factors that affect the meaning, which will be the focus
of this chapter. We identify two criteria for distinguishing the sememes of lexemes:
(1) a change of definition, which corresponds to a change in the semantic formula
due to a new semic configuration, and (2) in cases when the semantic formula is
not altered, changes of semes in the semic development can produce new contextual
meanings. To illustrate how context gives rise to distinct sememes, we shall now ex-
amine four nouns, namely, ἀγρός (cf. §§ 378 – 383), ᾅδης (cf. §§ 383 – 388), ἄνεμος
(§§ 389 – 394), and αὐλή (§§ 395 – 399). |113-P

10.1. ἀγρός, -οῦ, ὁ

§ 378. In its unmarked contextual meaning, which can be taken as the lexical mean-
ing, ἀγρός (35 times in the New Testament) denotes an extension of land without pre-
cise demarcation that is not intended for human habitation. Therefore, ἀγρός is rep-
resented by the semantic class of entity (Ent):

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 113 – 32 in the original text of Peláez. Themati-
cally it corresponds to chapter 7 and illustrates how context gives rise to distinct sememes.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-016
248 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

Ent

Ent materiality
landness
extension
non-demarcation
non-inhabitation

Definition: “An extension of non-demarcated, non-inhabited land (Ent)”: field.

The meaning of ἀγρός is narrowed in various contexts depending on the presence or
absence of a connection to humans or human activity, giving rise to diverse contex-
tual meanings. Various types of relations can be identified.
§ 379. Sememe 1: No relation to a human being or a human activity. In this case,
ἀγρός, which does not denote a particular field, appears with the definite article
in the singular:

Matt : καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “consider the lilies of the field.”
Matt : εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ … ὁ Θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν, “if God so clothes
the grass of the field,” cf. Luke :.

§ 380. Sememe 2: Relation of possession, sometimes acquired by purchase, which im-

plies an extension of land with defined limits. The plural also implies demarcation
and thus possession. To develop the formula of this sememe, it is necessary to
note that the demarcation is the resulting state of an activity (“to demarcate,” Ev).
The human individual (Ent1) to whom the ἀγρός belongs (R) is connoted.

Ent + Ev R Ent1

Ent materiality R possession

landness Ent1 individuality
extension humanity
non-inhabitation
Ev stativity
demarcation

Definition: “An extension of demarcated (Ev) land (Ent) owned by (R) an individual
(Ent1)”: field, plot of land, farm. |114-P
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 249

Mark : ἄλλοι δὲ στοιβάδας κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν, “others cut branches from the
fields.”
Matt : ὁμοία … θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος … πωλεῖ
πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον, “like a hidden treasure in a
field, which, when a person finds it, he sells all that he has and buys that
field.”
Matt : ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, “with them (sc. the coins) they
purchased the potter’s field”; cf. :, .
Luke : ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ A᾿ γρὸν ἠγόρασα, “the first said to him, ‘I have bought a
plot of land.’”
Acts : ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῷ ἀγροῦ, “who had a plot of land.”

§ 381. Sememe 3: An activity of cultivation (and in one instance of cattle breeding) is

frequently added to the relation of possession. In this case the sememe denotes both
the demarcation (Ev) and the activity of cultivation (Ev). It connotes the relation (R)
to an owner (Ent1). Its formula and development are:

Ent + Ev + Ev R Ent1

Ent materiality R possession

territory Ent1 individuality
extension humanity
Ev stativity
demarcation
Ev dynamism
activity
(agricultural/livestock)
|115-P

Definition: “A demarcated (Ev) extension of land (Ent) owned by (R) an individual

(Ent1) and intended for an agricultural activity (Ev′)”: estate, farm, field.

Matt : ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι καλὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, “to a person who
sowed good seed in his field.”
Matt : οὐχὶ καλὸν σπέρμα ἔσπειρας ἐν τῷ σῷ ἀγρῷ; “did you sow good seed in your
field?”
Matt : ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, “[sc. to a mustard seed]
that a person took and sowed in his field.”
Matt : διασάφησον ἡμῖν τὴν παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “explain to us the
parable about the weeds of the field”; cf. :.
Matt : ὁ δὲ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, “the field is the world”; cf. :.
Matt : πᾶς ὅστις ἀφῆκεν οἰκίας … ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγρούς, “whoever
has left houses … or children, or fields”; cf. Mark : –  (to leave pre-
sumes ownership).
Matt : ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν τὸν ἰδίον ἀγρόν, “they left, each to his own field.”
250 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

Matt : καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω ὀπίσω ἆραι τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ, “the one
who is in the field should not turn back to grab his mantle” (the field as the
place of work, in opposition to the roof of the house, v. ); cf. Mark :;
Luke :.
Matt : τότε ἔσονται δύο ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, “then two people will be in the field” (in
opposition to the two women who are grinding on the mill, v. , it is un-
derstood that the first two are working); cf. Luke :.
Mark : παράγοντα τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ’ ἀγροῦ, “one who was
passing by, Simon of Cyrene, returning from the field” (without doubt, from
work); cf. Luke :.
Luke : ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους, “he sent him to his
fields to tend pigs.”
Luke : ἦν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐν ἀγρῷ, “his oldest son was in the field/
in the estate.”

§ 382. Sememe 4: Finally, the relation can be one of habitation. Thus, ἀγρός can refer
to a place in the country suitable for human habitation. In the plural, ἀγρός is used
in opposition to other terms that refer to rural or urban towns, small towns (i. e., vil-
lages or rural communities). The formula and development are thus:

Ent + [Ev + R] [Ent1 + D]

Ent materiality Ent1 collectivity

territory humanity
extension D non-numerosity
ruralness
Ev stativity
R habitation

Definition: “An extension of rural land (Ent) inhabited by (Ev + R) a small number (D)
of people (Ent1)”: village, community, farm, manor, farmhouse. |116-P

Mark : ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς, “they reported it in the city
and in the farmhouses” (reporting presumes inhabitants); cf. Luke :.
Mark : ἵνα ἀπελθόντες εἰς τοὺς κύκλῳ ἀγροὺς καὶ κώμας ἀγοράσωσιν, “so that they
might go into the surrounding communities and villages to buy”; cf. Luke
:.
Mark : ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγροὺς, ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς
ἐτίθεσαν τοὺς ἀσθενοὺντας, “wherever he went, whether to villages, cities,
or farmhouses, they were placing the sick in the public squares.”
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 251

Mark : δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη … πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, “he
appeared to two of them who were on the way to a farm” (where they share
a meal).

§ 383. Summary of Sememes: ἀγρός, -οῦ, ὁ

1. Without relation to a person or activity: “An extension of land without precise

boundaries or towns”: field; cf. τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “the lilies of the field” (Matt 6:28;
cf. Matt 6:30).
2. Relation of possession: “A demarcated extension of land that belongs to an
individual”: field, plot of land, farm; cf. ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῷ ἀγροῦ, “who had a plot
of land” (Acts 4:37).
3. Relation of possession, farming: “A demarcated extension of land, owned by
an individual, intended for an agricultural activity”: estate, farm, field; cf. ἀνθρώπῳ
σπείραντι καλὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, “to a man who sowed good seed in his
land/field” (Matt 13:24); ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους, “he
sent him to his fields to tend pigs” (Luke 15:15). |117-P
4. Relation of habitation: “An extension of rural land where a small number of
people live”: village, farm, manor, farmhouse; cf. ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ
εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγρούς, “wherever he went, into villages, cities, farms” (Mark 6:56).

10.2. ᾅδης, -ου, ὁ

§ 384. The term ᾅδης (ten times in the New Testament) in Greek antiquity referred to
the dwelling or kingdom of the dead. Normally it was viewed as a place, a territory,
or specifically as a city situated in the depths of the earth. As a city, ᾅδης denotes an
entity (Ent), and since the city is located in the depths, it denotes a determination
(D). It connotes the deceased (Ent1 + Ev) that are in it (R), specified (D) as a totality.
Thus,

Ent + D R [Ent1 + Ev] + D1

Ent spatiality R location

territory/city habitation
D depth Ent1 collectivity
humanity
Ev stativity
death
D1 totality
252 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

Definition: “A lower (D) place (Ent) where (R) the (D1) dead live (Ent1 + Ev)”: abyss.
§ 385. If context does not influence the lexical meaning, ᾅδης corresponds to Sememe
1, which is the lexical meaning, referring to a place that contains the just and the un-
just (Ezek 32:18 – 32; Ps 89/88:49):

Acts : οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, “you will not abandon me to the
abyss/to the place of the dead”; cf. :.

It can also appear alongside θάνατος:

Rev : ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου, “I have the keys of death and of the
abyss.”

Death and the abyss are probably thought of as a city (the place where death reigns).
If the genitive is a possessive, “death” and “abyss” are personified. |118-P Occasionally,
ᾅδης appears in opposition to οὐρανός; e. g., to descend from “heaven” to ᾅδης, that
is, from the highest to the lowest, expressing the greatest humiliation:

Matt : μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ, “will you be exalted to
heaven? You will be lowered to the abyss”; cf. Luke :.

In the expression πύλαι ᾅδου, “the gates of the abyss” (Matt 16:18, cf. Isa 38:10; Wis
16:13; 3Macc 5:51; Ps Sol 16:2), “the gates” are the most noble, busiest, and fortified
place of an ancient walled city. By means of metonymy they denote the city itself and
represent its hostile and belligerent power (cf. κατισχύσουσιν):

Matt : πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς, “the gates/the power of the abyss will
not defeat it [τὴν ἐκκλησίαν].”

§ 386. Sememe 2: Context can narrow the meaning of ᾅδης. In such a case it does not
refer to the dwelling of all the dead (just and unjust), but only of those who have
been unjust in their mortal lives. In such contexts, ᾅδης is used in opposition to a
place situated up high (ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, “he lifted his eyes,” Luke 16:23)
where certain individuals live after their earthly existence. The narrowing of this se-
meme affects the connoted subjects, which are only those who have been unjust (A)
in their mortal lives. Other details of the text, like the torment (Luke 16:23 – 25), do
not affect ᾅδης as a place. The semantic formula, therefore, is:

Ent + D R [Ent1 + Ev] + A

In the semic development, two elements change from sememe 1: the determination of
totality (D1) disappears, and an attribute is added to the collective [Ent1 + Ev].
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 253

Definition: “A lower (D) place (Ent) inhabited by (R) the dead (Ent1 + Ev) who have
been unjust (A) in their mortal lives”: abyss, hades.

Luke : ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, “lifting up his eyes from the
abyss”; cf. :.

It is possible that author of the Gospel of Luke does not consider Abraham and those
with him (Lazarus) as dead, but living.²
§ 387. Sememe 3: Grammatical structure is a contextual factor that affects ᾅδης, |119-P
which can be used as the subject and object of an activity. In such a case, ᾅδης is
personified and takes on the function of a proper name rather than a territory.
This implies that the formula’s configuration changes, since the name (D) and the
entity (Ent) are denoted. As in the lexical meaning, the collective of dead (Ev) indi-
viduals (Ent1) is connoted, which are seen as the possession of (R) Hades (D + Ent):

D + Ent R [Ent1 + Ev]

The following semes are changed in the semic development:

D designation Ent location R possession

nominality lowerness
personhood

Definition: “The name (D) of a lower place (Ent) that contains (R) the dead (Ent1 + Ev)
and is viewed as a personal being”: The Abyss.

Rev : καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἠκολούθει μετ’ αὐτοῦ, “and the Abyss followed him.”

When used alongside θάνατος, it is also personified:

Cor : ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ νῖκος, “where, Abyss, is your victory?” (v.l.).
Rev : ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἔδωκεν τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς, “Death and the Abyss
gave over the dead that were in them.”
Rev : ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός, “Death and the
Abyss were thrown into the lake of fire.”

§ 388. Summary of Sememes: ᾅδης, -ου, ὁ

 Cf. τὸν θεὸν ᾿Aβραάμ … θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν, “the God
of Abraham is not a God of the dead but of the living, since with him all are living” (Luke 20:37– 38).
254 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

1. “A lower place where all the dead live”: abyss, hades; cf. οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις
τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, “you will not abandon me to the abyss/to the place of
the dead” (Acts 2:17; cf. 2:31).
2. In a narrowed sense: “A lower place where those who have been unjust in
their mortal lives dwell after their death”: abyss, hades; cf. ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ἐπάρας τοὺς
ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, “looking up from the abyss” (Luke 16:23; cf. v. 24).
3. Personification: “A name for the lower place where the dead are located,
which is viewed as a personal being”: the Abyss; cf. καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἠκολούθει μετ’
αὐτοῦ, “and Hades followed him” (Rev 6:8). |120-P

10.3. ἄνεμος, -ου, ὁ

§ 389. In its unmarked contextual meaning, which functions as the lexical meaning,
ἄνεμος, “wind” (31 times in the New Testament) denotes an invisible material entity
(Ent) that is perceptible by its movement and effects (Ev). Its formula and develop-
ment are:

Ent + Ev

Ent materiality Ev dynamism

invisibility movement
perceptibility impulse

Definition: “Air (Ent) that moves and affects (Ev)”: wind.

The different contexts in which the lexeme is used cause diverse contextual mean-
ings. The contextual factors vary and shall be indicated in each sememe.
§ 390. Sememe 1: This contextual meaning functions as the lexical meaning. In the
passages in which it is used, ἄνεμος may or may not be accompanied by a qualifica-
tion.

1. Non-qualified:

Matt : ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι, “the floods came and the winds
blew”; cf. :. To describe the wind’s effects, context adds a characteristic
of intensity.
Matt : ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις, “he rebuked the winds”; cf. Mark :; Luke :.
Matt : καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι … αὐτῷ ὑποκούουσιν, “even the winds obey him”; cf. Mark
:.
Matt : κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; “a reed shaken by the wind?” cf. Luke
:.
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 255

Matt : βλέπων δὲ τὸν ἄνεμον ἐφοβήθη, “when he saw the wind, he was afraid.”
Matt : ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, “the wind ceased”; cf. Mark :; :.
Luke : καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει, “he gives orders even to the winds.”
Jude  νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι, “clouds without water that
are carried by the wind” (applied metaphorically to certain individuals).

2. Qualified: |121-P

Matt : ἦν γὰρ ἐναντίος ὁ ἄνεμος, “because the wind was contrary”; cf. Mark :,
Acts :.
Mark : γίνεται λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου, “a strong wind-storm came”; cf. Luke :.
John : ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο, “the sea became
choppy because a strong wind was blowing.”
Acts : μὴ προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου, “since the wind was against us.”
Acts : ἔβαλεν κατ’ αὐτῆς ἄνεμος τυφωνικός, “a tempestuous wind was launched
against it [sc. the boat]”; cf. :.
Jas : τὰ πλοῖα … ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν ἐλαυνόμενα, “boats driven by harsh
winds.”
Rev : ὡς συκῆ … ὑπὸ ἀνέμου μεγάλου σειομένη, “like a fig shaken by a strong
wind.”

§ 391. Sememe 2: In one passage, ἄνεμος is used in the plural in the expression “the
four winds.” Semantic number gives rise to this sememe. To distinguish the winds,
the connotation of a point of origin is added to the lexeme. The formula and
semic development are as follows:

Ent + Ev R Ent1

Ent materiality R origin

invisibility Ent1 location
perceptibility
Ev dynamism
movement
impulse

Definition: “Air (Ent) that moves and affects (Ev) and originates from (R) a specific
place (Ent1)”: wind.

Rev :a τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους … κρατοῦντας τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀνέμους τῆς γῆς, “to the
four angels who hold the four winds of the earth”; cf. :b.
256 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

§ 392. Sememe 3: In another passage, context affects ἄνεμος because of the |122-P prep-
osition ἐκ (relation of origin, [place] from where). This changes the configuration of
sememe 2, because the phrase οἱ τέσσαρες ἄνεμοι, “the four winds,” does not refer to
the four main winds but to their points of origin (the points on the compass). Meton-
ymy causes the “point of origin” to become denoted and dominant. Semantically, the
metonym is caused by a reconfiguration of the formula: the elements that were pre-
viously denoted become connoted and vice versa. In this case, the “point of origin”
(which was connoted in sememe 2 as Ent1) is now denoted and dominant (now Ent).
Moreover, it has a narrowed sense, since the detail about its extremity (D) on the face
of the earth (Ent1, new connotation) is added. “Wind,” which was denoted in se-
meme 2 (Ent + Ev), becomes connoted ([Ent2 + Ev]). The formula and development
are:

Ent1

Ent + D + R

R1 Ent2 + Ev

Ent location Ent1 extension (of earth)

D extremity R1 origin
R possession [Ent2 + Ev] wind

Definition: “An extreme (D) point (Ent) on (R) the surface of the earth (Ent1) from
which the wind ([Ent2 + Ev]) has its origin (R1)”: as an idiom: the four winds/the
four cardinal points.

Matt : ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, “they will
gather his elect from the four cardinal points/from the four winds”; cf. Mark
:.

§ 393. Sememe 4: Finally, ἄνεμος appears in a figurative or metaphorical sense. The

only thing linking this sense to the lexical meaning is the seme of “impulse,” which
is now expressed as “influence” and is the only denoted element. The figurative
sense changes the semantic formula in other ways. A metaphor arises by the sup-
pression or suspension of one or several semes in the development of the dominant
element in the formula. In this case, the seme of materiality disappears from the en-
tity (Ent). As a result, in the place of Ent there is an undetermined, polyvalent reality
(X), whose character will be clarified by context. |123-P Metonymy arises because the
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 257

element X becomes connoted (corresponding to the denoted Ent in the lexical mean-
ing), leaving the event (Ev) as the only denoted element. The seme of movement is no
longer present in the development. Only “impulse” remains, expressed now as “in-
fluence.” Thus, a different configuration of the formula produces a complex figure of
speech, which is both a metaphor (wind = influence/impulse, by removing the seme
of materiality) and a metonym. Additionally, a second connotation is noted, which
indicates the recipient of the impulse/influence as a human individual (R2 – Ent2).
The formula and semic development are thus:

R1 X

Ev

R2 Ent1

Ev dynamism R2 towardness
activity Ent1 individuality
impulse/influence humanity
R1 agentivity
X reality

Definition: “An impulse (Ev) that can affect (R1) something external (X) about (R2) an
individual (Ent1)”: influence, impulse, metaph. wind, gust.
In context, the undetermined reality (X) is identified as a doctrine that is semantical-
ly classified as a quasi-entity (Ent = Ev). The human individuals who are affected by
the influence are qualified as “immature” (νήπιοι, “infants,” “children”).

Eph : ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι … περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, “so
that we will no longer be children tossed around by every gust of doctrine.”

§ 394. Summary of Semes: ἄνεμος, -ου, ὁ

1. “Air that moves and affects”: wind; cf. κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; “a
reed shaken by the wind?” (Matt 11:7; cf. Luke 7:24).
2. In the idiom “the four winds,” semantic number produces the connotation
“point of origin,” i. e., one of the points on the compass: “Air that moves and affects,
proceeding from a specific place”: wind; cf. τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους … κρατοῦντας τοὺς
258 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

τέσσαρας ἀνέμους τῆς γῆς, “to the four angels who hold back the four winds of the
earth” (Rev 7:1a).
3. In the same phrase the preposition ἐκ produces a metonym, since the domi-
nant element is the place of |124-P the wind’s origin: “An extreme point on the face
of the earth where the wind originates”: the four winds, the four cardinal points; cf.
ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, “they will gather
his elect from the four cardinal points/from the four winds” (Matt 24:31; cf. Mark
13:27).
4. By metaphor coupled with metonymy, “An influence that can affect something
external about an individual”: influence, impulse, metaphorical, wind, gust; cf. περι-
φερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, “tossed around by every gust of doctrine”
(Eph 4:14).

10.4. αὐλή, -ῆς, ἡ

§ 395. The lexeme αὐλή (12 times in the New Testament) denotes an enclosure with-
out a roof encircled by walls or fences, normally a courtyard or atrium forming part
of a large building. Because it denotes an extension or an enclosure, the lexeme αὐλή
denotes an entity (Ent). It also denotes a relation (R) to a large building (Ent1), of
which it is a part.

Ent1

Ent + R

R1 Ev

Ent spatiality Ent1 building

extension R1 purpose
enclosure Ev activity
opening
R possession
integration

Definition: “An enclosed, uncovered space (Ent) that forms part of (R) a building
(Ent1) and is used for (R1) certain activities (Ev)”: courtyard, atrium.
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 259

The sememes of αὐλή result from the intended purpose of the αὐλή or its opposition
to the closed part of a building.
§ 396. Sememe 1: This contextual meaning of αὐλή functions as the lexical meaning.
It presupposes an uncovered space, viz. the αὐλή is in opposition to the covered por-
tion of a building. |125-P

Luke : περιαψάντων δὲ πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αὐλῆς, “when they had lit a fire in the
middle of the courtyard.”
Matt : ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἐκάθητο ἔξω ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, “Peter was seated outside in the
courtyard/atrium” (‘outside’ in relation to the palace where Jesus was;
cf. : – ).
Rev : τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν, “leave out the courtyard
(sc. the uncovered space) that is outside the sanctuary (sc. roofed space).”

§ 397. Sememe 2: Reunions were celebrated in the αὐλή and weapons or household
goods were stored there. A metonym is produced that applies the meaning of αὐλή to
the building of which it is part (part for the whole). The metonymy is reflected in the
formula by a change of configuration: the building that was previously connoted
now becomes denoted (i. e., Ent1 becomes Ent). The dependent or integrated court-
yard in it, which was previously denoted now becomes connoted (i. e., Ent + R be-
comes R1 – Ent1). The purpose is specified (R2), which is habitation or the celebration
of certain official events (Ev). The semantic formula will be:

Ent R1 Ent1

R2 Ev

Ent building R1 possession R2 purpose

coveredness integration Ev habitation
Ent1 spatiality activity
extension officiality
enclosure
opening

Definition: “A building (Ent) intended for (R2) habitation and/or for official acts (Ev),
whose perimeter consists of (R1) an enclosed, uncovered space (Ent1)”: palace, man-
sion.

Matt : τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς … εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “then the
chief priests were gathered in the palace of the high priest”; cf. :.
260 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

Mark :a ὁ Πέτρος ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ἕως ἔσω εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ
ἀρχιερέως, “Peter followed him at a distance to the interior of the high
priest’s palace.” Jesus enters the palace where the members of the San-
hedrin have gathered (:). Peter also enters the palace, but in fact stays
in the courtyard, seated with the servants and warming himself by the fire
(:b). |-P
Mark : οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστιν πραιτώριον, “the
soldiers led him to the interior of the palace, that is, to the praetorium.”
Jesus is in the exterior part with Pilate, who was speaking to the multitude
(: – ).
Luke :a ὅταν ὁ ἰσχθρός … φυλάσσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλὴν, “when the strong man guards
his palace/home” (i. e., the place where his possessions are kept, :b).
John : συνεισῆλθεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “he entered with Jesus
into the palace of the high priest.” Jesus is going to be questioned by Annas
(:).

§ 398. Sememe 3: In John 10:1, 16 (probably alluding to the temple courtyard) the fig-
urative sense of “fold” of sheep (also with a figurative sense) is used (the only use of
this sememe in the New Testament).³ In this case, the relation is not towards a build-
ing and the relation of purpose (R→Ev1: confinement) changes, as does the quality of
the subjects (Ent1, now metaphorical for animals) for whom the enclosure is intend-
ed. The semantic formula and semic development are thus:

Ent R1 Ev R2 Ent1

Ent spatiality R1 purpose

extension Ev confinement
enclosure R2 towardness
opening Ent1 collectivity
animality

Definition: “An enclosed place without a roof (Ent) used for (R1) confining (Ev) sheep
(Ent1)”: enclosure, fold. |127-P

 The term αὐλή is found in Homer (cf. Il. 5.138; Od. 14:5) with the meaning of “fold.” In later times
other terms were used for “fold,” including αὔλιον, ἔπαυλα, σηκός (also a temple courtyard), and
σταθμός. Beginning in Exod 27:9 ff. LXX, αὐλαί refers to one or several “courtyards,” “atriums” of
the tabernacle or temple; cf. Ps 28/29:2; 83/84:3, 11; 91/92:14, etc.; Jer 19:14; Ezek 8:16; cf. also
1Macc 9:54. The “courtyard/atrium of the guards” appears in Jer 39/32:2, which is specified as
being in the king’s palace; cf. 39/32:8, 12; 40/33:1.
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 261

John : ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τῶν προβάτων, “the one who
does not enter through the door into the sheepfold.”
John : ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης, “I have other sheep that
are not of this fold.”

§ 399. Summary of Sememes: αὐλή, -ῆς, ἡ

1. When the use requires an uncovered space in opposition to the roofed portion
of a building, it can be defined as “the enclosed, uncovered space that forms part of a
building”: courtyard, atrium; cf. περιαψάντων δὲ πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αὐλῆς, “having lit
a fire in the midst of the courtyard” (Luke 22:55); τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ,
“the courtyard/atrium that is outside the sanctuary” (Rev 11:2).
2. By metonymy, when the usage requires a covered space: “A building, part of
which includes an enclosed and uncovered space (i. e., a courtyard or atrium),
that is intended for habitation and/or for official acts”: palace, mansion; cf. τότε
συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς … εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “then the chief priests
were gathered in the palace of the high priest” (Matt 26:3; cf. 26:58).
3. Figuratively: “An enclosed and uncovered space used for holding sheep”: fold,
enclosure; cf. ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τῶν προβάτων, “the one
who does not enter the sheepfold through the door” (John 10:1).

10.5. Summary

In what follows, the lexemes that have just been examined are now briefly summar-
ized from the dictionaries of Zorell, BAA, and L&N. In this way, if the reader desires
he or she can compare the results of our analysis with these other dictionaries.

ἀγρός, -οῦ, ὁ

§ 400. Zorell begins with a marked contextual meaning that combines the meaning of
ownership and cultivation: (1) “field,” “ground,” “agricultural land” (campus,
arvum, ager) that someone owns; cf. Matt 13:24; 19:29; Mark 10:29; Acts 4:37. The sec-
ond contextual meaning is unmarked: (2) |128-P more generally, “ground,” “mead-
ows,” “fields” (arva, prata, campi); cf. Matt 6:28, 30; Luke 12:28 [Zorell puts the equiv-
alents in the plural, although in the three cited texts it is in the singular]⁴TN; (3)
“fields” (rus, agricultural land); cf. Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; 15:25; Mark 16:12. Finally,
Zorell considers the sense of habitation: (4) in the Synoptics, οἱ ἀγροί are “farms,”
“properties,” “villages” (praedia, villae, viculi); cf. Luke 9:12; Mark 5:14; 6:36, 56;
Luke 8:34.

 Translator’s Note: In the paragraphs that follow, Peláez inserts his comments and observations
within brackets.
262 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)

§ 401. BAA: (1) “field,” “land” (das Feld, das Land), in contrast to a city or village; cf.
Matt 24:18; Luke 17:31; Mark 13:16 [the cited passages would imply human labor]; (2)
in the plural it can mean “properties” or “villages”; cf. Mark 5:14; Luke 8:34; Mark
6:36, 56; Luke 9:12; (3) “agricultural land” (der Acker); cf. Matt 13:24, 27, 31; Luke
14:18; Acts 4:37; “soil” where plants grow; cf. Matt 6:28, 30 [this would be the
more general contextual meaning, without reference to the human labor; BAA
adds Matt 13:36 (“tares”), which should be integrated in the agricultural land]; οἱ
ἀγροί “plots of land” (die Ackerstücke), “farm property” (d. Grundbesitz); cf. Matt
19:29; Mark 10:29 f.; Luke 15:15.
§ 402. L&N: (a) (1.95) “land under cultivation or used for pasture”—field, land; cf.
Mark 13:16; (b) (1.87) “fields,” “rural area,” in contrast to centers of population; cf.
Mark 5:14 [the text presumes inhabitants]; (c) (1.93) “a relatively small village, possi-
bly merely a cluster of farms”: farm settlement, hamlet; cf. Mark 6:56. [The authors do
not discuss the unmarked meaning of “field” without relation to human activity or
habitation; Matt 6:28, 30].

ᾅδης, -ου, ὁ

§ 403. Zorell defines ᾅδης in the following manner: “In the New Testament, the
dwelling of the dead before the resurrection of Christ”; cf. Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31.
Christ has the keys of death and of hades; cf. Rev 1:18; 20:13, 1Cor 15:55 v.l. πύλαι
ᾅδου that will not prevail against the church; cf. Matt 16:18; also in Rev 6:8 because
in Rev 20:14 it will be hurled into the lake of fire. Hades is viewed as the deepest/low-
est part, thus metaphorically in Matt 11:23 for supreme humiliation.
§ 404. BAA offers “Hades,” “the netherworld” as translational equivalents and iden-
tifies two contextual meanings: (1) place of the dead; cf. Acts 2:27, 31 (cf. Ps 15:10);
opposite to heaven; cf. Matt 11:23; Luke 10:15 (cf. Isa 14:11, 15). Accessible by
means of gates, hence “the gates of Hades”; cf. Matt 16:18 (cf. Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13;
3Macc 5:51; Ps Sol 16:2); closed Rev 1:18 [the authors do not account for the change
in meaning in Luke 16:23]; (2) personified, together with θάνατος; cf. (Isa 28:15; Job
38:17), Rev 6:8; 20:13 f.; 1Cor 15:55 v.l. |129-P
§ 405. L&N defines ᾅδης as: (1.19) (a) “a place or abode of the dead, including both
the righteous and the unrighteous”: the world of the dead, Hades; Acts 2:31. In Luke
16:23, torment and punishment are implied [L&N does not indicate the narrower
meaning]; (23.108) (b) personification for the place of the dead, “the power of
death”; cf. 1Cor 15:55 (apparatus θάνατε) [L&N cites the dubious text in 1Cor instead
of those in Rev]; (12.50) πύλαι ᾅδου, death as an impersonal and supernatural power,
“the gates of Hades will not prevail against her” or “death will not be able to conquer
it”; cf. Matt 16:18.

ἄνεμος, -ου, ὁ
 Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN 263

§ 406. Zorell identifies three meanings: (1) wind; cf. Matt 11:7; Luke 7:24; above all, a
strong and tempestuous wind; cf. e. g., Matt 7:25, 27; the four winds; cf. Rev 7:1 (Jer
49:36 / 25:35 LXX; Dan 7:2); (2) area in the sky (plaga coeli); “from the four
winds,” from the four zones, that is, from all parts of the earth; cf. Matt 24:31;
Mark 13:27 [Zorell indicates neither the contextual factor nor metonymy]; (3) meta-
phor; something inconsistent, vain, or futile, Eph 4:14 [without explanation, Zorell
considers τῆς διδασκαλίας an epexegetical genitive].
§ 407. BAA identifies a literal and a figurative sense: (1) When used literally, (a) the
wind itself; cf. e. g., Rev 7:1; Matt 11:7; Luke 7:24; gust of wind; cf. Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23;
Matt 7:25, 27; 8:26 – 27; Acts 27:4; the four winds of the earth; cf. Rev 7:1; (b) “the four
winds” can also be the four directions of the wind or of the sky; cf. Matt 24:31; Mark
13:27 [BAA does not mention the preposition ἐκ as a contextual factor, nor metony-
my]; (2) Fig. (cf. 4Macc 15:32) of spiritual fads or trends, Eph 4:14 (translated Luftzug
der Lehre).
§ 408. In the same section as ἄνεμος, πνεῦμα, πνοή and πνέω (14.4), L&N gives the same
definition for nouns and verbs, namely “air in relatively rapid movement, but without
specification as to the force of the movement”: wind, blowing, to blow. For ἄνεμος
L&N only cites one text (Rev 7:1). Additionally, if the biblical index is consulted, one
finds the expression “from the four winds” in 60.13 (under τέσσαρες, “four”) and the fig-
urative sense of Eph 4:14 in 16.12 (under κλυδωνίζομαι, “to be tossed by the waves”).

αὐλή, -ῆς, ἡ

§ 409. Zorell: (1) a place that is not covered: “courtyard,” (a) “fold”; cf. John 10:1, 16
[Zorell puts the term’s rarest usage first]; (b) a courtyard of a large building: outer
court of the temple; cf. Rev 11:2 (Exod 27:9), of the palace of the |130-P high priest;
cf. e. g., Matt 26:69; Mark 14:66; (2) palace, thus probably Matt 26:3, 58; Mark
14:54; Luke 11:21.
§ 410. BAA: (1) “courtyard,” an uncovered and enclosed place in a house; cf. e. g.,
Matt 26:58, 60 [this has to do with the courtyard or atrium of the high priest’s palace].
This courtyard also serves as a fold for sheep; cf. John 10:1, 16 [it does not seem log-
ical to place “fold” in the same contextual meaning as the previous “atrium”]; (2)
“mansion” (Gehöft); cf. Luke 11:21; (3) “atrium” of the temple; cf. Rev 11:2; (4) “pal-
ace” of officials; cf. Matt 26:3; Mark 15:16 [it seems unnecessary to distinguish be-
tween contextual meanings 2 and 4].
§ 411. L&N: (7.56) (a) “a walled enclosure either to enclose human activity or to pro-
tect livestock”: courtyard, sheepfold; cf. Rev 11:2; John 10:16 [the result is somewhat
convoluted, since in the same example the authors mention the “atrium or court-
yard” of the temple and then the “sheepfold”]; (7.6) (b) “any dwelling having an in-
terior courtyard (often a relatively elaborate structure)”: dwelling, palace, mansion; in
the palace of the high priest; cf. Matt 26:3; “of the strong man”; cf. Luke 11:21 [L&N
does not distinguish between passages in which αὐλή refers to the palace of the high
priest or specifically to the courtyard]. |131–32-P
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of
Lexemes with Similar Definitions¹TN
§ 412. Having shown that context gives rise to a lexeme’s sememes, we shall now an-
alyze terms with similar meanings that seem to be—and sometimes really are—syn-
onyms. This will give us the opportunity to verify the accuracy of our proposed meth-
od of analysis. For each of the terms that we analyze, the lexical meaning is
established by composing a definition and by providing translational equivalents
as well. We then show how different semes, which lead to new definitions, are caused
by the influence of context. This chapter culminates in the formulation of summaries
that function as snap-shots of future entries in DGENT. These summaries assemble
the results of the analysis in an abbreviated form. In this way, the reader can appre-
ciate the shared and distinct features of the various terms. The terms we consider in
this chapter consist of δῆμος (cf. §§ 413 – 415), λαός (cf. §§ 416 – 420), ἔθνος
(cf. §§ 425 – 430), φυλή (cf. §§ 421– 424)²TN, and πατριά (cf. § 431).

(1.) δῆμος, -ου, ὁ

§ 413. Because it refers to a human collective, δῆμος denotes an entity (Ent). The se-
mantic formula of the lexeme denotes all of (D) the citizens (Ent) (but not the inhab-
itants, since slaves are excluded) and its connection to (R) a territory (Ent1), which is
connoted:

[Ent + D] + R Ent1

Ent collectivity R connection

humanity Ent1 location
citizenship
D numerosity
totality

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 133 – 58 in the original text of Peláez.
 Translator’s Note: There seems to be confusion on Peláez’s part, since ἔθνος precedes φυλή
here, but in the discussion below, he discusses φυλή and then ἔθνος, while in his summary of his
section he reverts to the order listed here.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-017
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 265

In its unmarked contextual meaning, the term δῆμος (four times in the New Testa-
ment, always in the Acts) can be defined as “a group of citizens (Ent + D) from
(R) a territory (Ent1)”: populace, people. |133-P Although in the New Testament,
δῆμος always comes into view as the gathered populace (a contextual factor that ex-
cludes totality), two sememes can be identified. In the first (Acts 12:22), δῆμος is a
multitude of the populace from Tyre and Sidon that hails King Herod. In the second
sememe (Acts 17:5; 19:30, 33), δῆμος has the role of a collective actor/entity, namely,
as an institutional assembly that must make a decision.
§ 414. Sememe 1: δῆμος as a crowd of people who are citizens. In the semantic for-
mula of this sememe, the contextual element of a common location (R′) is added:

[Ent + D] + R + R Ent1

Two new features appear in the formula’s semic development, namely, the changed
content of the determination (D, “partiality” instead of “totality”) and the semes cor-
responding to the common location (R′):

D numerosity R location
partiality simultaneousness

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of citizens (Ent) from (R) a common (R′) place
(Ent1)”: people who are citizens.

Acts : ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει, “and the people were shouting (out).”

§ 415. Sememe 2: In the remainder of Acts, δῆμος refers to a gathered crowd with the
concrete purpose of deliberating about something. The formula thus adds an event of
deliberation (Ev) and its official character. It acquires a new connotation, namely, the
subjects (Ent2) about whom (R′) the others must deliberate and make a decision: |134-P

Ent1

[Ent + D] + R + R + Ev

R1 Ent2
266 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

The semic development contains the semes of R′ (simultaneousness, as in sememe 1)

and also those of the activity (Ev) and of the individuals (Ent2) that are affected (R1):

D numerosity R1 affectation
partiality Ent2 individuality/plurality
R location humanity
simultaneousness
Ev activity
officiality
deliberation
decision

Definition: “A numerous group of citizens (Ent + D) from (R) a place (Ent1), gathered
(R′) to make an official decision (Ev) about (R1) other people (Ent2)”: assembly of citi-
zens.

Acts : ἐζήτουν αὐτοὺς προαγαγεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “they intended to bring them
before the assembly.”
Acts : εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “to enter the assembly” (i. e., the ἐκκλησία in
:).
Acts : ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ, “he wanted to make his defense before the
assembly.”

(2.) λαός, -οῦ, ὁ

§ 416. The term λαός (142 times in the New Testament) appears with different contex-
tual meanings. In its unmarked meaning, λαός is always applied to specific human
collectives. The denoted elements include the human collective (Ent), specified as an
organized (Ev) numerous totality (D), related by (R) a past that gives it a historical
identity and connected to (R′) a (connoted) territory (Ent1):

[Ent + D] + Ev + R + R Ent1

Ent collectivity R identity

humanity R connection
D numerosity Ent1 territory
totality
Ev organization
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 267

Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) human collective (Ent) with a histor-
ical identity (R) and a connection to (R′) a territory (Ent1)”: people. |135-P
Context sometimes modifies and narrows the semantic content of λαός. The follow-
ing sememes are noted:
§ 417. Sememe 1 (specified above): With the totalizer πᾶς or specified in the plural: all
peoples/[the] peoples.

Luke : κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν, “in the sight of all the peoples.”
Rom : ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί, “let all the peoples praise him”; cf. Ps
/:b.
Rev : ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, lan-
guage, people, and nation”; cf. :; :; :; :; :.
Rev : ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all]
peoples, tribes, languages, and nations.”

§ 418. Sememe 2: In the singular, λαός is applied exclusively to the Jewish people.
Contextually, the connection does not solely refer to their territory but also to their
religious belief. The formula is identical to that of sememe 1. New semes, however,
appear in the development that correspond to the double connection:

Ent1 territory
religion
Judaism

Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) human collective (Ent) with a histor-
ic identity (R) and connected to (R′) the land of the Jews and their religion (Ent1)”:
[the Jewish] people.

Matt : ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει, “the people who were sitting in darkness”;
cf. Mark :; Luke :; :; John :. |-P
Matt : θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “healing every
sickness and every disease among the people.”
Matt : ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, “for this people’s heart has been
made dull”; cf. (Isa :); Matt :; Mark : (Isa :).
Luke : χαρὰν μεγάλην … παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, “a great joy for all the people”; cf. Acts :;
:; Heb : (twice).
Luke : ἔσται γὰρ … ὀργὴ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, “for there will be wrath for this people.”
Luke : ἀνασείει τὸν λαόν, “he stirs up the people”; cf. :.
Luke : ἐναντίον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, “before God and all the people.”
John : ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ, “that one man might die for the
people”; cf. :.
Acts : ἔχοντες χάριν πρὸς ὅλον τὸν λαόν, “enjoying the goodwill of all the people.”
Acts : πᾶσα ψυχή … ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ, “every individual will be de-
stroyed from the people”; cf. Deut :.
268 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

Acts : γνωστὸν ἔστω … παντὶ τῷ λαῷ Ἰσραήλ, “let it be known to all the people of
Israel.”
Acts : λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ (v.l. λαὸς Ἰ.), “people(s) of Israel” (because of the allusion to Ps
: in :, the plural refers to Israel).
Acts : ἐγίνετο σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πολλὰ ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “many signs and wonders were
occurring in the midst of the people”; cf. :; :.
Acts : ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς τῷ λαῷ, “giving many generous gifts to the
people.”
Acts : παρέγγειλεν ἡμῖν κηρύξαι τῷ λαῷ, “he commanded us to preach to the
people”; cf. :; :.
Acts : ἐκ … πάσης τῆς προσδοκίας τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “from all that the Jewish
people were expecting.”
Acts : μάρτυρες αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν λαόν, “his witnesses before the people”; cf. :
(Isa :); : (Isa :).
Acts : ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου … διδάσκων, “the one teaching against the
people and the law.”
Acts : οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ποιήσας τῷ λαῷ, “without having done anything against the
people.”
Rom : ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα, “I extended my hands to a
disobedient people.”
Cor : ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, “I will speak to this people in a
foreign language” (lit. with lips of foreigners; cf. Isa :).
Heb : ὀφείλει, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν,
|-P “he is required to offer [sacrifices], both for his own sins and also for
the people”; cf. :; :.
Heb : ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, “to collect a tithe from the people
according to the law”; cf. :.

1. The mention of leaders indicates the hierarchical organization of the people:

Matt : συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, “gathering all
the chief priests and scribes of the people.”
Matt : οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ, “the elders of the people”; cf. :.
Matt : ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ, “from the chief priests and
elders of the people”; cf. :.
Luke : οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ, “the leaders of the people.”
Luke : τὸ πρεσβυτήριον τοῦ λαοῦ, “the council of the elders of the people.”
Acts : ἄρχοντες τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ πρεσβύτεροι, “rulers of the people and elders”;
cf. :.
Acts : ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς, “you will not speak badly about a
leader of your people”; cf. Exod :.

2. Contrasted with [τὰ] ἔθνη, the Gentile nations:

Acts : ἐξαιρούμενος σε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “rescuing you from your
people and from the nations/Gentiles.”
Acts : φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim a
light both for the people and for the nations.”
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 269

Rom : εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “be glad, nations, with his people”;
cf. Deut : LXX.

3. Recalling events that belong to the history of the people shows their identity or a
length of time:

Acts : ηὔξησεν ὁ λαὸς καὶ ἐπληθύνθη ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, “the people increased and
multiplied in Egypt”; cf. :.
Acts :a ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου Ἰσραὴλ ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν, “the God of
this people Israel chose our fathers”; cf. :b.
Cor : ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν, “the people sat down to eat and drink”; cf.
Exod :.
Pet : ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “but false prophets also arose
among the people.”
Jude  Κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, “the Lord, having once and for all
brought (lit. saved) the people from Egypt.” |-P

4. Israel as the people of God:

Matt : ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ, “who will shepherd my people Is-
rael.”
Luke : δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ, “glory of your people Israel.”
Luke : ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “God has visited his people.”
Rom : μὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; “has God rejected his people?” cf. Ps
/:; Rom :.
Heb : συγκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “to be mistreated with the people of
God.”

5. Israel as the focus of messianic salvation (including the future Christian commun-
ity):

Matt : αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, “because he will
save his people from their sins.”
Luke : ἑτοιμάσαι Κυρίῳ λαὸν κατασκευασμένον, “to make ready for the Lord a
people well-prepared.”
Luke : ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, “he has redeemed his people”; cf. :.
Heb : ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεὸν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονται μοι εἰς λαόν, “I will be their God
and they will be my people”; cf. Jer :.
Heb : Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαόν, “Jesus, to consecrate the
people with his own blood.”

§ 419. Sememe 3: Within the Jewish λαός, there are particular cases in which, in op-
position to the leading class, the term designates the rest of the people. The formula
is the same as sememe 2, but two semes are added to the determination (D), namely,
“partialness” in opposition to the totality of the people, and “non-authority” in op-
position to the leading class:
270 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

D numerosity
partiality
non-authority

The definition can be simplified in this manner: “A numerous (D) part of the Jewish
people (Ent + R + Ent1) without a leadership role (D)”: people, mass/multitude of the
people.

1. The people viewed as a whole:

Matt : θόρυβος ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “a tumult among the people”; cf. Mark :; Heb :.
|-P
Matt : συγκαλεσάμενος τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τὸν λαόν, “calling the
chief priest, the leaders, and the people.”

2. The people gathered in the temple or synagogue:

Luke : πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ προσευχόμενον ἔξω, “the whole crowd of people
were praying outside [of the sanctuary]”; cf. :; Acts :.
Luke : ἤρξατο δὲ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγειν, “he began to speak to the people.”
Luke : ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, “they feared the people”; cf. :.
Luke : ἐναντίον τοῦ λαοῦ, “before the people”; cf. :.
Luke : ἀκούοντος δὲ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, “while all the people were listening.”
Acts : εἶδεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα, “all the people saw him walking”;
cf. : – .
Acts : λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν λαόν, “while they were speaking to the
people”; cf. :, , ; :,  – .
Acts : λόγος παρακλήσεως πρὸς τὸν λαόν, “a word of exhortation for the people”;
cf. :.

3. The people gathered around a particular person:

Luke : προσδοκοῦντος δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ, “while the people were awaiting [Zacharias’s
exit]”; cf. :, .
Matt : πᾶς ὁ λαὸς εἶπεν, “all the people said”; cf. :.
Luke : πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ, “a huge multitude of people [around Jesus]”; cf. :;
:.
Luke : πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας, “when all the people heard”; cf. :; :; :
(ἅπας).
Luke : εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, “for all these people.”
Luke : εἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν, “the people stood there watching [the crucifixion
of Jesus].”
Acts : Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος … ἀπέστησεν λαὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, “Judas the Galilean
drew people after him.”
Acts : ἐγένετο συνδρομὴ τοῦ λαοῦ, “there was a tumult of people.”
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 271

Acts : ὁ Παῦλος … κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ τῷ λαῷ, “Paul signaled with his hand to the
people.”

§ 420. Sememe 4: When context refers to followers of Christ, various semes of λαός
are omitted, |140-P such as historic identity, organization, and connection to a territory.
Only the religious connection remains. As a result, the semantic formula is simplified
and denotes solely the numerous (D) collective (Ent) and its connection (R). The ob-
ject of the connection—the Christian faith—becomes connoted (Ent1):

[Ent + D] + R [Ent1 = Ev]

Ent humanity R connection

collectivity Ent1 = Ev religion
D numerosity Christianity
totality/partiality

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of individuals (Ent) who adhere to (R) Christianity
(Ent1)”: [Christian] people.

1. Christians coming from Gentile backgrounds:

Acts : ὁ Θεὸς ἐπεσκέψατο λαβεῖν ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, “God saw fit to
take a people for himself (lit. for his name) from among the Gentiles.”
Acts : διότι λαός ἐστίν μοι πολὺς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ, “because many of my people
are in this city.”
Rom : καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου, “I will call those who were not my people
my people/I will call the ‘not-my-people’ my people”; cf. Hos :; :;
Rom :; Pet :.

2. The totality of Christians. Some of these texts, inspired by Old Testament passages,
apply to Christians expressions that had been attributed to the Jewish people:

Cor : ἔσομαι αὐτῶν Θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός, “I will be their God and they
will be my people”; cf. Lev :.
Tit : λαὸν περιούσιον, “a chosen people”; cf. Exod :; :.
Heb : τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, “the sins of the people”; cf. :.
Heb : ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “there remains a Sabbath-rest
for the people of God”; cf. Ps /:.
Heb : κρινεῖ Κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “the Lord will judge his people”; cf. Deut
:; Ps /:.
Pet : λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, “a people purchased (sc. by God)”; cf. Mal :; Isa
:. |-P
272 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

Rev : ἐξέλθατε ὁ λαός μου ἐξ αὐτῆς, “my people, come out from her [Babylon]”;
cf. Isa :.
Rev : αὐτοὶ λαὸς αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, “they will be his people”; cf. Ezek :.

(3.) φυλή, -ῆς, ἡ

§ 421. As an unmarked term, φυλή (31 times in the New Testament) is applied in a
broad sense to organized human collectives who descend from a common ancestor.
In the semantic formula the following elements are denoted: the human collective
(Ent) specified as numerous (D), the event of organization (Ev) and its relation of de-
scent (R) from a common progenitor (Ent1), which is connoted.

[Ent + D] + Ev + R Ent1

Ent collectivity R descent

humanity Ent1 individuality
D numerosity humanity
Ev organization

Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) collective of individuals (Ent) who
descend from (R) a common ancestor (Ent1)”: tribe.
§ 422. Sememe 1 (depicted above):

Matt : κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn”; cf.
Rev :.
Rev : ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, lan-
guage, people, and nation”; cf. Rev :; :, .
Rev : ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all]
peoples, tribes, languages, and nations.” |-P

§ 423. Sememe 2: In other contexts, the explicit identification of the parent or the
mention of Israel limits the denotation of φυλή to particular collectives, namely to
specific Jewish people. For the Jewish people, a tribe is not an independent entity
but rather part of a larger group of Jewish people. As a result, the formula contains
new elements, including the determination (D1) of the parent and the relation (R′) to
a group of people (Ent2, connoted), also named (D2):
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 273

[Ent1 + D1]

[Ent + D] + Ev + R + R

[Ent2 + D2]

Ent collectivity Ent1 individuality

humanity humanity
D numerosity paternality
Ev organization D1 identity (Asher, Benjamin)
R connection Ent2 collectivity
descent humanity
R integration totality
D2 identity
(people of Israel: twelve tribes)

Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) group of individuals (Ent) who de-
scend from a common (R), named (D1) parent (Ent1) that is part of (R′) the people
(Ent) of Israel (D2)”: tribe.

Luke : ἐκ φυλῆς A ᾿ σήρ, “from the tribe of Asher”; cf. Heb :, .
Acts : ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, “from the tribe of Benjamin”; cf. Rom :; Phil :.
Matt : κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, “to judge the twelve tribes of Is-
rael.”
Rev : ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, “from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (a list
of the tribes follows).

§ 424. The expression αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί, “the twelve tribes,” which refers to the total-
ity of Israelites, is used metaphorically to refer to the group of Christians viewed as
the New Israel. The traits of the Jewish tribes disappear, including the |143-P organiza-
tion and the descent from a common ancestor. The figurative use changes several el-
ements of the formula from sememe 2, including the organization (Ev), the relation of
descent (R), and as a result the connotation of a common ancestor (Ent1 + D1). Log-
ically, no tribe in particular is considered, but only the group as a whole. As a result,
the denoted elements in the formula include the plural human collective (Ent) deter-
mined as numerous (D) and in a relation of identity (R) with the universal Christian
community (Ent1 + D).
274 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

Ent collectivity Ent1 collectivity

humanity humanity
plurality Christianity
D numerosity D1 totality
R identity unity

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of Christians (Ent) who together constitute (R) the
New Israel (Ent1 + D1)”: the twelve tribes.

Jas : ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, “to the twelve tribes who are living
dispersed.”

(4.) ἔθνος, -ους, τό

§ 425. In its most common contextual meaning, the term ἔθνος (162 times in the New
Testament) refers to a human collective with the characteristic of race (Ent) and de-
termined as a numerous totality (D). The denoted elements include organization (Ev)
and the relation of connection to (R) a territory (Ent1), which is connoted. This struc-
ture can be expressed by the following formula and semic development:

[Ent + D] + Ev + R Ent1

Ent collectivity Ev organization

humanity sociality
ethnicity politicality
D totality R connection
numerosity Ent1 territory

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of |144-P individuals of the same race (Ent) that is
socially and politically organized (Ev) and connected to (R) a territory (Ent1)”: nation,
an ethnic group; in the plural, nations, peoples.
Context can influence this lexeme in various ways by presenting ἔθνος as a socio-po-
litical collective or by adding a seme pertaining to religion. The seme of collectivity
can be specified as a group of individuals that have a certain religious affiliation. In
that case, the notion of socio-political organization is omitted.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 275

§ 426. Sememe 1 (depicted above): According to context, one or another of the as-
pects contained in the definition is emphasized. When the ethnicity of the particular
human collective is highlighted, it can be translated as “nation/people”:
1. Nation or nations in particular:

Matt : δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς, “it will be given to a nation/
people³TN that will produce its fruits [those of the kingdom of God].”
Matt : ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος, “because nation will rise against nation”;
cf. Mark :; Luke :.
Luke : ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, “because he loves our nation.”
Luke : τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, “we have found this man
subverting our nation.”
John : ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος, “our place [the temple] and our nation.”
John : μὴ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται, “so that the whole nation will not be de-
stroyed”; cf. : – .
Acts : τὸ ἔθνος ᾧ ἂν δουλεύσουσιν κρινῶ ἐγώ, “I will judge the nation they serve
as slaves”; cf. Gen :.
Acts : τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας, “the people of Samaria.”
Acts : μαρτυρούμενος ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “well-spoken of by the
entire Jewish nation.”
Acts : καθελὼν ἔθνη ἑπτὰ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν, “after destroying seven nations in the
land of Canaan.”
Acts : διορθωμάτων γενομένων τῷ ἔθνει τοῦτῳ, “the improvements made for this
nation”; cf. :.
Acts : ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων εἰς τὸ ἔθνος μου, “to bring gifts to my nation”;
cf. :. |-P
Rom : ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to have
some fruit among you, as among the rest of the nations” (the territorial
aspect is predominant).
Rom : πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, “I have appointed you to be the father of
many nations/peoples”; cf. Gen :; Rom : (human collectives are
highlighted).
Rom : ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπ’ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπ’ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς, “I
will move you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will make you
angry with a foolish nation”; cf. Deut :.
Rev : δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσι
πολλοῖς, “you must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, lan-
guages, and kings.”
Rev : τὰ ὕδατα … λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι, “the waters are
peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages.”

2. The mention of the priests emphasizes a seme of organization:

John : τὸ ἔθνος τὸ σὸν καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς παρέδωκάν σε ἐμοί, “your own nation/
people and the chief priests have given you to me.”

 Translator’s Note: The alternate of “nation/people” is suggested in the original Spanish, but
only in this first example.
276 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

3. Nations in a broad sense. When context neither adds a seme nor establishes an
opposition that limits the meaning (i. e., in the plural with the article or with the to-
talizer πᾶς), ἔθνος denotes the group of collectives that constitute the human race:

Acts : ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, “pious men from
every nation under heaven.”
Acts : ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει, “in every/each nation.”
Acts : πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, “every/each nation of people/humans.”
Gal :b ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “through you every nation will be
blessed”; cf. Gen :.
Rev : ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, lan-
guage, people, and nation”; cf. Rev :; :.
Rev : ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all]
peoples, tribes, languages, and nations.”
Rev : τὰ ἔθνη ὀργίσθησαν, “the nations raged.”
Rev : πεπότικεν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “she made all the nations drink”; cf. :.
Rev : ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the king of the nations.”
Rev : πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἥξουσιν, “all the nations will come”; cf. :.
Rev : ἐν τῇ φαρμακείᾳ σου ἐπλανήθησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “by your witchcraft all
the nations have been deceived”; cf. :, .
Rev : ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη, “in order to strike down the nations with it [the
scepter]”; cf. :, . |-P
Rev : περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς, “the nations will walk by its
(sc. the city’s) light.”
Rev : εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “for the healing of the nations.”

§ 427. Sememe 2: Normally determined in the plural, in opposition to the Jewish peo-
ple or used in the technical sense of τὰ ἔθνη in the Old Testament,⁴ the term often
refers to the nations that do not profess the Jewish religion. The denoted connection
(R) connotes a territory (Ent1) as well as a Gentile religion (Ent2). The religion or
group of doctrines is really a quasi-entity, viz. an event that is viewed as an entity
because of its permanence and validity (Ent2 = Ev1).

Ent1

[Ent + D] + Ev + R

[Ent2 = Ev1]

 “The nations” (τὰ ἔθνη) is a terminus technicus in the Old Testament for the pagan peoples (cf. e. g.,
Isa 2:2; 45:1; 66:19 f.; Ps 2:1– 8; 18/17:50; 46/45:7); it is used for the Hebrew goyim.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 277

Variants in the semic development include:

Ent collectivity Ent2 = Ev1 religion

humanity Gentile
ethnicity
plurality

Definition: “A numerous (D) group of human collectives characterized by race (Ent),

socially and politically organized (Ev) and connected to (R) a specific territory (Ent1)
and to a Gentile religion (Ent2 = Ev1)”: the Gentile nations, the Gentile world.
1. In direct opposition to the (Jewish) people, “the (non-Jewish) nations”:

Luke :a φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν, “light for revelation to the nations” (contrasted
with Israel, :b); cf. Acts :; :.
Acts : εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “be glad, nations, with his people”;
cf. Deut : LXX.
Acts : ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “from the people and from the nations.”
Acts : φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim a
light both for the people and for the nations.” |-P

2. According to the technical sense of τὰ ἔθνη in the Old Testament, “the pagan peo-
ple”:

Matt : κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ, “he will announce judgment to the nations”;
cf. Isa :; Acts :.
Matt : τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, “the nations will hope in his name/in
him”; cf. Isa :; Rom :b.
Matt : ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν, “you will be hated by every
nation” (in relation to the universal mission of the disciples).
Matt : συναχθήσονται ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “all the nations will be
gathered before him.”⁵
Matt : μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “make disciples [of] all nations” (universal
mission).
Mark : οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “[the Jewish temple] will be
called ‘house of prayer for all nations’”; cf. Isa :.
Mark : εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “the gospel must
be proclaimed to every nation first”; cf. Matt :; Luke :; Tim :;
Tim :.
Luke :a αἰχμαλωτιθήσονται εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “they will be led captive to all the
nations”; cf. :b–c.
Luke : ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν, “on earth anguish of the nations/peoples.”

 The judgment of the (Gentile) nations was a common theme in the prophetic literature and was
frequently expressed in the form of destructive punishment; cf. e. g., Isa 13; 14:5 – 30; 15:1– 9; 16:13 –
14; 17:1– 6; 19:1– 13; 21; 23:1– 14; 25:9 – 12; Jer 25:25 – 38; 46 – 51; Ezek 25 – 32; Amos 1:3 – 2:3.
278 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

Acts : ἱνατί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη; “why were the nations in uproar?” cf. Ps :.
Acts : ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει τῶν ἐθνῶν, “[they brought the tabernacle] into Gentile
territory.”
Acts : ὅς … εἴασεν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πορεύεσθαι, “he allowed all the nations to follow
their own ways.”
Acts : πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ’ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομα μου ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, “all the nations
upon whom my name has already been called/that already bear my name”;
cf. Amos :.
Rom : εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to [prompt] obedience of faith
among all the nations”; cf. :; Gal :; :, , ; Eph :; Col :.
Rom :b ἐξομολογήσομαι σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν, “I will praise you/give you thanks among
the nations.”
Rev : δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “I will give him authority over the na-
tions”; cf. :; :. |-P
Rev : αἱ πόλεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔπεσαν, “the cities of the nations collapsed.”

3. The mention of authorities indicates a kind of socio-political organization:

Matt : οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the leaders of the nations”; cf. Mark :; Luke
:; Rom :a.

§ 428. Sememe 3: When [τὰ] ἔθνη (plural) is used in opposition to “[the] Jews” (also
plural) or is the subject, recipient, or collective witness of conduct or action (contex-
tual factors), it normally refers to “[the] Gentiles” as a group of individuals (i. e., as a
distinct plurality or totality, equivalent to οἱ ἐθνικοί, cf. Matt 5:47). The semes of or-
ganization and connection to a territory are omitted, and religion is the only high-
lighted seme. The formula is thus simplified. Only the religious (Ent1 = Ev) connec-
tion (R) remains:

[Ent + D] + R [Ent1 = Ev]

Changes in the semic development correspond to the omission of semes that have
been mentioned.
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of individuals (Ent) who profess (R) a Gentile re-
ligion (Ent1 = Ev)”: [the] Gentiles.

Matt : Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, “pagan Galilee” (because of its mixed population).
Matt : ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν, “because the Gentiles strive for all
these things.”
Matt : εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε, “do not go the way of [the] Gentiles” (in
contrast to πόλις Σαμαριτῶν and to υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ).
Matt : εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “as a testimony to them and the
Gentiles.”
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 279

Matt : παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “they will hand him over to the Gen-
tiles”; cf. Mark :; Luke :; Acts :.
Acts : ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ, “before Gentiles and kings
and the sons of Israel.”
Acts : καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἐκκέχυται, “the gift of the
Holy Spirit is also poured out on the Gentiles”; cf. :, .
Acts : ἰδοὺ στρεφόμεθα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, “thus, we will turn to the Gentiles”; cf. :;
:. |-P
Acts : ἐκάκωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, “embittering the minds
of the Gentiles against the brothers.”
Acts : ὡς ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων … ὑβρίσαι, “a plot arose from
Gentiles and Jews to use violence.”
Acts : ὅτι ἤνοιξεν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν θύραν πίστεως, “because he (sc. God) opened a
door of faith for the Gentiles.”
Acts : τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν τὼν ἐθνῶν, “the conversion of the Gentiles”; cf. :, ,
.
Acts : λαβεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, “to take a people for his name
from among the Gentiles.”
Acts : τοῖς κατὰ τὴν A᾿ ντιόχειαν … ἀδελφοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “to the brothers in An-
tioch coming from a Gentile background (lit. from the Gentiles).”
Acts : ὧν ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “that which God has done among the
Gentiles.”
Acts : ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως τοὺς κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη πάντας Ἰουδαίους,
“you teach all the Jews [who live] among the Gentiles to renounce Moses.”
Rom : ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, “because when the Gentiles, who do not
have the law.”
Rom : τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ δι’ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because of
you the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles”; cf. Isa :.
Rom : ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ Θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; “Or is God the God of the Jews
only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too?”
Rom : οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, “not only from among the Jews,
but also from among the Gentiles.”
Rom : ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην, “the Gentiles, who were not seeking
righteousness.”
Rom : τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because of their stumbling,
salvation [has passed] to the Gentiles”; cf. :, .
Rom :a τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν Θεόν, “and that the Gentiles might
glorify God for his mercy” (opp. to the Jews, cf. :).
Rom :a λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, “a servant of the Messiah Jesus to
the Gentiles”; cf. :b, .
Rom : εἰ γὰρ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς αὐτῶν ἐκοινώνησαν τὰ ἔθνη, “for if the Gentiles
have shared in their spiritual [blessings].”
Cor : Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν, “a stumbling block for the
Jews and foolishness for the Gentiles.”
Cor : ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “such a kind [of immorality] that is not found
among the Gentiles.” |-P
Cor : οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε, “you know that when you were Gentiles”; cf. Pet
:.
Cor : κινδύνοις ἐξ ἐθνῶν, “dangers from the Gentiles.”
280 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

Gal : ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, “we are Jews by birth/by
nature and not sinners from (among) the Gentiles.”
Gal : ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ Θεός, “that God would restore⁶TN the Gentiles
by faith.”
Gal : ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ A ᾿ βραὰμ γένηται, “so that the blessing of
Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles.”
Eph : ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἐθνη ἐν σαρκί, “at one time, you, the Gentiles in the flesh
(i. e., uncircumcised)”; cf. :.
Thess : κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσι λαλῆσαι, “hindering us from speaking to the
Gentiles”
Thess : τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν, “the Gentiles, who do not know God.”
Tim : διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, “a faithful and true teacher of the
Gentiles.”
Pet : τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “your conduct among the Gentiles.”
Rev : ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because it was given to the Gentiles” (referring to
the court of the Gentiles in the temple in Jerusalem).

§ 429. Sememe 4: Occasionally in the plural, τὰ ἔθνη is applied to Christians. In such

a case it refers to the Christians with Gentile backgrounds in contrast to those coming
from the Jewish religion. The term hints at the ancientness of the religion with which
Christians are now connected. In addition to the determined (D) entity (Ent), the se-
meme denotes a relation of origin (R) by connoting the Gentile religion (Ent1 = Ev1).
A second relation (R′) denotes the connection to Christianity (Ent2 = Ev2). The formu-
la and the variations in the semic development are:

[Ent1 = Ev1]

[Ent + D] +R + R

[Ent2 = Ev2]

R origin Ent1 = Ev1 religion

R connection Gentile
Ent2 = Ev2 religion
Christianity

 Translator’s Note: As this verse illustrates, Peláez normally avoids translating δικαιόω as “to
justify” or “to make right.” I have sought to reflect his unique translation of δικαιόω as often as pos-
sible.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 281

Definition: “A numerous (D) human collective (Ent) from (R) a Gentile religion (Ent1 =
Ev1) and connected to (R′) Christianity (Ent2 = Ev2)”: |151-P [Christians] of Gentile ori-
gin, former Gentiles/pagans.

Rom : ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to those of you with Gentile backgrounds I say.”
Rom : αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the churches/communities [in Gentile territory
and] of Gentile origin.”
Gal : μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνέσθιεν, “he (sc. Peter/Cephas) ate with those of Gentile
origin”; cf. :.
Eph : ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the prisoner of the
Messiah Jesus on behalf of those of you with Gentile origin.”
Eph : εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη … συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου, “that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow-partakers of
the promise in the Messiah Jesus” (i. e., those who give their allegiance to
Jesus by accepting the Christian message).

§ 430. Sememe 5: The lexeme ἔθνος appears in the New Testament once in the sin-
gular when an Old Testament passage that characterizes Israel is applied to the
Christian collective in its totality. Several semes disappear, including the ethnic iden-
tity, the social and political organization, and the connection to a territory. The se-
meme denotes the human collective (Ent) as a totality (D) and its connection to
(R) Christianity (Ent1 = Ev). The semantic formula and its unique semes are:

[Ent + D] + R [Ent1 + Ev]

D totality
Ent1 = Ev religion
Christianity

Definition: “A collective formed by the individuals (Ent + D) who adhere to (R) Chris-
tianity (Ent1 = Ev)”: nation.

Pet : ἔθνος ἅγιον, “a holy, set apart nation”; cf. Exod :.

(5.) πατριά, -ᾶς, ἡ

§ 431. Like φυλή, the lexeme πατριά (three times in the New Testament) refers to a
parent, but it differs from φυλή in that it does not necessarily |152-P have the semes
of numerosity and organization. The human collective (Ent) and its relation of de-
scent (R) are denoted, while the common parent (Ent1) is connoted:
282 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

Ent + R Ent1

Ent collectivity Ent1 individuality

humanity humanity
R descent

Definition: “A collective of human individuals (Ent) who descend from (R) a common
parent (Ent1)”: family, nation.

Luke : ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δανίδ, “from the house and family of David.”
Acts : πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς, “every family on earth”; cf. Gen :.
Eph : ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, “from which every
family in heaven and earth receives its name” (metaphorically, with refer-
ence to God as father).

For the metaphorical usage in Eph 3:15, the relation of descent is substituted for the
reception (Ev) of a name (D).

Ent + [Ev + D] Ent1

Ent collectivity D name

plurality Ent1 individuality
humanity divinity
Ev reception

Definition: “A group of human collectives (Ent) who receive their name (Ev + D) from
God as father (Ent1).”⁷TN

(6.) Summary

§ 432. The following summaries draw together the results of this chapter. Comparing
them alongside each other clarifies the precision of the method we propose. When

 Translator’s Note: It is surprising that this sememe does not include a relation. Perhaps a con-
noted relation of agentivity could be included, specifying that the name comes from (R←) God (Ent1).
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 283

the lexical meaning |153-P appears in the texts, it is integrated under sememe 1. The
contextual meanings are accounted for by successive numeration (e. g., 2, 3, etc.).

1. δῆμος, -ου, ὁ (4)

§ 433.
1. “A group of citizens of a territory”: populace, multitude of citizens:
In four New Testament texts, δῆμος appears as a group that is gathered and the seme
of totality is excluded.
2. Occasionally gathered before Herod: multitude of citizens; cf. ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει,
“and the people were shouting (out)” (Acts 12:22).
3. Institutionally gathered to deliberate: assembly of citizens; cf. ἐζήτουν αὐτοὺς
προαγαγεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “they intended to bring them before the assembly”
(Acts 17:5); εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “to enter the assembly” (Acts 19:30); ἤθελεν ἀπο-
λογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ, “he wanted to make his defense before the assembly” (Acts
19:33).

2. λαός, -οῦ, ὁ (142)

§ 434.
1. In general: “A numerous and organized human collective with a historical identity
and connected to a territory”: people.
When articulated in the plural or with the totalizer πᾶς, λαός can be translated as the
peoples/all the peoples; cf. ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[indi-
viduals] from [all] peoples, tribes, languages, and nations” (Rev 11:9); ἐκ πάσης
φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and
nation” (Rev 5:9; cf. 7:9; 13:7, 14).
2. In the singular, almost always determined, λαός is applied to the Jewish people: “A
numerous and organized human collective with a historical identity and connected
to the land of the Jews and their religion” [the] Jewish people; cf. ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος
ἐν σκότει, “the people who were sitting in darkness” (Matt 4:16; cf. Mark 7:6; Luke
1:68; 17:16; John 11:50); χαράν μεγάλην … παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, “a great joy for all the peo-
ple” (Luke 2:10; cf. Acts 4:10; 10:41; Heb 9:19 [twice]); ἀνασείει τὸν λαόν, “he stirs up
the people” (Luke 23:5; cf. 23:14); ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς τῷ λαῷ, “giving many
generous gifts to the people” (Acts 10:2).
a) By allusion to Psalm 2:1, λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ in Acts 4:27 refers to Israel.
b) The Jewish people organized hierarchically; cf. συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιε-
ρεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, “gathering all the chief priests and scribes of
the people” (Matt 2:4; cf. 21:23; 26:47; Acts 4:8; 23:5; Luke 19:47, οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ
λαοῦ). |154-P
c) In contrast to the pagan nations (τὰ ἔθνη); cf. φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλειν τῷ τε λαῷ
καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim a light both for the people and for the na-
284 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

tions” (Acts 26:23); εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “be glad, nations,
with his people” (Rom 15:10; cf. Deut 32:43 LXX).
d) The remembrance of their history underlines the people’s identity; cf. ηὔξησεν ὁ
λαὸς καὶ ἐπληθύνθη ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, “the people increased and multiplied in Egypt”
(Acts 7:17; cf. 7:34). Israel, the people of God: ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ,
“God has visited his people” (Luke 7:16; cf. Matt 2:6; Luke 2:32; Rom 11:1; Heb
11:25).
e) Including the future Christian community; cf. αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, “because he will save his people from their sins”
(Matt 1:21; cf. Luke 1:17, 68; Heb 8:10; 13:12).

3. In contrast to the leaders: “The part of the Jewish people without a leading role”:
people, mass/multitude of people.
a) Viewed as a unified whole; cf. θόρυβος ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “a tumult among the people”
(Matt 26:5; cf. Mark 11:32; Luke 1:10; Heb 7:5).
b) A part of a group; cf. εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, “for all these people” (Luke
9:13; cf. 11:53; v.l. ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ); ἤρξατο δὲ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγειν,
“he began to speak to the people” (Luke 20:9; cf. vv. 20, 26, 45; Acts 3:9); ὁ
Παῦλος … κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ τῷ λαῷ, “Paul signaled with his hand to the peo-
ple” (Acts 21:40).

4. When the connection is to Christianity, λαός loses the seme of organization, histor-
ical identity, and connection to a land, and means “A numerous group of people who
adhere to Christianity”: [Christian] people.
a) Christians coming from Gentile backgrounds; cf. ὁ Θεὸς ἐπεσκέψατο λαβεῖν ἐξ
ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, “God saw fit to take a people for himself (lit.
for his name) from among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:14; cf. 18:10).
b) The group of Christians as new Israel, by applying texts from the Old Testament
to the Christian community; cf. ἔσομαι αὐτῶν Θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός,
“I will be their God and they will be my people” (2Cor 6:16; cf. Lev 26:16); λαὸς εἰς
περιποίησιν, “a people purchased (sc. by God)” (1Pet 2:9; cf. Mal 3:17; Isa 43:21);
τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, “the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17; cf. 4:9); λαὸν
περιούσιον, “a chosen people” (Tit 2:14; cf. Exod 19:5; 23:22).

3. ἔθνος, -ους, τό (162)⁸TN

§ 435.
1. “A numerous group of individuals of the same race that is socially and politically
organized and connected to a territory”: nation, an ethnic group; in the plural, na-
tions, peoples. |155-P

 Translator’s Note: Although this is listed here as 3., the discourse about ἔθνος above comes 4.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 285

a) Particular nations; cf. δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς, “it will be
given to a nation/people that will produce its fruits” (Matt 21:43); ἐγερθήσεται
γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος, “because nation will rise against nation” (Matt 24:7; cf.
Mark 13:8; Luke 21:10); ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, “because he loves our nation”
(Luke 7:5; cf. Acts 10:22; 24:2); τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας, “the people of Samaria”
(Acts 8:9).
b) In a universal sense; cf. ἄνδρες ἐυλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν
οὐρανόν, “pious men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5; 10:35; 13:19);
πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, “every nation” (Acts 17:26); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης
καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9;
cf. 7:9; 13:7, 14); ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “from [all] peo-
ples, tribes, languages, and nations” (Rev 11:9).

2. Normally determined in the plural, in contrast to the Jewish people or used in the
technical sense of τὰ ἔθνη in the Old Testament, the term frequently refers to the na-
tions of the world that do not profess the Jewish religion: “A numerous group of
human collectives characterized by race, organized socially and politically, and con-
nected to a specific territory and to a Gentile world”: The Gentile nations, the Gentile
world.
a) In plain contrast to Israel, viz. to “the people”; cf. καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim (a light) both for the people and for the nations”
(Acts 26:23; cf. Luke 2:32a; Acts 15:10; 26:17).
b) According to the technical sense in the Old Testament; cf. κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
ἀπαγγελεῖ, “he will announce judgment to the nations” (Matt 12:18; cf. Isa
42:3; Acts 26:20); τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, “the nations will hope in
his name/in him” (Matt 12:21; cf. Isa 42:4; Rom15:12b); μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ
ἔθνη, “make disciples [of] all nations” (Matt 28:19); εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον
δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “the gospel must be proclaimed to every nation
first” (Mark 13:10; cf. Matt 24:14; Luke 24:47; 1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 4:17);
αἰχμαλωτιθήσονται εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “they will be led captive to all the na-
tions” (Luke 21:24); δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “I will give him author-
ity over the nations” (Rev 2:16; cf. 12:5).
c) Politically organized; cf. οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the leaders of the nations”
(Matt 20:25; cf. Mark 10:42).

3. When [τὰ] ἔθνη (in the plural) is contrasted with “[the] Jews” (also in the plural) or
when it is subject, recipient, or collective witness of a conduct or action, it normally
refers to “[the] Gentiles” as a group of individuals (i. e., plurality or separate totality,
equivalent to οἱ ἐθνικοί, cf. Matt 5:47). It omits the semes of organization and connec-
tion to a land. Only the seme of religion is highlighted: “A numerous group of indi-
viduals who |156-P profess a Gentile religion:” [the] Gentiles; cf. Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν,
“Galilee of the Gentiles” (because of its mixed population) (Matt 4:15); ταῦτα γὰρ
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν, “because the Gentiles strive for all these things” (Matt
286 Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions

6:32); παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “they will hand him over to the Gentiles”
(Matt 20:19; cf. Mark 10:33; Luke 18:32; Acts 21:11); ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον,
“hearing [this], the Gentiles rejoiced” (Acts 13:48); ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ
Ἰουδαίων, “a plot arose from Gentiles and Jews” (Acts 14:5); οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, “not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gen-
tiles” (Rom 9:24); ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην, “The Gentiles, who were not
seeking righteousness” (Rom 9:30); Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν,
“a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness for the Gentiles” (1Cor 1:23; cf. 2Cor
11:26; Gal 2:15; 1Thess 2:16; 4:5); τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “your conduct
among the Gentiles” (1Pet 2:12); ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because it was given to the
Gentiles” (alluding to the courtyard of the Gentiles in the temple in Jerusalem) (Rev
11:2).
4. The plural τὰ ἔθνη can be applied to Christians. In such a case it refers to those
from Gentile backgrounds, emphasizing the ancient religious affiliation: “A numer-
ous human collective from a Gentile religion and connected to Christianity”: [Chris-
tians] of Gentile origin, former Gentiles/pagans; cf. ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to
those of you with Gentile backgrounds I say” (Rom 11:13); αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν,
“the churches/communities [in Gentile territory and] of Gentile origin” (Rom 16:4);
μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν, “he (sc. Peter/Cephas) ate with those of Gentile origin”
(Gal 2:12; cf. 2:14); ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the prisoner
of the Messiah Jesus on behalf of those of you from Gentile origins” (Eph 3:1; cf. 3:6).
5. The term is found in the singular once, applying the text of Exod 19:6—used in the
Old Testament to characterize Israel—to the Christian collective. The ethnic identity
disappears, as does the social and political organization and the connection to a
land: “A collective formed by individuals who are committed to Christianity”: nation;
cf. ἔθνος ἅγιον, “a holy, set apart nation” (1Pet 2:9).

4. φυλή, -ῆς, ἡ (31)

§ 436.
1. “A numerous and organized collective of individuals who descend from a common
parent”: tribe.
With the totalizer πᾶς or in the plural determined: the tribes, peoples of the earth; cf.
κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn” (Matt 24:30;
Rev 1:7); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς |157-P καὶ γλώσσης, “from every tribe and language” (cf. Rev
5:9); βλέπουσιν ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν … τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν, “(individuals) from (all)
people and tribe will see their corpses” (Rev 11:9).
2. In a narrower sense, tribe of Israel. Identifying the parent: ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Aσήρ, “from
the tribe of Asher” (Luke 2:36); ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, “from the tribe of Benjamin” (Acts
13:21). Indicating a totality; cf. κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλάς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, “to judge
the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, “from every
tribe of the sons of Israel” (the list of the tribes follows) (Rev 7:4).
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN 287

In a figurative sense, the expression αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is applied to the totality of

Christians, viewed as the new Israel: ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, “to
the twelve tribes who are living dispersed” (Jas 1:1).

5. πατριά, -ᾶς, ἡ (3)

§ 437. “A group of individuals who descend from a common parent”: lineage, family;
cf. ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δανίδ, “from the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4); with
πᾶς: πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς, “every family on earth” (Acts 3:25; cf. Gen 12:3). Meta-
phorically, with reference to God as father: ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς
ὀνομάζεται, “from which every family/lineage in heaven and earth receives its name”
(Eph 3:15). |158-P
Catalogue of Semes¹TN
§ 438. With the goal of facilitating the semic development of the formulas, I provide a
list of the main semes that were used in the preceding analysis, organized by seman-
tic domain. The semes, however, are not linked to a specific class. Rather, the same
semes can be used to specify various elements of the formula. This list begins with
the classemes (i.e., categorical semes), which are then specified by other possible oc-
casional semes. Although some authors avoid using a meta- language when discus-
sing semes,²TN I have opted to make use of abstract substantives in this text. The read-
er should thus not be surprised if new terms are often constructed. The symbol (:)
indicates that the following seme can appear as a specification of the previous
seme. The slash (/) separates alternative semes. Semes can also be constructed by
considering the opposite seme.

Entity Class

§ 439. The semic development of an element in the formula that belongs to the entity
class is made by applying the semantic categories of gender and number (cf. §§ 174–
80, 335 – 36).
a) Semes of Gender: For animate entities, these semes consist of animality, human-
ity, and divinity. The last two semes (humanity and divinity) can be specified by
the seme of personhood, which can be specified by the semes of masculinity or
femininity. Inanimate entities are specified by semes of mineralness or vegetality.
All of these semes comprise the entity class.
b) Semes of number consist of (1) individuality, singularity, plurality, distributivity;
(2) collectivity, corporativity; (3) globality: reality, virtuality; partiality.
c) Occasional semes consist of materiality, corporeality, solidness, combustibility,
bodiness, organicity, etc.³TN

 Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 165 – 68 in Mateos, Método de análisis semán-
tico.
 Translator’s Note: Cf. Lyons, Semantics, 1:326, who lists ANIMATE/INANIMATE and MALE/FE-
MALE as examples of classemes, as opposed to Mateos, who lists these as Animateness/Inanimateness
and Masculinity/Femininity.
 Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) entity semes occur in
the semic developments illustrated in this book: Accessibility, Angel, Astrality, Building, Citizenship,
Coveredness, Demarcation, Edibility, Enclosure, Ethnicity, Extension, Feeling, Habitation, Imprintability,
Invisibility, Judaism, Lowerness, Military, Multiplicity, Non-demarcation, Non-inhabitation, Objectness,
Oldness, Opening, Property, Rationality, Residence, Ruralness, Self-containment, Spatiality, Territory.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-018
 Event Class 289

Event Class

§ 440. The semantic category of aspect is first applied to events. Voice is then applied
and, if necessary, mode (cf. §§ 181– 86). The corresponding classemes are thus ob-
tained.
a) Above all, aspect distinguishes between semes of stativity and dynamism.
a. The semes of stativity are specified according to usage as: (1) a disposition /
attitude, which in turn can be specified as favorability, benevolence, commit-
ment, tendency, etc.; (2) situation: consciousness / unconsciousness; lack, pri-
vation; abundance / shortage; security / insecurity, etc.; (3) condition: vitality,
infirmity; (4) position: verticality / horizontality; sitting, stability, etc.; (5) pres-
ence, etc.; (6) feeling, etc.
b. The semes of dynamism will be specified as (1) continuity: durativity; (2) resul-
tativity: instantaneousness, processuality, resultativity; (3) habituality can be
signified by durativity and occasionality by discontinuity. Dynamism can be
further specified as bodiness, mentalness, mobility, verbality, occurrence.
i. Bodiness can be specified by semes of globality, totality / partiality; or-
ganicity, etc.
ii. Mentalnesss can be specified by semes of (1) noeticity: cognitivity, reflec-
tion, intuition, comprehension, etc.; (2) voluntarity / involuntarity; regula-
tion, obligation / spontaneity; (3) emotionality: feeling.
iii. Mobility can be specified by semes of directionality / non-directionality;
tendency / origin; beginning / completion; impulse, etc.
iv. Verbality can be specified by semes of assertion / negation / question;
formulation, qualification, meaningfulness, expositivity, reference, etc.
v. Occurrence can be specified by semes of productivity, industriousness,
production, domain, government, separation, elimination, etc.
vi. If an event occurs without the involvement of an acting subject, then it
has a seme of factuality.
b) The classemes of voice are (1) activity; (2) passivity: receptivity; (3) subjectivity
(lexemic middle): reflexivity, spontaneity; (4) neutrality.
c) The classemes of mode are existence / non-existence; possibility, probability. ⁴TN

 Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) event semes occur in
the semic developments illustrated in this book: Assessment, Availability, Christianity, Civility, Combat-
iveness, Confinement, Construction, Contact, Continuity, Death, Decision, Delegation, Deliberation, Dis-
appearance, Displacement, Dissatisfaction, Endangerment, Experience, Habitation, Hostility, Impres-
sion, Inactivity, Inclination, Location, Luminosity, Modification, Multi-directionality, Musical vocality,
Non-contact, Non-receptivity, Non-subjectivity, Officiality, Paganism, Perception, Politicality, Possession,
Posteriority, Processuality, Radiation, Reception, Religion, Religiousness, Representation, Rhythmic
movement, Ruin, Self-sufficiency, Self-sustenance, Sensitivity, Sociality, Succession, Survival, Temporal-
ity, Transitoriness, Transfer, Utilization, Vigilance, Wind.
290 Catalogue of Semes

Relation Class

§ 441. The class of relation consists of semes of location, temporality, possession,

comparison, movement, transitivity, etc.
a) The semes of location consist of (1) proximity: immediacy, contact; non-proximity:
non- immediacy, |166-M, ⁵TN distance; (2) interiorness / exteriorness; depth, centrality;
(3) demarcation, territoriality.
b) The semes of temporality consist of (1) previousness / actuality / futureness; (2) si-
multaneousness / anteriority / posteriority; (3) durativity / transitoriness / instanta-
neousness.
c) The semes of possession consist of availability, usability, employability,
d) The semes of comparison consist of identity; equality / superiority / lowerness; sim-
ilarity, parallelism.
e) The semes of movement consist of successivity, progression, numeration, grada-
tion.
f) The semes of transitivity consist of (1) influence: causality, purpose, consecutivity;
dependence / independence; (2) non-influence: towardness.
g) Relation semes between subject and event consist of attribution / predicativity /
agentivity.
h) Other semes of relation include anaphoricity, reference, mediation, instrumentality,
connection, origin, inclusivity, manifestivity.⁶TN

Attribute Class

§ 442. In the attribute class one must first identify whether semes of quality, quantity,
dimension, etc. are discussed.
a) Quality can be specified by various semes, including goodness / badness; justice /
injustice; uprightness, faithfulness, rationality, dignity: royalty; luminosity; positiv-
ity / negativity; euphoria / dysphoria; coloration: whiteness / blackness, etc. |165-M

 Translator’s Note: This was not the order in Mateos’s Spanish text. Since in the book, the order
often followed entitiy, event, relation, attribute, and determination, this is the order I have chosen to
maintain in the catalogue of semes. This meant that it was necessary to move the class of attributes to
the next page.
 Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) relation semes occur in
the semic developments illustrated in this book: Adequacy, Aimlessness, Appropriation, Beneficiality,
Capability, Comparability, Competency, Conformity, Descent, Directionality, Elimination, Essentiality, Ex-
clusivity, Expositoriness, Expressivity, Filiation, Habitation, Hierarchy, Historicity, Immediacy, Initiality,
Integration, Mediacy, Non-immediacy, Opposition, Order, Organization, Paternality, Perceptivity, Posses-
sion, Presence, Residence, Solidarity, Specification, Support, Transference, Union, Verbality.
 Determination Class 291

b) Dimension and quantity can be specified by semes of largeness / smallness; abun-

dance / shortage; numerosity, intensity, sufficiency; totality / partiality, etc.⁷TN

Determination Class

§ 443. The semes that comprise the class of determination consist of identity, desig-
nation, identification, maximality, totality / partiality; numerosity; globality; distributiv-
ity; quantification, numerosity, unity / duality, etc.; previousness / subsequence; initial-
ity / terminality; demarcation; importance, excellence. ⁸TN ⁹TN |167– 68-M

 Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) attribute semes occur in
the semic developments illustrated in this book: Abundance, Adulthood, Beneficiality, Benevolence,
Cleanness, Communicability, Dimensionality, Durativity, Excellence, Externality, Harmfulness, Identity,
Immediacy, Indispensability, Intellectuality, Maximality, Meaningfulness, Necessity, Non-cognition, Qual-
ification, Kingliness, Partiality, Positivity, Possession, Priestliness, Reference, Suitability, Vitality, Visibil-
ity.
 Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) determination semes
occur in the semic developments illustrated in this book: Depth, Duration, Exclusivity, Extremity, For-
eignness, Identifiability, Intensity, Name, Nameability, Nominality, Non-authority, Non-numerosity, Par-
tiality, Personhood, Priority, Singularity, Sufficiency.
 Translator’s Note: Numerous semes appear in more than one class. I list these here, noting the
classes in parentheses: Abundance (Ev/A), Availability (Ev/R), Beneficiality (R/A), Benevolence (Ev/A),
Building (Ent/Ev), Christianity (Ent/Ev), Contact (Ev/R), Corporeality (Ent/Ev), Demarcation (Ev/R/D),
Depth (R/D), Directionality (Ev/R), Distributivity (Ent/D), Durativity (Ev/R/A/D), Elimination (Ev/R), Ex-
cellence (A/D), Expositoriness (Ev/R), Feeling (Ent, Ev), Globality (Ev/D), Habitation (Ent/Ev/R), Identity
(R/A/D), Immediacy (R/A), Initiality (Ev/R/D), Instantaneousness (Ev/R), Intellectuality (Ev/A), Loca-
tion (Ent/Ev/R), Lowerness (Ent/R), Luminosity (Ev/A), Maximality (A/D), Meaningfulness (Ev/A), Nu-
merosity (A/D), Objectness (Ent/R), Organicity (Ent/Ev), Organization (Ev/R), Origin (Ev/R), Paganism
(Ent/Ev), Partiality (Ent/Ev/A/D), Personhood (Ent/D), Possession (Ent/R/A), Posteriority (Ev/R/D), Ra-
tionality (Ent/A), Reference (Ev/R/A), Religion (Ent/Ev), Religiousness (Ent/Ev), Shortage (Ev/A), (To-
wardness (Ev/R/D), Transitoriness (Ev/R), Verbality (Ev/R), Wind (Ent/Ev).
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish)
To assist the reader, I have sought to place every seme appearing in the book in this Alphabetical
List of Semes. I have also placed the original Spanish semes in italics. The semes follow an alpha-
betical listing of the English terminology. Many of these semes are used for various classes; for a
comprehensive list of these semes, see translator’s note 9 in the Catalogue of Semes.

Abundance abundancia Condition condición

Accessibility accesibilidad Confinement encierro
Activity actividad Conformity conformidad
Actuality actualidad Connection vinculación
Adequacy proporcionalidad Conscience consciencia
Adulthood adultez Consecutivity consecutividad
Affection afectividad Construction construcción
Agentivity agentividad Contact contacto
Aimlessness aterminalidad Continuity continuidad
Anaphoricity anaforicidad Corporativity corporatividad
Angel angelicidad Corporeality somaticidad
Animality animalidad Coveredness cubrimiento, cobertura
Animateness animidad Death muerte
Anteriority anterioridad Decision decisión
Appropriation apropiación Delegation delegación
Assertion asertividad Deliberation deliberación
Assessment valoración Demarcation delimitación
Astrality astralidad Dependence dependencia
Attitude actitud Depth profundidad
Attribution atributividad Descent descendencia
Availability disponibilidad Designation designación
Badness maldad Dignity dignidad
Beneficiality beneficialidad Dimension dimensión
Benevolence benevolencia Dimensionality dimensionalidad
Blackness negrura Directionality direccionalidad
Building edificación Disappearance desaparición
Capability capacidad Discontinuity discontinuidad
Causality causalidad Displacement desplazamiento
Centrality centralidad Disposition disposición
Christianity christianismo Dissatisfaction insatisfacción
Citizenship ciudadanía Distance lejanía
Civility civilidad Distributivity distributividad
Cleanness limpieza Divinity divinidad
Cognitivity cognitividad Domain dominio
Collectivity colectividad Duality dualidad
Coloration coloración Durativity duratividad
Combativeness belicidad Dynamism dinamicidad
Commitment adhesión Dysphoria disforicidad
Communicability comunicabilidad Edibility comestibilidad
Comparability comparatividad Elimination eliminación
Comparison comparación Emotionality emotividad
Competency competencia Employability fruibilidad
Comprehension comprensión Enclosure cercado

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-019
 Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish) 293

Endangerment peligrosidad Indispensability indispensabilidad

Entity entidad Individuality individualidad
Equality igualidad Industriousness laboriosidad
Essentiality esencialidad Infirmity enfermedad
Ethnicity etnicidad Influence afectancia
Euphoria euforicidad Initiality inicialidad
Excellence excelencia Injustice injusticia
Exclusivity exclusividad Insecurity inseguridad
Existence existencia Instantaneousness instantaneidad
Experience experiencia Instrumentality instrumentalidad
Expositoriness expositividad Integration integración
Expressivity expresividad Intellectuality psiquicidad
Extension extension Intensity intensidad
Exteriority exterioridad Interiority interioridad
Externality extrinsecidad Intuition intuición
Extremity extremidad Invisibility invisibilidad
Factuality factualidad Involuntarity involuntariedad
Faithfulness fidelidad Judaism Judaísmo
Favorability favorabilidad Justice justicia
Feeling sentimiento Kingliness regalidad
Femininity feminidad Lack carencia
Filiation filiación Landness terrenalidad
Foreignness alienidad Largeness magnitud
Formulation formulación Location localización
Futureness futuridad Lowerness inferioridad
Globality globality Luminosity luminosidad
Goodness bondad Manifestivity manifestatividad
Government gobierno Masculinity masculinidad
Gradation gradación Materiality materialidad
Habitation habitación Maximality maximalidad
Habituality habitualidad Meaningfulness significatividad
Harmfulness nocividad Mediacy mediatividad
Hierarchy jerarquicidad Mediation mediación
Historicity historicidad Military militaridad
Horizontality horizontalidad Minerality mineralidad
Hostility hostilidad Mobility movilidad
Humanity humanidad Modification modificatividad
Identifiability identificabilidad Movement serialidad
Identification identificación Multi-directionality multidireccionalidad
Identity identidad Multiplicity multiplicidad
Immediacy inmediatez Musical vocality vocalidad, musicalidad
Importance importancia Name denominación
Impression impresión Nameability designablidad
Imprintability impresibilidad Necessity necesidad
Impulse impulso Negation negación
Inactivity inactividad Negativity negatividad
Inanimateness inanimidad Neutrality neutralidad
Inclination tendencialidad Noeticity noeticidad
Inclusivity inclusividad Nominality nominalidad
Independence independencia Non-authority no autoridad
294 Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish)

Non-cognition no cognitividad Processuality procesualidad

Non-contact no contacto Productivity productividad
Non-demarcation no delimitación Progression progresividad
Non-directionality no direccionalidad Property propiedad
Non-existence no existencia Proximity proximidad
Non-immediacy no inmediatez Purpose finalidad
Non-influence no afectancia Qualification calificación
Non-inhabitation no población Quality cualidad
Non-numerosity no numerosidad Quantification cuantificación
Non-proximity no proximidad Quantity cantidad
Non-receptivity no receptividad Quasi-entity cuasi-entidad
Non-subjectivity no subjetividad Question interrogación
Numeration numeratividad Radiation irradiación
Numerosity numerosidad Rationality racionalidad
Objectness objectividad Reception recepción
Obligation obligatoriedad Receptivity receptividad
Occasionality ocasionalidad Reference referencia
Occurrence facticidad Reflection reflexión
Officiality oficialidad Reflexivity reflexividad
Oldness ancianidad Regulation normatividad
Opening apertura Religion religion
Opposition oposición Religiousness religiosidad
Order orden Representation representatividad
Organicity organicidad Residence domicilio, residencia
Organization organización Resultativity efectividad
Origin procedencia Rhythmic movement movimiento, ritmicidad
Paganism paganismo Royalty realeza
Parallelism paralelismo Ruin ruina
Partiality parcialidad Ruralness ruralidad
Passivity no actividad, pasividad Security seguridad
Paternality paternidad Self-containment independencia
Perceptibility perceptibilidad Self-sufficiency autosuficiencia
Perception percepción Self-sustenance autoalimentación
Perceptivity perceptividad Sensitivity sensitividad
Personhood personalidad Separation separación
Plurality pluralidad Shortage escasez
Politicality politicidad Similarity semejanza
Position posición Simultaneousness simultaneidad
Positivity positividad Singularity singularidad
Possession posesión, posesividad, Sitting sesión
pertenencia Situation situación
Possibility posibility Smallness pequeñez
Posteriority posterioridad Sociality socialidad
Predication predicatividad Solidarity solidaridad
Presence presencia, presencialidad Solidness solidez
Previousness preteridad Spatiality espacialidad
Priestliness sacerdotalidad Specification especificación
Priority prioridad Spontaneity espontaneidad
Privation privación Stability estabilidad
Probability probabilidad Stativity estaticidad
 Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish) 295

Subjectivity subjetividad Transitoriness transitoriedad

Succesivity sucesividad Unconsciousness inconsciencia
Succession sucesión Union unión
Sufficiency suficiencia Unity unidad
Suitability idoneidad Uprightness rectitud
Superiority superioridad Usability utilizabilidad
Support apoyo Utilization utilización
Survival supervivencia Vegetality vegetalidad
Temporality temporalidad Verbality verbalidad
Tendency tendencia Verticality verticalidad
Territoriality territorialidad Vigilance vigilancia
Territory territorio Virtuality virtualidad
Totality totalidad Visibility visibilidad
Towardness terminalidad Vitality vitalidad
Transfer traslación Voluntarity voluntariedad
Transference transferencia Whiteness blancura
Transitivity transitividad Wind viento
Glossary
Attribute: The qualities or modalities attributed to being or doing.
Classeme: Certain generic contextual semes that are characterized by their constancy (i. e., their
presence in every context) and by their iterative character (i. e., affecting not just one lexeme,
but several and therefore affecting syntagmatic units broader than the simple lexeme). The
classemes are obtained by applying the semantic categories of mode, tense, aspect, voice,
gender, and number, considered at the morphemic and syntagmatic level.
Generic contextual semes: cf. classemes.
Connotation: It is necessary to distinguish between objective and subjective connotations.
Objective connotations are those which a concept necessarily requires due to conscious
association. These connotations are identified by considering the relations implied by a
lexeme, which can include presupposition, purpose, agent, recipient, etc. For example, the
lexeme ‘to eat’ connotes (presupposes) ‘food.’ On the other hand, subjective connotations
are emotive or associative and can therefore neither be called ‘necessary connotations’ nor
included in a semantic analysis. They belong to narrative analysis.
Contextual meaning: See Sememe.
Definition: A paraphrase that accounts for the semes of a lexeme or sememe according to the
order of their semic configuration.
Denotation: The necessary and sufficient semantic features that make it possible to identify a
concept according to its usage in a linguistic community. Denotation is practically equivalent
to “meaning.”
Determination: Lexemes or morpholexemes that narrow and designate a concept. Determination is
brought about by numeric quantifiers of quantity or measure, and also by lexemes that
signal moments in time or extensions in space. Designation presupposes an act of speaking
(i. e., a speaking subject) that creates a situation, which is the space-time of the discourse.
Determination lexemes actualize, identify, and situate in space and time.
Dictionary: A book that contains the series of words in a language organized alphabetically,
explains their meaning, and, in the case of bilingual dictionaries, also indicates their
translational equivalents in another language.
Entity: Nameable things, and by extension, also fictional things like “dragon,” etc. Entity lexemes
classify and name spoken things.
Event: States, actions, or processes that affect an entity or are brought about by it. They can also
affect attributes, other events, and relations.
Grammatical categories: Symbols that affect words, similar to the way that positive and negative
signs, coefficients, and exponents affect quantities in mathematics. The grammatical
categories include gender and number (nominals and verbals), mode, tense, aspect, and
voice (verbals), and degree (conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs).
Grammatical class: The so called “parts of speech,” which are distinguished as the main parts of
speech (noun and verb), secondary parts of speech (adjective and adverb), by relations
(prepositions and conjunctions) and by the auxiliaries (article and pronoun).
Implication: A relation between two propositions by which, if the first is true, the second is
necessarily also true. When the truth of the second implication implies the truth of the first,
a double implication is present.
Lexeme: An independent lexical unit with a semantic nucleus.
Lexical Meaning: The set of semantic features (i. e., semes) of a lexeme.
Lexicographer: An editor of a dictionary or a linguist who studies lexicography.
Lexicography: A method of preparing dictionaries and the linguistic analysis of this method.
Lexicology: The scientific study of vocabulary.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-020
 Glossary 297

Lexicon: A book that contains the lexemes, morpholexemes, and paralexemes of a natural
language. Lexicon is distinguished from “vocabulary.”
Marked term: A term with a distinct quality or feature, as opposed to an unmarked term, which is
used in a broader, more general sense.
Meaning: The information contained and transmitted by a term in isolation and in context. In
semantic terms it is “the group of distinct semes of a lexeme or sememe.”
Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a lexeme is used in a sense that differs from its normal
usage but which maintains a relation that is recognizable. Semantically, a metaphor is
created by the suppression or suspension of one or several semes in the semantic formula,
especially of the dominant seme.
Metonymy: A figure of speech that consists in taking the effect for the cause, the instrument for
the agent, the sign for the thing, the part for the whole, or vice versa. Semantically, it
originates by a change of configuration in the formula: elements that were previously
denoted become connoted, or vice versa.
Morpholexeme: A lexical unit with its own semantic nucleus that does not exist independently but
is always joined to an autonomous lexeme.
Nuclear configuration: See semic configuration.
Nuclear semes: Semes that appear in the semic nucleus and are obtained by the development of
the semantic formula.
Occasional contextual semes: Semes that do not depend on the semantic categories but on
relations (such as dependence, presupposition, equality, and superiority) that a lexeme
establishes with other lexemes in syntagms. There are occasional and peripheral semes that
can be systematized, at least in part, according to specific contexts.
Paralexeme: Syntagms whose meaning does not result from adding the meaning of each of the
components. Paralexemes are thus semantic units whose meaning transcends the lexemic
components that comprise them; cf. e. g., “son of perdition.”
Presupposition: A relation between two linguistic units where the presence of one unit necessarily
requires the presence of the other. For example, a determinant presupposes the presence of
a name. Presupposition can be unilateral or reciprocal.
Quasi-entity: Lexemes that do not denote real or fictional entities, but realities that are viewed as
entities even though they are not really so. Examples include “law,” “standard,” and
“decree.” Because these realities are sources of activities, processes, or actions, or are
results of these, they seem to have a particular permanence and can be referred to as
objects of perception. These events or results of events—viewed as entities—are represented
with the symbol [Ent = Ev].
Reference: When a linguistic sign (a word) refers to a real or imaginary object (a referent) in the
extra-linguistic world. This functions in a certain way due to cultural conceptions. There is a
direct link between meaning (concept) and referent and an indirect link between a lexeme
and referent. Reference is frequently used to designate the referential relation as the
denotation of a sign.
Referent: That which a linguistic sign refers to in the extra-linguistic world. The relation between
the sign and the extra-linguistic reality should not be confused with the referent, since a
word can refer to things that do not exist in the world (e. g., centaur).
Related lexemes: Certain entity lexemes that do not necessarily maintain all of the generic semes
of these entities. “Related lexemes” denote another semantic class along with an entity.
They designate a part of a whole; e. g., “arm” as part of the body.
Relation: Connections between semantic classes that are identified by semantic analysis.
Semantic analysis: Focuses on the lexeme abstractly (the lexical meaning in langue) and helps
determine the lexeme’s nuclear semes and semic nucleus.
298 Glossary

Semantic categories: Specify concepts based on binary oppositions that affect nominal and verbal
lexemes or, depending on context, result from the morphemic and syntagmatic analysis.
Among the semantic categories, gender and number affect entity lexemes, while aspect,
time, and voice affect event lexemes. Semantically, degree is not a category but rather a
relation. The application of the semantic categories is the first step for the analysis of
lexemes.
Semantic class: A set of words that have the same dominant semantic feature (seme). Semantic
classes classify lexemes by noting the nature of their conceptual content. They are based on
infra-linguistic concepts that break down a global, intuitive perception of reality. Individuals
experience the world in which they find themselves. They express themselves from their
point of view in order to orient and to situate themselves in it. For this they classify and
name entities (Ent, things) and events (Ev, states, actions, processes), both of which are
described by means of attributes (A, quality, quantity) rooted in established relations (R).
These are actualized, situated, and objectified in time and space, for which we use the term
determination (D). There are thus five semantic classes.
Semantic formula: Consists of the set of semantic classes denoted by a lexeme plus the relations
necessarily connoted by them. The semantic formula thus describes the elemental structure
of the lexeme based on its semantic nucleus.
Seme: A minimal, elemental semantic feature that cannot be broken down into other simpler
features. In the process of the analysis, however, this theoretical definition is impossible to
maintain, since we use terms as if they were semes that actually represent groups of
elemental semes. Thus, the seme humanity can clearly be broken down into more simple
semes (e. g., entity, corporality, vitality, sensitivity, rationality). However, to explain each of
these semes every time that “humanity” is used would cause the semic developments to
become repetitive and unintelligible lists.
Sememe: A meaning that results from additions to the semic nucleus and/or from changes in the
nucleus or nuclear configuration of a lexeme due to the influence of classemes and
occasional semes. Sememes require a new definition and are synonymous to “contextual
meaning.”
Semic configuration: A lexeme’s generic and specific nuclear semes, arranged into a logical
hierarchy. Semic configuration is synonymous with semic nucleus.
Semic development: A list of the semes/semantic features that correspond to the denoted and
connoted semantic classes of the formula.
Semic nucleus: See semic configuration.
Semiotic analysis: The analysis of the mutual relations between the lexemes that appear in
context (i. e., parole) in order to identify the key for reading a text.
Signifier: An acoustic image or phonological aspect of the series of sounds that constitute the
material aspect of the sign.
Signification: The production of sense as an action or the result of producing action.
Translation: The act of rendering the semantic concepts and stylistic features from one language
into another language.
Usage: A set of grammatical rules that are relatively established and utilized by the majority of
speakers in a given moment and in a socially determined mode.
Vocabulary: An exhaustive list of words in a corpus. Secondly: a book that gathers the terms used
by an author, by a science, or by a trade. Third: a bilingual dictionary that lists the lexical
units of two languages in parallel fashion.
Bibliography
Adrados, Francisco Rodríquez. “Reflexiones sobre semántica, sintaxis y estructura profunda,” in
Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y Teoría Literaria, 1 – 26. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona:
Ariel, 1988.
— “Sintaxis y Diccionario,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria,
19 – 30. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988.
— “La teoría del signo en Gorgias de Leontinos,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y
Teoría Literaria, 61 – 69. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988.
— “Sobre nombre y cosa en Platón,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría
Literaria, 415 – 18. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988.
Aland, Barbara et al., eds. The Greek New Testament: Fifth Revised Edition with the Greek-English
Dictionary by Barclay Newman, 5th ed. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research.
Stuttgart: The German Bible Society, 2014.
Alfagame, Ignacio Rodríguez. Nueva Gramática Griega. Estudio de las estructuras morfosintácticas
de la lengua griega. Madrid: Coloquio, 1988.
Allenbach, Jean et al., eds. Biblia patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la
littérature patristique. 4 vols. Paris: Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique, 1975 – 87.
Alsop, John R., ed. An Index to the Revised Bauer, Arndt (Danker), Gingrich Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982.
Attridge, Harold W. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. RBL 10 (2002):
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3112.pdf.
Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1978 – 83.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der
übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, 2nd ed. Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1928.
— Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der
frühchristlichen Literatur, ed. Kurt and Barbara Aland, 6th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1988.
Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1979.
Busse, D. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2012.
Black, David Alan. Review of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains, by J. Louw and E. Nida. FNT 1 (1988): 217 – 18.
Blomqvist, Jerker. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2001): 1 – 5.
Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. New York: Henry Holt, 1933.
Carreter, Fernando Lázaro. Diccionario de terminus filológicos. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 6.
Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1977.
Chase, Stuart. The Tyranny of Words. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959.
Coenen, Lothar, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, eds. Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum
Neuen Testament. Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1967 – 71.
Coseriu, Eugeniu. “Lexikalische Solidaritäten.” Poetica 1 (1967): 293 – 303.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-021
300 Bibliography

— Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingüística General, ed. Dámaso Alonso. Biblioteca Románica
Hispánica. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1973.
Cremer, H. Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität. Gotha: F. A.
Perthes 1866 (11th ed. 1923).
Danker, Frederick William, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early
Christian Literature. Third Edition (BDAG), based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches
Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th
ed., eds. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English
editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Balley and Albert Sechehaye in
collaboration with Albert Riedlinger, trans. Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur
Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und
des Urchristentums. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1895.
— Neue Bibelstudien: Sprachgeschichtliche Beiträge, zumeist aus Papyri und Inschriften zur
Erklärung des Neuen Testaments. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1897.
— Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre
Aufgaben. Vorträge der Theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
1898.
— Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the
Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity,
trans. Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901.
— “New Testament in the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World I–V.”
ET 18 (1906/07): 8 – 15, 57 – 63, 103 – 08, 202 – 21, 305 – 310.
— Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der
hellenistisch-römischen Welt. J.C.B. Mohr: Tübingen, 1908 (4th ed. 1923).
— Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the
Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York/London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1908.
— The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan.
London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908.
du Toit, David S. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. Danker. Theologische Rundschau 68.3 (2003): 383 – 85.
— Review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by J. Lee. Theologische Rundschau 70.4
(2005): 504 – 07.
— Review of Diccionario del Griego Bíblico: Setenta y Nuevo Testamento, by A. Á. García Santos.
Gnomon 86.8 (2014): 691 – 95.
Dubois, Jean et al. Dictionnaire de linguistique. Paris: Larousse, 1973.
— Diccionario de Lingüística. Madrid: Alianza, 1973.
Dubois, Jean and Claude. Introdution à la lexicographie: le dictionaire. Paris: Larousse, 1971.
Ebeling, H. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Hannover/Leipzig: Hahn, 1913
(3rd ed. 1929).
Elliott, J. K. Review of Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments
und der frühchristlichen Literatur, by W. Bauer. FNT 2 (1989): 100 – 02.
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Fitzgerald, John T. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. Danker. RBL 10 (2002):
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3108.pdf.
 Bibliography 301

Fodor, Janet Dean. Semántica. Teorías del significado en la gramática generative. Lingüística.
Madrid: Catedra, 1985.
— Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. New York: Crowell, 1977.
Fries, Charles C. “Meaning and Linguistic Analysis.” Language 30 (1954): 57 – 68.
Funk, F. X., and Karl Bihlmeyer, eds. Die Apostolischen Vä ter. Neubearbeitung der Funkschen
Ausgabe. Tü bingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1970.
Gallarte, I. Muñoz. “Los Sustantivos-Hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Classificación Semántico.”
PhD Diss, Universidad Complutense de Madrid y de Córdoba, 2008.
García Santos, Amador Ángel. Diccionario del Griego Bíblico: Setenta y Nuevo Testamento.
Instrumentos para el studio de la Biblia 21. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2011.
Gerber, A. Deissmann the Philologist. BZNW 171. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.
Godoy, P. Diccionario geográfico del Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2010.
González, D. Romero. “El adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica.” PhD diss.,
University of Cordoba, 2010.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien. Maupassant: La sémiotique du texte, exercices pratiques. Paris: Le Seuil,
1976.
— Maupassant: The Semiotics of Text, trans. Paul Perron. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988.
— Sémantique structural. Paris: Larousse, 1966.
— Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, trans. Daniel McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and
Alan Velie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien, and Joseph Courtés. Semiótica. Diccionario razonado de la teoría del
lenguaje. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 10. Madrid: Gredos, 1990.
— Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary, trans. Larry Crist and Daniel Patte.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.
— Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Hachette: Supérieur, 1979.
Hasselbrook, David S. Studies in New Testament Lexicography: Advancing toward a Full Diachronic
Approach with the Greek Language, ed. Jörg Frey. WUNT 2/303. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2011.
— “A Proposal for the Form and Content of the Next Generation of Printed New Testament
Lexicons.” Paper presented at Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, Oct. 2012: 1 – 15.
Heeschen, Claus. Grundfragen der Linguistik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972.
— Cuestiones fundamentals de Lingüística, trans. A. Alvarez. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica.
Madrid: Gredos, 1975.
Hemer, C. “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan.” NovT 24 (1982): 97 – 123.
Horsley, G. H. R. “The Greek Documentary Evidence and NT Lexical Study: Some Soundings,” in
Linguistic Essays. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5, ed. G. H. R. Horsley,
67 – 93. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989.
— “The Origin and Scope of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament,
and Deissmann’s Planned New Testament Lexicon. Some unpublished letters of G. A.
Deissmann to J. H. Moulton.” BJRL 76 (1994): 187 – 216.
— “Moulton, James Hope (1863 – 1917),” in Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation,
ed. Stanley E. Porter, 230 – 31. London/New York: Routledge, 2007.
Horsely, G. H. R., ed. Linguistic Essays. NDIEC 5. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989.
Horsley, G. H. R., and J. A. L. Lee. “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels.
Some Interim Entries. Part 1.” FNT 10 (1997): 55 – 84.
— “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels. Some Interim Entries. Part 2.”
FNT 11 (1998): 57 – 84.
— New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri.
The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre. North Ryde: Macquarie University,
1981 – 2012.
302 Bibliography

Katz, J. J. Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friederich. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933 – 79.
Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friederich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, trans. G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964 – 1976.
Klauck, Hans-Josef. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. Danker. RBL 10 (2002):
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3111.pdf.
Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.
Landau, Sydney. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
Lanzilota, L. Roig. Diccionario de Personajes del Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba: Ediciones el
Almendro, 2011.
Lee, John A. L. “The United Bible Societies’ Lexicon and its Analysis of Meaning.” FNT 5 (1992):
167 – 89.
— A History of New Testament Lexicography, ed. D. A. Carson. Studies in Biblical Greek 8. New
York: Peter Lang, 2003.
Lewandowsky, Theodor H. Linguistisches Wörterbuch. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Quelle und
Meyer Verlag, 1979 – 80.
Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
Löbner, S. Understanding Semantics, 2nd ed. Routledge: New York, 2013.
Louw, Johannes P. Semantiek van Nuwe Testamentiese Grieks. Pretoria: Beta Pers, 1976.
— Semantics of New Testament Greek. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982.
— “How Do Words Mean, If They Do?” FNT 4 (1991): 125 – 42.
— “The United Bible Societies’ Lexicon and its Analysis of Meaning.” FNT 5 (1992): 167 – 89
— “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography.” FNT 6 (1993): 139 – 48.
Louw, J. P. ed. Lexicography and Bible Translation. Cape Town: Bible Society, 1985.
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.
— Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992.
Lyons, John. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. RBL 10 (2002):
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3110.pdf.
Marín, Marcos F. Aproximación a la Gramática Española. 3rd ed. Madrid: Cincel, 1978.
Mateos, Juan. Método de análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de
Filología Neotestamentaria 1. Cordoba: Ediciones el Alemandro, 1989.
— “Análisis de un campo lexemático. Εὐλογία en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 1 (1988): 1 – 15.
— El aspect verbal en el Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 1. Madrid: Ediciones
Cristiandad, 1977.
— “εὐθύς y sinónimos en el Evangelio de Marcos y demás escritos del Nuevo Testamento,” in
Cuestiones de gramática y léxico en el Nuevo Testamento, 105 – 39. Estudios de Nuevo
Testamento 2. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977.
Mateos, Juan, and Jesús Peláez. “El adverbio ἄρτι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 8 (1995): 84 – 94.
Mateos, J., J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego–Español del Nuevo Testamento. Análisis
semántico de los vocablos (DGENT). Fasc. 1 – 5. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2000, 2002,
2007, 2010, 2012.
Moliner, María. Diccionario de uso del español. 2 vols. Madrid: Gredos, 1977.
 Bibliography 303

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated
from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1957.
Naselli, Andy. “Thoughts on Theology,” 2 Dec 2015,
http://andynaselli.com/john-lee-on-nt-lexicography.
Nicklas, Tobias. Review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by J. Lee. RBL 7 (2004):
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3244_3806.pdf.
Nida, Eugene A. “The implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship.” JBL 91
(1972): 73 – 89.
— Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures. Paris: La Haya,
1975.
— Exploring Semantic Structures. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1975.
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bible
Societies. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Nida, E. A., J. P. Louw, and R. B. Smith. “Semantic Domains and Componential Analysis of
Meaning,” in Current issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. R. W. Cole, 139 – 67. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1977.
Ogden, C. K., and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language
upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 4th ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1936.
Pabón, José M. Diccionario manual griego-español. Barcelona: Vox, 1967.
Padilla, Carmen. “Sobre el verbo ἀποκρίνομαι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 3 (1990): 67 – 74.
Peláez, Jesús. Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de
Filología Neotestamentaria 6. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1996.
Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and
Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.
Porter, Stanley E., and Donald A. Carson, eds. Biblical Language and Linguistics: Open Questions
in Current Research. JSNTsup 80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Pottier, Bernard. Linguistique génerále. Paris: Klincksieck, 1974.
— Lingüística general: teoría y descripción. Biblioteca románica hispánica 246. Madrid: Gredos,
1977.
Preisigke, Friedrich et al. Wö rterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden: mit Einschluss der
griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw., aus Ä gypten. Berlin:
Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925.
Roberts, Terry. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, by F. W. Danker. RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3109.pdf.
Rübsam, W., ed. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden. Supplement 3. Amsterdam:
Hakkert, 1966 – 69.
Schökel, Luis Alonso. “Sobre diccionarios bilingües,” in Text, Methode und Grammatik, Wolfgang
Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, T. Seidl, 1 – 10. Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS
Verlag, 1992.
— Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1998.
Silva, M. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1985.
Thayer, J. H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s
Concordance Numbers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Trench, R. C. Synonyma des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1907.
Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1962.
— Semántica. Introducción a la ciencia del significado, trans. Juan Martin Ruiz-Werner. Madrid:
Aguilar, 1976.
304 Bibliography

Urbán F. et al. Estudios de Nuevo Testamento, vol. 2 of Cuestiones de Gramática y Léxico.

Institución San Jeronimo. Madrid: Christiandad, 1977.
Vines, W. E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., eds. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed., ed. P. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G.
Anscombe, P. Hacker, and J. Schulte. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953.
Zorell, Franz. Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti. 4th ed. Paris: Lethielleux, 1990.
Publications on Semantics and Lexicography by
Members of GASCO (Grupo de Análisis Semántico
de Córdoba)
García Ureña, L. “Descripción de la especie semántica ‘Relación’,” in Actas del V Congreso
Andaluz de Lingüística General. Homenaje al Profesor José Andrés de Molina Redondo, ed. J.
D. Luque Durán, 811 – 17. Granada: Granada Linguistica, 2006.
— “Arquitectura de las imágenes en el libro del Apocalipsis.” PhD diss., University of Cordoba,
2008.
— “Areté en el DGENT,” in Traducción y tradición. Textos humanísticos y literarios, 355 – 64.
Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2010.
— “El rigor del método. Una ayuda para el exegeta y traductor,” in Liber amicorum en honor del
profesor Jesús Peláez, ed. L. Roig Lanzillotta and I. Muñoz Gallarte, 53 – 63. Cordoba:
Ediciones el Almendro, 2013.
— “La Septuaginta, testigo de un proceso de lexicalización: σῶμα de cuerpo a esclavo,” in
Séptimo Centenario de los Estudios Orientales en España, ed. A. Cantera et al., 371 – 82.
Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 2013.
— “The Influence of the Contextual Factor in the New Testament Adjectives,” in Proceedings of
11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. G. Kotzoglou et al., 1495 – 1503.
Rhodes: University of the Aegean, 2014.
— “The Definitions of the Lexemes according to the Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo
Testamento (DGENT),” Exemplaria classica (forthcoming).
Godoy, P. Diccionario geográfico del Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2010.
Mateos, J. “Análisis de un campo lexemático. εὐλογία en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 1 (1988):
5 – 25.
— Método de Análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Filología
Neotestamentaria 1. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 1989.
— “Análisis semántico de los lexemas σκανδαλίζω y σκάνδαλον.” FNT 2 (1989): 57 – 92.
— “πάλιν en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 7 (1994): 65 – 80.
— “ὑπακούω y términos afines en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 8 (1995): 209 – 27. Mateos, J., and
J. Peláez. “El adverbio ἄρτι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 8 (1995): 85 – 94.
Mateos, J., J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Análisis
semántico de los vocablos (DGENT). Fasc. 1 – 2. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2000, 2002.
Mateos, J. (†), J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento.
Análisis semántico de los vocablos (DGENT). Fasc. 3 – 5. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro,
2007, 2010, 2012.
Merino, M. “La preposición διά en el griego del Nuevo Testamento. Ensayo de análisis
semántico,” in In mari via tua. Philological Studies in Honour of Antonio Piñero, ed. Muñoz
Gallarte and Jesús Peláez, 243 – 65. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2016.
— “La preposición ἀπό en el griego del Nuevo Testamento. Algunos casos de controversia.”
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 27 (forthcoming).
Merino, M., and I. Gallarte. “El campo semántico de la educación en el NT: παιδεύω y διδασκαλία
según el DGENT,” in Liber amicorum en honor del profesor Jesús Peláez del Rosal, ed. L. Roig
Lanzillotta and I. Muñoz Gallarte, 1 – 26. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2013.
Muñoz Gallarte, I. “Los sustantivos-hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica.” PhD
diss., Complutense University of Madrid, 2009.
— “La importancia del factor contextual.” Fortunatae 21 (2010): 101 – 25.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-022
306 Publications on Semantics and Lexicography

— “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Contextual Factors and some
Practical Examples,” in Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed.
G. Kotzoglou et al., 1152 – 64. Rhodes: University of the Aegean, 2014.
— “The meaning of pistis in the framework of the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New
Testament,” in Getting into the Text, ed. T. W. Hudgins and D. L. Akin. Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock, 2017 (forthcoming).
Padilla, C. “Sobre el verbo ἀποκρίνομαι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 3 (1990): 67 – 74.
— “Ensayo de clasificación de la especie semántica ‘Atributo’ en la letra ‘Alfa’ del Diccionario
del Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 4 (1991): 61 – 72.
Peláez, J. Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Filología
Neotestamentaria 6. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 1996.
— “Del lexema al lema. Pasos para la redacción del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo
Testamento,” in Cien años de investigación semántica, de Michel Bréal a la actualidad: actas
del Congreso Internacional de Semántica, ed. Ediciones Clásicas, 1151 – 61. Tenerife, ES:
Universidad de la Laguna, 1997.
— “El significado de la expresión ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου en el evangelio de Mateo.”
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 8 (1998): 43 – 52.
— “El factor contextual como elemento determinante del significado de los lexemas. El caso de
ἀπολείπω,” in La Biblia en el Arte y en la Literatura: V Simposio Bíblico Español, ed.
Fundación Biblica Española, 411 – 17. Valencia-Pamplona: University De Navarra, 1999.
— “Significado, Traducción y Definición de las palabras en el Diccionario Griego-Español del
Nuevo Testamento (DGENT),” in ΕΡΙΕΙΚΕΙΑ. Studia Graeca in memoriam Jesús Lens Tuero, ed.
M. Alganza et al., 387 – 96. Granada, Athos-Pérgamos, 2000.
— “La metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento,” in Memoria de los
Seminarios de Filología e Historia, CSIC, ed. S. Torallas Tovar, 79 – 94. Madrid: Instituto de
Filología, 2003.
— “βασιλεία en el Nuevo Testamento. Factor contextual, definición y traducción.” FNT 16 (2003):
69 – 84.
— “The definition of the lexemes in the New Testament Greek-Spanish Dictionary (DGENT):
Basileía and related lexemes.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SNTS.
Barcelona, ES, 4 August 2004.
— “La descripción semántica de la metonimia,” in Actas del V Congreso Andaluz de Lingüística
General. Homenaje al Profesor José Andrés de Molina Redondo, ed. Juan de Dios Luque
Durán, 787 – 803. Granada: Granada Linguistica, 2006.
— “La definición de los lexemas en el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento
(DGENT): βασιλεία y lexemas afines,” in Koinós Lógos. Homenaje al profesor José García
López, ed. E. Calderón, A. Morales, and M. Valverde, 757 – 66. Murcia, ES: University of
Murcia, 2006.
— “Retraducción y culturas. Problemas de la traducción del Nuevo Testamento hoy,” in
Retraducir. Una nueva mirada. La retraducción de textos literarios y audiovisuales, ed. J. J.
Zaro Vera and F. Ruiz Noguera, 69 – 88. Malaga, ES: Miguel Gómez, 2007.
— “El lexema verbal ἀποδίδωμι.” Fortunatae 18 (2007): 145 – 61.
— “Principios básicos para la Redacción del Diccionario Griego Español del Nuevo Testamento.”
Paper presented at the Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Valencia, ES, 22 – 26 October
2007.
— “El Diccionario Griego-Espanol del Nuevo Testamento. Un proyecto en curso.” Paper
presented at the Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Valencia, ES, 22 – 26 October 2007.
— “Response to Dr. David du Toit, ‘After BAA/BDAG and Louw-Nida: Some Thoughts on the
State of New Testament Lexicography and its Prospects’.” Paper presented at the
International Meeting of the SNTS. Lund University, SE, 1 August 2008.
 Publications on Semantics and Lexicography 307

— “A new Method of Semantic Analysis, applied to New Testament lexicography. Four basic
premises for the Greek-Spanish NT Dictionary.” Paper presented at the International Meeting
of the SNTS. University of Vienna, AU, 4 August 2009.
— “Semantic procedures for the construction of definitions of the words in the Greek Spanish
Dictionary of the New Testament.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SNTS.
University of Vienna, AU, 5 August 2009.
— “Contextual factor and change in meaning of the lexemes in the Greek-Spanish NT
Dictionary.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SBL and of the EABS.
University of Tartu, EE, 27 July 2010.
— “El Diccionario griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento.” Paper presented at the 4th
International Congress of Spanish Lexicography. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, ES, 21 September
2010.
— “Las preposiciones en el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT). El caso
de ἀντί,” in O Greco, Língua Universal de Cultura: Semântica e Léxico, ed. M. Alexandre
Júnior, 32 – 45. Lisbon, PT: University of Coimbra, 2011.
— “¿Hacia Dónde va la Lexicografía? Significado Lexical y Significados Contextuales de ἀρχή en
el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT),” in O Greco, Língua Universal
de Cultura: Semântica e Léxico, ed. M. Alexandre Júnior, 107 – 25. Lisbon, PT: University of
Coimbra, 2011.
— “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT),” in
Reflections on Lexicography. Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, ed.
R. A. Taylor and C. E. Morrison, 265 – 75. Piscataway, NJ: Georgias Press, 2014.
— “Definition of the Lexeme ἀγάπη in Greek New Testament Dictionaries: A comparative Study,”
in In mari via tua. Philological Studies in Honour of Antonio Piñero, ed. M. Gallarte and Jesús
Peláez, 267 – 79. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2016.
Pelaez, J., and I. Muñoz Gallarte. La clasificación semántica de los sustantivos en el Nuevo
Testamento. Parte I. Sustantivos Entidad, Atributo, Relación y Determinación. Parte II.
Sustantivos Hecho. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro (to be published soon).
Piñero, A., and J. Peláez. El Nuevo Testamento. Introducción al estudio de los primeros escritos
cristianos, En los orígenes del cristianismo 8. Cordoba, Ediciones El Almendro, 1995.
— The Study of the New Testament. A Comprehensive Introduction, Tools for Biblical Study 3,
trans. David E. Orton and Paul Ellingworth. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2003.
Roig Lanzillotta, L. Quién es quién en el Nuevo Testamento. Diccionario de nombres propios del
NT. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2009.
— Diccionario de Personajes del Nuevo Testamento, Universidad y Ciencia 1. Cordoba, Ediciones
el Almendro, 2011.
— “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Meaning and Translation of
the Lexemes; some practical examples,” in Reflections on Lexicography. Explorations in
Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, ed. R. A. Taylor and C. E. Morrison, 277 – 88.
Piscataway, NJ: Georgias Press, 2014.
Romero González, D. “Hacia una nueva clasificación semántica de los adjetivos pertenecientes a
la especie semántica ‘Hecho’ en el Nuevo Testamento,” in Actas del V Congreso Andaluz de
Lingüística General. Homenaje al Profesor José Andrés de Molina Redondo, ed. J. D. Luque
Durán, 803 – 10. Granada: Granada Linguistica, 2006.
— “El adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica.” PhD diss., University of
Cordoba, 2010.
— Diccionario del uso del adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro (to
be published soon).
Index of Greek Words
The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages

ἀγαθοποιέω XXXVI, 126, 251 ἄρα 183

ἀγαθός 111, 166, 237 – 38, 312 ἀριθμός 311
ἀγαθοσύνη 316, 318 ἅρμα 229
ἀγαθότης 150, 166 ἀρνέομαι 132
ἀγαθουργέω 251 ἄρρητος 114
ἀγαθωσύνη 166, 309 ἀρρωστία 152
ἀγαπάω 123, 304 ἀρχάγγελος 335
ἀγάπη 148, 153 ἀρχή 146, 294
ἀγγελία 309 ἀσθένεια 152
ἀγέλη 177, 322 ἀσθενέω 118, 198
ἁγιάζω 198 ἀσθενής 110, 236
ἀγκάλη 318 ἀσιάρχης 179
ἀγορά 335 ἀσπίς 335
ἄγρα 339 ἀστράπτω 116
ἀγρός 377, 378 – 83, 400 ἀτενίζω 198
ἀδελφός 344 ἀτιμία 318
ἀδελφότης 350, 370 αὐλή 377, 395 – 99, 409, 411
ᾅδης 377, 384 – 88, 403 – 05 αὔριον 143
ἀδικία 318 αὐτός 138, 141, 284, 286, 305
ἀδύνατος 183
ἀετός 335 βάλλω 198, 250, 313
αἵρεσις 349, 364 βασανιστής 335
ἀκρίς 222 βασιλεία 306
ἀκροατής 335 βασιλεύς 106, 140, 232
ἀκροβυστία 318 βασιλεύω 121
ἀλάλητος 114 βασίλισσα 335
ἀλλά 137 βάτραχος 335
ἄμφοδον 335 βδέλυγμα 318
ἄμωμος 114 βιβλίον 103
ἀναβαίνω 245 βίωσις 339
ἀναγινώσκω 198 βλέμμα 339
ἀναιρέω 185 βουνός 318
ἀνάκρισις 318 βραχύς 109
ἀναλογία 318 βρέχω 116
ἀναστροφή 339
ἄνεμος 377, 389 – 94, 406, 408 Γαλιλαία 316
ἄνθρωπος 104, 139, 221 – 23, 309, 316, 318, γάρ 137
320, 329, 335 – 36 γε 183
ἀνίσταμαι 252 γέλως 338
ἀνίστημι 252 γεννάω 186, 265
ἀποθνῄσκω 198 γερουσία 351, 372 – 73
ἀποκρίνομαι 132 γῆ 320, 329
ἀποκτείνω 119, 185, 198, 248, 252 γίνομαι 186
ἀπόλλυμι 185, 248, 252 γράμμα 311, 335
ἀπόστολος 328

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-023
 Index of Greek Words 309

γρηγορέω 257 εἷς 144, 292, 316

γυνή 336 εἰσακούω 198
εἰσέρχομαι 120, 127, 256
δαιμονίζομαι 185 ἐκ 135, 250, 277, 392, 394
δαιμόνιον 318, 335 ἕκαστος 144, 178, 291
δαίμων 335 ἐκβάλλω 250
δάκνω 341 ἐκεῖ 143, 288
δανειστής 335 ἐκεῖνος 142, 287
δέ 137 ἐλάχιστος 113
δείκνυμι 128 ἐμός/μου 138, 171, 284
δεύτερος 145, 293 ἐν 135, 274, 305
δῆλος 183 ἐνιαυτός 309
δῆμος 177, 343, 350, 352, 413 – 15, 433 ἐντολή 238, 318
διά 278, 283 ἐξέρχομαι 120, 127, 256
διάβολος 335 ἔξω 135
διαθήκη 311, 318 ἐπαγγελία 318
διακονέω 259 ἔπος 318
διαστολή 318 ἐργάζομαι 249, 250
διάφορος 137 ἔρχομαι 120, 127, 245, 256
διδασκαλία 148 ἐρωτάω 132
διδάσκαλος 103, 335 ἐσθίω 199
διδάσκω 128, 130, 268 ἑσπέρα 318
διδαχή 148 ἔσχατος 145
δίδωμι 128 – 29, 156, 170, 263 – 64 ἔσω 135
δίκαιος 238, 305 εὐαγγέλιον 311
δικαιοσύνη 148, 305 εὐαγγελιστής 335
διότι 314 εὐθύς 136, 281, 314
διψάω 258 εὐλογία 160
δόγμα 311, 318 εὐποιέω 126
δοκέω 183 εὐπρέπεια 318
δόμα 170 ἐφημερία 351, 376
δόσις 156, 158, 170 ἔχω 124, 255
δότης 157, 170, 327 ἐσχάτως ἔχειν 255
δουλεύω 259 κακῶς ἔχειν 255
δύναμαι 183
δύναμις 152 ζάω 118, 167
δυνατόs 183 ζητέω 198
δύο 144, 292, 315 – 16 ζωή 167, 265
δώδεκα 179 ζῷον 167, 309
δωρεά 158 ζωοποιέω 265
δῶρον 158, 170
ἡγέομαι 183
ἔγγυος 326 ἦθος 311
ἐγγύς 136, 280 ἡλικία 311
ἐγκοπή 318 ἡμέρα 295, 315 – 16, 318
ἐγώ 141, 171, 286
ἔθνος 177, 350, 352, 412, 424 – 30, 435 θάνατος 339, 384, 387, 404
εἰ 183 θανατόω 185
εἰμι 163, 166, 198 θεά 335
εἰς 135, 276 θέλημα 311
310 Index of Greek Words

θεός 335 λαλέω 267

θερισμός 315 λαμβάνω 170, 198
λαός 177, 225, 350, 352, 412, 416 – 20, 434
ἰατρός 106, 335 λατρεύω 259
ἱερεύς 306 λέγω 128, 131 – 32, 266 – 67
ἱερόν 140, 230 – 31 λεῖμμα 349, 363
ἱμάτιον 229 λειτουργέω 259
ἵνα 137 λευκαθίζω 162
ἱππηλατέω 245 λευκός 108, 149, 162, 234 – 35
ἵππος 103 λευκότης 149, 162
ἴσος 137 λέων 335
ἰσχύς 152 λήπτης 170
ἰσχύω 118 λίαν 144, 290
ἴσως 183 λίθος 104, 335
ἰχθύς 318 λόγος 103, 266, 311
ἴχνος 311 λυπέω 198, 260 – 61
λύω 185
καθαρός 110, 242
καθέδρα 105 μαθητής 315
καθεύδω 117, 198, 247, 257, 313 μακράν 136, 280
κάθημαι 198, 254, 256, 313 μακροθυμία 318
καί 137 μακρόθυμος 237
καιρός 318 μακρός 109
κακοποιέω 126 μακρότης 148
κακός 237 μανθάνω 133
κάλαμος 330 μαστιγόω 270
κάμηλος 320 μάστιξ 318
καρδία 298 – 302, 311, 344 μεγαλότης 163
καρπός 177, 330 μέγας 109, 163, 235, 312
κατά 178 μέγιστος 113, 241
καταλύω 185 μείζων 113, 240
καταργέω 185, 248 μεριστής 327
κατοικέω 124, 255 μεσίτης 326
κέρας 330 μετά 135 – 36, 183, 279
κεφαλή 318 μετάνοια 316
κῆρυξ 328 μῆκος 149
κλαίω 261 μίασμα 311, 318
κλέπτης 318 μικρός 109, 235
κλισία 348, 356 μίλιον 315 – 16
κοινός 243 μιμητής 335
κουστωδία 349, 359 μῖσος 153
κόφινος 318
κρατέω 198 ναός 231
κρέας 330 νεανίας 335
κτάομαι 198 νοέω 245
κτῆνος 322 νομίζω 183
κτίζω 186 νόμισμα 318
κύων 104, 329 νόμος 311
νόσος 152
 Index of Greek Words 311

νοῦς 311, 318 ποίησις 169

νῦν 143, 289 ποιητής 169
ποιμαίνω 119
ὁ, ἡ, τό 139, 285 πολιτάρχαι 179
οἰκετεία 349, 365 πολύς 113, 241, 315
οἰκέω 124, 198, 255 πονηρία 150
οἶκος XXXVI, 105, 139, 226 – 30, 309 πονηρός 111, 237
οἶμαι 183 πορεύομαι 117, 168, 198, 245
ὀλίγος 113, 241 ποτέ 143, 289
ὅμοιος 137 πού 143, 288 – 89
ὁμοιότης 309, 314, 318 ποῦ 288 – 89
ὄνομα 147, 296, 311 πρεσβεία 349, 357
ὅραμα 339 πρό 136, 183, 275
ὁράω 198 πρός 135, 314
ὀργή 13 προσευχή 318
ὃς ἄν 178 προσφορά 154 – 55
ὅτι 137, 283, 314 προφητεία 318
οὐ 183 πρῶτος 145, 293
οὗτος 142, 171, 287 πτωχεία 151, 165
ὄχλος XXXV, 224 πτωχεύω 125, 165
πτωχός 112, 151, 165
πάθος 339 πῶς 183
πανταχόθεν 314 πως 183
παραχρῆμα 136, 281
παρέρχομαι 185 ῥέω 198
παρθένος 321 ῥῆγμα 339
πᾶς 144, 291, 316, 417, 426, 434, 436 – 37 ῥιπτέω 250
– πάντες 178 ῥίπτω 250
– πᾶς ὁ 178
πάσχω 198 σανδάλιον 335
πατριά 350, 352, 412, 431, 437 σβέννυμι 248
πατρικός 314 σήμερον 143
Παῦλος 316 σκορπίος 335
πεινάω 258 σκώληξ 335
πενθέω 261 σός/σου 138, 284
πείθω 183 σπεῖρα 177, 351, 375
περιπατέω 198, 245 σποδός 318
περίσσευμα 318 στάχυς 330
περιτέμνω 270 στεῖρα 321
πιστεύω 122, 253 στενός 109
πλατύς 109 στρατιά 349, 360, 374
πλοῖον 229 σύ 141, 286
πλούσιος 112, 151, 239 σύν 135
πλουτέω 125, 255 συνέδριον 179, 351
πλοῦτος 151 συνετός 108
πνεῦμα 298, 300, 408 συνοδία 349, 358
πνέω 408 σφαγή 339
πνοή 408 σφόδρα 144, 290
ποιέω 119, 169, 186, 249, 305, 313 σφραγίζω 271
ποίημα 169 σῷζω 303 – 04
312 Index of Greek Words

τάχα 183 ὑπολήνιον 335

τεκνογονία 339 ὑπομένω 198
τέλος 146, 294, 315 ὑψηλός 109
τετράγωνος 108 ὕψος 149
τετράδιον 348, 351, 371
τιμή 255 φαίνω 117, 246
τινος 138 Φαρισαῖος 140
τότε 143, 183, 289 φιλέω 123, 304 – 05
τράπεζα 229, 335 φυλή 350, 352, 412, 421 – 23, 431, 436
τραπεζίτης 335 φῶς 103
τροφός 335
χαρίζομαι 128 – 29, 264
ὑγιαίνω 118, 164 χθές 143
ὑγίεια 152, 164, 236 χορτάζω 269
ὑγιής 110, 164, 236 χρόνος 103, 233, 295
ὕω 116
ὑπακούω 343 ὧδε 143, 171, 288
ὑπογραμμός 318 ὡς 137
ὑπολαμβάνω 183 ὡς 137
ὑπόλειμμα 349 ὥσπερ 137, 28
Index of Subjects
The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages
absolute superlatives 113, 241
abstract attribute lexemes 149
abstract event lexemes 152 – 60
anaphoric 99 – 100, 134, 139 – 40, 142, 285,
287
article 73, 92, 309, 315
article, definite 99, 139 – 40, 159, 176, 285,
316
article, indefinite 139
aspect (grammatical category) 160, 173, 193,
333
aspect (semantic category) 193 – 96, 203, 211,
215, 244, 303 – 04, 332 – 34, 337 – 39
attribute 48, 73, 79, 93 – 96, 107, 113, 118,
172, 183, 309 – 10, 316
attribute lexeme 107 – 14, 149 – 51, 162 – 67,
220, 234 – 43, 290, 312
attribute noun 318
BAA 25, 29 – 35, 37 – 39, 42
BAG 23, 37, 42
BAGD 23, 30 – 31, 36 – 37, 40 – 42, 49
BDAG 36 – 44
BRAA 25
clarity 76, 209
class, grammatical XXXI – XXXII, 73, 92, 95,
101, 308 – 09, 316 – 17, 331
class, semantic 73, 79, 92 – 93, 95 – 102,
161 – 72, 218 – 19, 308 – 19, 331, 334, 438 –
443
classemes 72, 74, 83, 87, 89, 203, 215, 219,
334
collective entity noun 347 – 76, 413 – 31
comparative attribute lexemes 113, 240
componential analysis 14, 73, 75
connotation, connoted elements XXXIII,
XXXVI, 51, 71, 105, 115 – 33, 160, 201, 210,
213, 216, 218, 234, 237, 239 – 41, 244 – 71,
319, 323 – 28, 331 – 32
constants 90, 210 – 14, 219
contextual meaning XXXI, XXXV, 20, 28, 33,
35, 51 – 52, 55, 57 – 59, 68, 72, 74 – 75, 89,
204, 206, 208 – 09, 215, 217, 228, 297,
307, 331, 341 – 46, 377 – 411
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-024
contextual semes 72, 74, 83, 89, 160, 215 – 17,
219, 255, 275, 291, 334
contextual seme, generic see classemes
contextual semes, occasional (or peripheral)
74, 88 – 89, 215 – 17, 219, 331, 343
corpus (general) 2, 5, 42, 69, 74, 206, 217,
227, 307, 341, 343
corpus of the NT 26, 57, 69, 71
definitional (or contextual) analysis 27, 75,
209, 244
deictic determination morpholexemes 139,
142
deictic determinative lexemes 286
Deissmann, G.A. XXII – XXVII, XXX
denotation XXXIII, 51, 320 – 22
determination 5, 73, 79, 93 – 95, 99 – 100, 113,
218, 310, 316
determination lexeme 139 – 47, 285 – 96, 315
determination noun 318
DGENT XXI – XXXVII, 5, 307 – 08, 317, 331
Diccionario Bíblico hebreo-español 2
Diccionario Griego-Español (DGE) 22, 25
dictionary (general) 2 – 5, 17, 19 – 22, 70, 72
dictionary, bilingual 1 – 6, 17, 19, 40
distinct(ive) features 21, 48, 51, 205, 412
ditransitive abstract lexemes 156 – 57
ditransitive event lexemes 128, 156, 170,
201 – 02
efficiency 76
encyclopedic dictionaries 26
encyclopedic knowledge XXXVI – XXXVII, 27
entity 95, 101, 103 – 06, 108 – 09, 119,
122 – 23, 141, 150, 169, 201, 221 – 39,
309 – 11, 329 – 30, 340
entity lexeme 103 – 06, 220 – 33, 311, 324 – 30,
336 – 37
entity noun 316, 318, 332, 336, 338 – 39
etymology 19, 81
event 73, 79, 93 – 95, 97, 101, 181, 183,
187 – 90, 194 – 97, 211, 236 – 38, 310, 316,
337, 339
event lexemes 115 – 33, 164 – 70, 201 – 02,
244 – 71, 313
314 Index of Subjects
event nouns 318, 338 – 39
event, dynamic 123, 153, 354 – 60, 365,
372 – 76
event, stative 123, 153, 361 – 65
functionality 76, 205, 208, 353
GASCO XXVIII, XXXIX – XL, 305 – 307
gender (grammatical category) 87, 173 – 74,
203, 333, 335
gender (semantic category) 83, 87, 174, 203,
211, 215, 221, 332, 334 – 35, 337, 347, 352,
355
generic contextual seme, see classemes
gloss 31, 39 – 40, 42, 44, 52
Grimm-Wilke 37
Grundbedeutung 19, 51, 345
implication 5, 86, 105, 213, 297
intransitive verbs/lexemes 120, 127, 168, 248,
254, 256 – 58, 260
Louw-Nida (L&N) 24 – 25, 45 – 68, 73, 298,
307, 399, 402, 405, 408, 411
langue XXXI, 3, 5, 16 – 17, 72, 74, 204, 220,
228, 307, 315
lexeme 72 – 75, 77 – 78, 81 – 83
lexical meaning XXX, 20, 28, 35, 40, 47, 52,
55, 68, 340 – 76, 378, 385, 387, 389 – 90,
393, 396, 412, 432
lexicographer 5, 15 – 16, 31, 36, 40, 44 – 45,
47, 244
lexicography 5, 23, 31, 35, 307
lexicology 5
lexicon (book) 5
lexicon (technical linguistic term) 5
LSJ 25, 30
LXX 26, 29 – 30, 38, 42, 57, 259, 298, 300
meaning 10 – 15, 18 – 22
metalanguage 205, 355
metaphorical usage 344, 431
metonymy 296, 362, 364, 385, 392 – 94, 397,
399, 406 – 07
mode (grammatical category) 87, 173, 181,
333
mode (semantic category) 181 – 86, 203, 334
morphemes 79, 83, 333
morpholexeme 79, 134 – 37, 272, 275 – 79,
282, 285, 290 – 91, 314 – 15
name 12 – 14
nuclear configuration XXXI, 86, 89, 207, 213,
297 – 306, 344
nuclear semes 72, 74, 85 – 86, 89, 203,
206 – 07, 210 – 13, 216 – 17, 219, 225, 228,
252, 274, 297, 307, 331, 344, 354
nuclear seme, generic 210 – 11, 213, 218 – 19,
222, 234, 245 – 47, 249, 260, 263, 330 – 31,
340, 355
nuclear seme, specific 206, 210, 212
nucleus, generic 74
number (grammatical category) 74, 87, 173,
221, 333, 336
number (semantic category) 87, 175 – 80, 203,
211, 215, 221, 225, 332, 334, 336
numerals 39, 99, 144, 316
operational (or contextual) theory 11, 14 – 16
ordinal lexemes 195, 293
paralexemes 3, 67, 80, 208
parole XXXI, 3, 5, 16 – 17, 74, 204, 228, 307,
315, 338
possessive lexemes 100, 284
presupposition 5, 86, 105, 213, 297, 323
principle of economy 76, 91
principle of expressiveness 91
quantifiers 99, 113, 292, 315 – 16
quasi-entity 103, 233, 295
quasi-entity lexeme 233, 311
quasi-entity noun 318
reference 5, 12, 14, 49
referent 5, 12, 48, 52, 311, 336
referential (componential) school 11
relation 172
relation lexeme 100, 134 – 38, 171, 272 – 84,
314
semantic category XXXIV, 172 – 203, 332 – 339
semantic domain 24, 48 – 49, 52 – 54, 59, 68,
71, 74, 211 – 12, 332
semantic formula XXXIII, XXXV, 74, 101 – 72,
206, 210, 218 – 19, 244, 297, 318 – 32, 340,
377
semantic formula, generic 262, 274
semantic structure 77, 91, 149

sememe XXXI, XXXV, 28, 51, 74 – 75, 89 – 90,
215, 217, 219, 297 – 302, 331, 343 – 44,
346, 353, 377
semes XXX, XXXII – XXXIII, 21, 32, 60, 72,
74 – 75, 84 – 88, 90, 172, 204 – 08
semic configuration, see nuclear configuration
semic development XXXIII – XXXVI, XL, 52, 74,
172, 204 – 218, 329 – 339, 340 – 376, 438 –
443
semic nucleus XXXIV – XXXV, 72, 74, 85 – 86,
89 – 90, 204, 206 – 09, 213 – 14, 216 – 20,
227 – 28, 297, 307, 344
semiosis 5
sense 12 – 14
sign 5, 12
signified 5
signifier 5, 12
subdomains 47 – 48, 51, 53 – 54, 68
synonymy 51, 62, 75, 214, 412
syntactic explanation 31
syntagm 74, 87 – 88, 90, 309
syntagmatic relations 75
Index of Subjects 315
tense (grammatical category) 187, 203, 333
tense (semantic category) 187, 192, 203, 334
theory, analytical or referential (componenti-
al) 11 – 15
theory, operational or contextual 11, 15 – 16
thing (extralinguistic feature or event) 12 – 13
transitive verbs/lexemes 119, 154 – 55, 201,
248 – 52
translational equivalents 2, 4, 6 – 9, 19, 21,
31, 35, 39 – 40, 44, 48 – 49, 53, 60, 64,
353, 377, 412
usage 5, 11, 15, 35, 51, 206, 307
variables 90, 204, 215 – 17, 219
vocabulary 3, 5, 23, 48
voice (grammatical category) 74, 87, 173, 197,
333
voice (semantic category) 197 – 203, 211, 215,
332, 334, 337, 339
Index of Authors
The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages

Alfagame, I. R. 336 Greimas, A. J. XXVIII – XXIX, 3, 5 – 6, 72, 87,

Allenbach, J. 25 187, 203, 228, 334
Alsop, J. R. 23
Arndt, W. F. 23, 29, 35, 37 Harrison, J. R. 25
Attridge, H. W. 36, 42 Hasselbrook, D. S. 43
Hetzenauer, M. 26
Balz, H. 25 Horsley, G. H. R. XXVII, 25
Barr, J. 19
Bauer, W. XXV, 23, 29, 31, 33 – 34, 38, 40, Katz, J. J. XIX
42 – 44 Kittel, G. 25
Beyreuther, E. 25 Klauck, H.-J. 36, 38
Bietenhard, H. 25
Bihlmeyer, K. 30 Lampe, G. 25, 30
Black, D. A. 24 Landau, S. 38
Blomqvist, J. 36 – 37 Lee, J. A. L. XXI, XXVII, 25, 28, 36 – 37, 40,
Bloomfield, L. 13 42 – 44, 55, 57, 60, 68
Brandscheid, F. 26 Lewandowski, T. 5
Llewelyn, S. R. 25
Carreter, F. L. 2, 4, 335, 342 Louw, J. P. 18, 31 – 32, 55, 68
Chase, S. 15 Louw, J. P. and Nida, E. A. XVI, 5, 21, 24 – 25,
Coenen, L. 25 35, 40, 45 – 68, 298, 307 – 308
Clement 25
Coseriu, E. XXVIII, 99, 205 Malherbe, A. J. 38
Courtés, J. 3, 5, 203 Marín, M. 92
Cyril of Jerusalem 25 Mateos, J. XXVII – XXVIII, XIX – XXX,
XXXVI – XXXVII, 9, 63, 69, 101, 160 – 61,
Danker, F. W. 23, 25, 29, 35 – 44 172, 220, 270, 297, 306 – 07, 310, 352
du Toit, D. S. 36 – 37, 71 Milligan, G., see Moulton, J.
Dubois, J. 3, 5, 342 Moliner, M. 2, 4
Dubois, J. and C. Dubois 4 Moulton, J. XXIV – XXV, 23, 25, 42
Dubois, J. et al. 3, 5 Naselli, A. 37

Epiphanius 25 Newman, B. M. 47, 52

Elliott, J. K. 30 Nida, E. A. 52, 73, 310
Eusebius of Caesarea 25
Ogden, C. K. 10, 12 – 13
Fanning , B. M. 338 Origen 25
Fitzgerald, J. T. 37
Fodor, J. D. XIX, 10 Pabón, J. M. 7
Friedrich, G. 25 Padilla, C. 57
Fries, C. C. 10 Peláez, J. XXVIII, 2, 23, 25, 35, 37, 63, 105,
Funk, F. X. von 30 266, 307, 340, 352, 355, 377, 400, 412,
428
García Santos, A. A. 71 Philo 26
Gingrich, F. W. 23, 29, 35, 37 Plato 12

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-025
 Index of Authors 317

Porter, S. E. 338 Taber, C. R. 73

Pottier, B. XXVIII, 87, 334 Tertullian 25
Preisigke, F. 23, 25 – 26 Thayer, J. H. 37
Preuschen, E. 23, 29, 37, 42 – 44 Tischendorf 26

Reichmann, V. 25, 35 Ullmann, S. 10, 12, 14 – 15, 51

Richards A., see Ogden, C. K.
Roberts, T. 36, 40, 44 Vine, W. E. 48
Rodríguez Adrados, F. 12, 16, 22 Vogels, H. J. 26
Rübsam, W. 25 von Soden, H. 26

Saussure, F. 5, 12 Westcott-Hort 26
Schneemelcher, W. 30 Wittgenstein, L. 15
Schneider, G. 25
Schökel, L. A. 2, 5 Zerwick, M. 26
Zorell, F. 23 – 30, 46, 68, 307 – 08, 318, 400,
403, 406, 409
Index of References
The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages

Old Testament
Genesis 135/134:14 420
12:3 426, 431, 437
15:14 426 Job
17:5 426 38:17 404

Exodus Wisdom of Solomon

19:5 420, 434 16:13 385, 404
19:6 430, 435
22:27 418
Isaiah
23:22 420, 434
2:2 427n3
27:9 409
6:9 418
27:9 ff. 398n5
6:10 418
32:6 418
10:22LXX 363
13 427n4
Leviticus 14:5 – 30 427n4
14:11 404
26:16 420, 434
14:15 404
15:1 – 9 427n4
Deuteronomy 16:13 – 14 427n4
18:19 418 17:1 – 6 427n4
32:21 426 19:1 – 13 427n4
32:36 420 21 427n4
32:43 418, 427, 434 23:1 – 14 427n4
25:9 – 12 427n4
28:11 418
Psalms 28:15 404
2:1 418, 427, 434 29:13 418
2:1 – 8 427n3 38:10 385, 404
4:25 418 42:3 427, 435
15:10 404 42:4 427, 435
18/17:50 427n3 43:21 420, 434
28/29:2 398n5 45:1 427n3
46/45:7 427n3 48:20 420
83/84:3 398n5 52:5 428
83/84:11 398n5 56:7 427
89/88:49 385
91/92:14 398n5
94/93:14 418 Jeremiah
95/94:11 420 19:14 398n5
117/116:1b 417 25:25 – 38 427n4

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-026
 Index of References 319

31:33 418 Amos

39/32:12 398n5 1:3 – 2:3 427
39/32:2 398n5 9:12 427n4
39/32:8 398n5
40/33:1 398n5
46 – 51 427n4 Malachi
49:36/25:35LXX 406 3:17 420, 434

Ezekiel 1Maccabees
8:16 398n5 9:54 398n5
25 – 32 427n4
32:18 – 32 385
3Maccabees
37:27 420
5:51 385, 404

Daniel 4Maccabees
7:2 406 15:32 407

Hosea Psalms of Solomon

1:6 27 16:2 385, 404
1:10 420
2:23 27
2:25 420

New Testament
Matthew 4:16 418, 434
1:20 246n19 4:18 292n113
1:21 418, 434 4:23 27, 418
1:23 279n86 5:1 189
2:1 295n121 5:4 189, 261
2:3 291n109 5:4 – 5 305
2:4 291n109, 418, 434 5:6 95, 258n40, 269, 269n57, 305
2:6 418, 434 5:7 298n3
2:8 335 5:8 242n14
2:10 235n8 5:12 275n74
2:11 158 5:13 189
2:16 290n107 5:14 183
2:18 278n83 5:19 – 20 306n15
2:21 256 5:22 291n111
2:23 255 5:25 56
3:2 306n19 5:31 263n43
4:3 57 5:42 270n60
4:8 290n105 5:45 270n59
4:9 263n43 5:47 428, 435
4:11 259 6:5 246n19, 304n11
4:13 255 6:7 282n96
4:15 428, 435 6:8 275n74
320 Index of References

6:9 296n123 11:16 335

6:10 306n16 11:18 33
6:11 263n44 11:23 385, 403 – 04
6:24 259 12:1 33
6:28 379, 383, 400 – 02 12:2 274n69
6:30 250n27, 379, 383, 400 – 02 12:18 427, 435
6:32 428, 435 12:20 252n31
6:33 305 12:21 427, 435
7:4 – 5 250 12:22 267n51
7:8 178 12:25 – 26 306n15
7:18 177n3 12:34 267n53
7:22 250 12:35 237
7:23 249n25 12:36 267n53
7:25 390, 406 – 07 12:40 295n120, 298n6, 344
7:27 235n8, 390, 406 – 07 12:45 255
8:11 306n15 12:47 267n54
8:12 208 12:50 178
8:13 274n69 13:2 291n109
8:15 par. 259 13:3 267n55, 274n72
8:18 367 13:15 418
8:20 288n100 13:16 381
8:25 303n9 13:17 381
8:26 256, 390 13:24 381, 383, 400 – 01
8:26 – 27 407 13:27 381, 401
8:27 390 13:31 381, 401
8:29 275n74 13:32 274n67
8:30 280n94 13:34 267n55
8:32 274n65 13:36 381, 401
8:34 270n60 13:38 208, 381
9:11 33 13:41 306n15
9:15 261 13:43 289n104, 306n15
9:18 267n55 13:44 380
9:19 200n6 13:52 188
9:21 303n9 14:5 200n6
9:22 par. 303n8 14:9 260
9:28 253n34 14:20 269
9:33 267n51 14:24 390
9:37 241n10 14:30 303n9, 390
10:2 146n20, 296n122 14:32 390
10:5 428 14:35 191
10:18 428 15:8 298n3, 418
10:19 267n53 15:18 298n3
10:22 276, 303n9 15:27 33
10:28 252 15:30 250
10:34 250n29 15:31 267n51
10:40 178, 188 15:32 274n70
10:41 296n123 15:33 269
11:1 270n60 15:37 269
11:7 390, 394, 406 – 07 16:8 274n66
11:10 275 16:18 385, 403 – 05
 Index of References 321

16:19 306n15 24:40 381

16:20 270n60 24:41 381
16:24 191 24:45 365
16:25 303n9 25:8 252n31
16:28 306n17 25:24 292n113
17:1 295n119 25:32 427
17:6 290n107 25:35 258n40
17:7 200n6 25:44 259
17:11 180n4 26:1 291n110
18:9 96 26:3 397, 399, 409 – 11, 418
18:17 282n96 26:5 419, 434
18:31 260 26:10 249, 249n24
18:35 291n112, 298n3 26:15 55n83
19:23 – 24 306n15 26:17 293n114
19:28 423, 436 26:18 279n87
19:29 380, 400 – 01 26:22 260n41
20:19 428, 435 26:26 199
20:23 159 26:27 180n4
20:25 427, 435 26:29 306n15
20:27 293n116 26:32 160, 410
21:23 435 26:38 279n87
21:24 274n72 26:47 190, 241n10, 418, 434
21:28 249, 292n115 26:48 304n12
21:31 306nn15.19, 418 26:52 274n72
21:32 253n32 26:53 55n83, 374
21:39 199 26:55 268
21:43 306n19, 426, 434 26:57 – 68 396
22:5 380 26:58 397, 399, 409 – 410
22:12 270n58 26:60 410
22:17 263n44 26:69 396, 409
22:25 293n114 26:72 279n89
22:34 270n58 27:1 418
22:37 298n3 27:5 250
23:5 291n110 27:7 380
23:6 304n11 27:8 380
23:7 270n58 27:10 380
23:13 306n15, 419 27:16 289n104
23:16 99 27:18 278n83
23:18 99 27:35 419
23:21 255 27:59 242n13
23:23 99 27:60 235n6
23:35 238 27:64 419
23:37 51 27:65 359
24:7 426, 435 27:66 271n62, 359
24:9 427 28:2 254
24:14 427, 435 28:8 279n89
24:18 401 28:11 359
24:21 294n118 28:19 270n58, 427, 435
24:30 241n11, 422, 436
24:31 392, 394, 406 – 07
322 Index of References

Mark 5:39 247n21, 335

1:1 97, 146n20, 294n118 5:43 270n60
1:2 98, 275 6:11 256n38
1:4 95 6:14 296n124
1:6 222 6:23 306n15
1:10 276n77 6:27 270n60
1:13 98, 279n84 6:36 382, 400 – 01
1:15 306n16 6:39 270n60
1:21a 256n38 6:41 276n76
1:21b 63n89 6:48 55n83, 390
1:23 369 6:50 279n86
1:27 96, 270n60 6:51 390
1:29 63n89, 281n95 6:52 298n4
1:31 259 6:56 303n10, 382 – 83, 400 – 02
1:32 96 7:2 243n17
1:45 241n11 7:5 243n17
2:2 267n55 7:6 418, 434
2:6 255, 298n4 7:27 250n27
2:7 267n53 7:32 270n60
2:8 298n4 7:33 250
2:12 190 7:37 274n65
2:14 191, 254 8:34 188
3:2 98, 190 9:22 250n28
3:4 251 9:23 253n35
3:5 279, 279n89, 298n4 9:31 252
3:6 190 9:41 270n59
3:16 58, 296n122 9:43 190
3:17 208 10:3 270n60
3:21 190 10:29 397
3:35 178 10:29 – 30 380, 401
4:1 98, 268 10:32 260n41
4:2 268n56 10:33 428, 435
4:3 199 10:34 252
4:6 190 10:37 183
4:10 176 10:40 263n44
4:14 266, 266n49 10:40 – 45 242n13
4:16 279, 279n89 10:42 427, 435
4:26 250n30 10:48 241n12
4:32 235n6 11:2 98
4:37 390, 407 11:8 380
4:38 247n20 11:10 306n16
4:39 390 11:17 230n4
4:41 390 11:17 427
5:9 374 11:18 98
5:14 382, 400 – 02 11:19 256n38
5:15 374 11:29 253n32
5:18 185 11:32 27, 419, 434
5:22 296n122 11:32 434
5:23 96, 255 12:9 263n44
5:36 253n35 12:28 293n116
 Index of References 323

12:34 96, 280n94, 306n15 1:51 298n5

12:50 267n53 1:63 270n60
13:1 99, 256 2:4 431, 437
13:2 235n6 1:66 279n86
13:3 255, 276 1:68 418, 434
13:8 294n118, 426, 435 2:10 235n8, 418, 434
13:10 427, 435 2:13 63, 360
13:11 267n53 1:75 305
13:13 296n125 1:76 275
13:13b 190 1:77 418
13:16 381, 401 – 02 2:27 160
13:27 391, 407 2:31 417
13:28 280n93 2:32 418, 434
13:33 257 2:32a 427, 435
13:36 247n22 2:32b 427
14:4 260n41 2:36 436
14:19 260 2:44 358
14:28 159 3:15 419
14:32 296n122 3:18 419
14:35 183 3:21 419
14:38 270n60 4:5 306n15
14:43 367 4:9 250
14:44 263n44, 304n12 4:15 268
14:53 393 4:25 292n113
14:54 409 4:30 98
14:54a 392 4:35 250
14:54b 394 4:39 259
14:60 99 4:43 306n16
14:62 255 5:30 33
14:64 246n19 6:9 251
14:66 409 6:17 419
15:8 – 14 396 6:25 261
15:16 395, 410 6:32 251
15:21 381, 400 6:35 251
16:2 290n106 6:44 291n112
16:4 290n105 7:1 419
16:10 261 7:5 426, 435
16:12 382, 400 7:16 418, 434
7:21 264n47
7:24 390, 394, 406 – 07
Luke 7:29 419
1:5 376 7:42 264n48
1:6 98 7:43 183
1:8 376 7:44 263n44
1:10 27, 419, 434 7:45 263n44
1:13 98 8:1 179
1:17 298n5, 418, 434 8:15 97, 298n5
1:20 253n33 8:23 390, 407
1:26 296n122 8:24 390
1:33 306n16 8:25 390
324 Index of References

8:28 270n60 17:16 418, 434

8:30 374 17:27 33
8:34 382, 400 – 01 17:31 381, 401
8:47 419 17:36 381
8:55 270n60 18:6 96
9:2 306n16 18:13 48
9:11 306n16 18:23 290n105
9:12 382, 401 18:32 428, 435
9:13 419, 434 18:43 419
9:14 356 19:11 280n92
9:31 55n83 19:12 109, 306n17, 400
9:60 306n16 19:14 357
10:2 270n60 19:15 306n17
10:15 385, 404 19:47 418, 434
10:16 188 19:48 419
10:20 260n41 20:9 419, 434
11:13 263n46 20:13 183
11:21 409 – 11, 419 20:19 419
11:21a 397 20:20 434
11:21b 397 20:26 419, 434
11:26 255 20:36 208
11:29 306n15 20:37 – 38 386n3
11:31 274n70 20:45 419, 434
11:38 283n98 20:46 304n11
11:53 419, 434 21:10 426, 435
12:11 294n118 21:23 418
12:17 180n4 21:24 435
12:19 276 21:24a 427
12:28 379, 400 21:24b–c 427
12:32 109 21:25 427
12:49 250n29 21:34 63
13:4 252, 255 21:36 291n111
13:15 270n59 22:2 419
13:16 270n58 22:11 256n38
14:18 380, 401 22:15 275n74
14:32 357 22:25 427
14:33 98 22:47 123, 304n12
14:43 279n88 22:49 274n72
15:13 109 22:55 396, 399
15:15 381, 383, 401 23:2 263n45, 426
15:20 280n94 23:5 418, 434
15:25 355, 381, 400 22:66 373, 418
15:29 259 23:14 418, 434
16:3 200n6 23:26 381, 400
16:8 208 23:27 419
16:11 253 23:42 306n17
16:23 386, 388, 403 – 05 23:43 28
16:23 – 25 386 23:55 419
16:24 386, 388 24:5 279n84
16:31 95 24:19 418
 Index of References 325

24:23 160 8:20 274n68

24:38 200n6 8:23 259
24:47 427, 435 8:26 276n76
8:29 279n86
8:56 295n121
John 9:11 200n8
1:1 266, 266nn49.50 9:15 200n8
1:5 246n18 10:1 398 – 99, 409 – 10
1:6 296n122 10:16 398, 409 – 11
1:12 263n43 10:36 283n98
1:16 199, 283n97 10:50 418, 426
1:17 263n44 11:9 274n70, 292n113, 295n120
1:22 263n43 11:18 280n92
2:11 294n118 11:48 426
2:16 227 11:50 292n113, 418, 434
2:19 274n71 11:51 – 52 426
2:22 253n33 11:54 279n85
2:24 253 12:26 259
3:5 306n15 12:27 289n104
3:8 288n101 12:36 208
3:16 123 12:40 298n5
3:33 271n62 13:2 298n5
4:10 158 13:18 279n87
4:13 291n111 13:33 279n85
4:20 274n67 14:2 98
4:22 283n97 14:14 249n26
4:27 279n86 14:26 268n56
4:36 177n3 15:13 242n14
4:44 255 15:14 270n60
5:4 279n90 15:21 276
5:5 255 16:19 55n83
5:7 250n28 17:5 275n74
5:11 249n26 17:12 208
5:17 249 18:3 177, 279n88
5:21 265 18:14 418
5:24 255 18:15 397
5:25 199 18:19 397
5:30 238 18:29 256
6:4 280n93 18:35 426
6:5 283n98 18:36 306n17
6:7 109, 291n110 19:1 270
6:18 390 19:20 280n92
6:27 271n62 20:25 250
6:28 249 20:27 250
6:33 263n44 20:29 283
6:39 252 21:11 235n6
7:1 252 21:25 178, 183
6:63 267n55
7:12 237
7:35 362
Acts
1:3 159, 278n80
326 Index of References

1:15 296n125 8:9 426, 435

1:18 200n7 8:20 200n7
1:29 255 8:22 183
2:4 267n51 9:2 369
2:5 255, 426, 435 9:14 64
2:9 255 9:15 96, 428
2:17 388 10:2 418, 434
2:24 183 10:14 243n17
2:27 385, 403 – 04 10:22 426, 435
2:31 385, 388, 403 – 05 10:28 243n17
2:44 243n16 10:35 249n25, 426, 435
2:47 303n10, 418 10:41 159, 418, 434
3:9 419, 434 10:42 418
3:11 – 12 419 10:45 428
3:14 264n47 11:1 428
3:23 418 11:8 243n17
3:25 431, 437 11:18 428
4:1 419 12:4 371, 418
4:2 419 12:6 275n73
4:8 418, 434 12:11 291n110, 418
4:9 303n8 12:14 275n73
4:10 418, 434 12:22 413 – 14, 433
4:16 313 13:15 419
4:17 419 13:17a 418
4:21 419 13:17b 418
4:25 427 13:19 426, 435
4:27 418, 434 13:21 423, 436
4:36 208 13:31 418
4:37 383, 400 – 01 13:40 274n66
5:12 418 13:43 369
5:13 418 13:44 380
5:17 364 13:45 428
5:19 278n81 13:46 428
5:20 419 13:47 427
5:21 371 13:48 428, 435
5:25 – 26 419 14:2 428
5:37 419 14:5 428, 435
5:40 296n125 14:13 275n73
6:2 259 14:16 427
6:7 290n108 14:17 251
6:8 418 14:19 160
6:10 267n53 14:21 270n58
6:12 97, 418 14:27 428
7:4 159, 289n104 15:3 428
7:7 426 15:5 364
7:17 418, 434 15:7 428
7:34 418, 434 15:10 427, 435
7:42 360 15:12 428
7:45 427 5:12 – 13 9
8:1 235n8 15:13 159
 Index of References 327

15:14 420, 428, 434 24:10 426

15:17 427 24:14 364
15:19 428 24:17 426 – 27
15:22 176 25:11 264n47
15:23 428 26:4 426
16:3 270 26:17 418, 435
16:26 63 26:20 427, 435
17:5 176, 413, 415, 431 26:23 418, 427, 434 – 35
17:5 ff 26 27:1 177
17:8 179 27:4 390, 407
17:10 176 27:7 390
17:26 426, 435 27:14 390
18:6 428 27:15 390
18:10 420, 434 27:19 250
19:2 183 27:20 159
19:4 418 27:24 264n47
19:30 176, 413, 415, 431 27:29 250, 288n103
19:31 179 27:40 303n10
19:32 415 28:17 418
19:33 368n12, 413, 415, 431 28:26 418
19:35 176 28:27 418
19:40 176 28:28 427
19:41 368, 368n12 28:31 291n110
20:16 183
20:17 176
20:23 178 Romans
20:29 279n90 1:5 427
20:31 279, 279n89 1:10 183
21:11 428, 435 1:13 8, 426
21:19 428 1:16 305n13
21:21 428 1:17 160, 305
21:26 155 2:14 428
21:28 418 2:24 428
21:30 419 3:4 98
21:34 278n83 3:18 160
21:36 419 3:21 98, 305, 305n14
21:37 183 3:21 – 22 305
21:39 419 3:22 305
21:40 419, 434 3:26 305
22:5 371 3:29 428
22:9 176, 199 4:13 160
22:10 276n76 4:17 426
22:11 276n77 4:18 426
22:28 200n7 4:19 288n103
23:1 179, 237n9 5:7 183
23:5 418, 434 5:12 95, 98
23:9 109 6:4 95
23:12 190 6:6 96, 259
23:31 176 6:13 305
24:2 426, 435 6:19 95
328 Index of References

7:8 95 1Corinthians
7:11 252 1:5 291n110
7:12 238 1:6 160
7:18 159 1:12 291n112
8:19 95 1:18 303n10
8:21 95 1:23 428, 435
8:32 183, 264n47 2:6 66, 274n66
9:18 270n58 3:1 – 2 66
9:24 428, 435 3:15 278n79
9:25 420 4:5 160
9:25 – 26 27 4:9 183
9:26 420 4:12 249, 249n23
9:27 363 4:15 278n82
9:30 305, 305n14, 428, 435 4:20 306n16
10:2 418 5:1 428
10:19 426 5:2 261
10:21 418 5:8 95
11:1 418, 423, 434 7:12 – 13 255
11:5 363 7:14 270n58
11:11 428 7:26 183
11:12 428 8:7 160
11:13 429, 435 9:4 33
11:14 183 10:1 278n79
11:25 428 10:4 28
12:7 268 10:7 418
12:8 95 11:27 279n90
12:10 95 11:28 33
12:18 183 12:2 428
12:19 95 14:7 263n44
12:20 270n59 14:21 418
14:14 243n17 14:39 159
14:17 306n16 15:28 291
15:8 428 15:45 293n114
15:9a 428 15:47 145n19
15:9b 427 15:55 387, 403 – 05
15:10 418, 434 16:2 178
15:11 417
15:12a 427
15:12b 427, 435 2Corinthians
15:16a 428 1:22 271n62
15:16b 428 2:2 260n42, 270n58
15:18 428 2:5 260n42, 270n58
15:25 259 2:10 264n48
15:27 428 2:13 160
15:28 271n62, 278n79 3:3 259
15:29 9 3:8 183
16:4 429, 435 5:3 183
16:18 9 5:5 291
16:26 427 6:16 420, 434
7:8 260, 260n42
 Index of References 329

8:14 313 6:12 96

9:5a 8 6:16 252n31
9:7 157
10:5 160
10:13 341 Philippians
11:20 270n58 1:6 183
11:26 428, 435 1:20 260n41
12:2 275n74 2:9 58, 264n47, 296n123
12:21 261 3:5 423
3:6 305
3:9 305, 305n14
Galatians 3:11 183
1:16 427 3:15 66
2:2 427 3:21 96
2:4 270n58 4:7 160
2:8 427 4:15 156
2:9 427
2:12 429, 435 Colossians
2:14 429, 435
1:16 294n118
2:15 428, 435
1:22 96
2:21 305
1:23 183
3:4 183
1:27 427
3:8 428
1:28 66
3:8b 426
2:13 264n48
3:11 183
2:18 160
3:14 428
4:6 283n97
4:15 183
1Thessalonians
5:15 341
2:2 26
6:16 341
2:12 306n15
2:16 276, 428, 435
Ephesians 4:5 428, 435
1:13 271n62 4:13 260
1:21 294n118 5:10 247n21
2:4 239 5:13 55n83
2:5 303n8
2:8 303n8
2:11 428 2Thessalonians
2:15 95 2:17 237
3:1 429, 435
3:6 429, 435 1Timothy
3:8 427
2:7 428
3:10 294n118
2:8 160
3:15 431, 437
2:12 268
4:13 178
3:16 427, 435
4:14 393 – 94, 406 – 08
4:1 160
4:17 428
4:5 270n58
4:21 183
4:14 373
4:30 260n42, 270n58, 271n62
6:2 55n83
5:14 247n21
330 Index of References

2Timothy 10:22 242n13

1:12 183, 276 10:29 243n17
4:15 290n108 10:30 420
4:17 427, 435 11:6 183
11:10 259
11:25 418, 434
Titus 11:26 160
1:4 243n15 12:15 96
2:14 420, 434 12:17 9
2:15 55n83 12:28 306n15
13:10 259
13:12 418, 434
Philemon 13:18 270n60
15 183

James
Hebrews
1:1 27, 362, 424, 436
1:3 96
1:17 158
1:4 296n123
2:1 96
2:3 294n118
2:5 239
2:6 288n102
3:4 390
2:11 270n58
3:10 9
2:17 420, 434
4:9 261
3:8 270n58
5:9 275n73
3:12 96
5:12 275n75
3:15 270n58
5:18 180n4
4:4 288n102
4:9 434
5:3 418, 420 1Peter
5:12 160
1:1 362
6:7 9
1:6 260
6:16 188
1:12 259
6:18 183
1:14 96
7:5 418 – 19, 434
2:9 420, 430, 434 – 35
7:11 418
2:10 27, 420
7:13 423
2:12 295n121, 428, 435
7:14 423
2:15 270n58
7:24 159
2:17 370
7:27 418
3:17 183
8:5 259
3:18 265
8:10 418, 434
3:20 313
9:2 293n117
3:21 303n10
9:3 279n91
4:3 428
9:7 418
4:8 275n75
9:19 418, 434
4:18 303n9
9:22 274n72
4:19 259
10:4 183
10:10 154
10:14 154 2Peter
10:18 154
1:13 183
10:21 235n6
 Index of References 331

2:1 418 7:1 406 – 08

7:1a 391, 394
7:1b 391
1John
7:3 ff. 271n62
1:5 188
7:4 423, 436
3:7 305
7:9 417, 422, 426, 434 – 35
4:16 188
10:3 282n96
5:4 95
10:4 271n62
10:11 417, 426
11:2 396, 399, 409 – 11, 428, 435
2John
11:3 295n119
4 290n107 11:9 417, 422, 426, 434 – 36
12 278n82 11:18 426
12:5 427, 435
3John 13:7 417, 422, 427, 434 – 35
13:14 422, 434 – 35
15 296n125
14:6 417, 426
14:8 426
Jude 15:3 238, 426
3 243n15 15:4 426
5 418 16:10 306n15
12 390 16:19 427
23 303n10 17:15 417, 426
18:1 235n7
18:3 426
Revelation 18:4 420
1:1 263n44 18:15 261
1:3 280n93 18:19 261
1:6 306 18:23 426
1:7 279n84, 422, 436 19:15 426
1:9 306 20:3 271n62, 426
1:16 246n18 20:8 426
1:18 385, 403 – 04 20:13 387, 403
2:16 427, 435 20:13 f. 404
3:1 296n124 20:14 387, 403
3:4 296n125 21:3 420
4:4 254 21:24 426
5:1 254 21:26 426
5:9 417, 422, 426, 434 – 436 21:27 243n17
5:10 306 22:2 426
6:8 387 – 88, 403 – 04 22:10 271n62
6:13 390 22:15 304n1

Greek Authors
Homer Plato
Il. 5.138 398n5 Gorgias 482e ff. 9
Od. 14:5 398n5