Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint, Expanded Edition with Word Definitions from Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint
by J. Lust, et al.
Hendrickson Publishers, Forthcoming January 2010
600 pages, English and Greek
Cloth
ISBN: 9781565635166
List Price: $44.95
Your Price: $35.96
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/LUSANALYT
I know that it says January, 2010, but I suspect it will be available before that. I looked it over, and it looks good. The definitions (actually glosses) are taken from Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, so if you don't like LEH, you won't like it.
The print is small, but crisp; it's just that my eyes aren't as good as they used to be :) The lexical forms of the word are printed in bold, making it easy to spot them on the page. If you don't have an electronic LXX, this book can be a real boon when you are stuck on a form. And—those of you that know my personal feelings about electronic versions won't be surprised by this statement—I would recommend that you use this instead of an electronic parser; you learn so much more when you peruse the pages of a lexicon, even an analytical one.
5 comments:
So they're LSJ's glosses then?
;)
This is a co-publication between Hendrickson and German Bible Society. The glosses are indeed from LSJ, but the Analytical entries (the bulk of the work) are a republication (with numerous corrections) of Bernard Taylor's LXX analytical that was published in the mid-nineties. The corrections in this work that will take years to be incorporated into the electronic resources. Also, it's currently shipping. For more info: http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/635167.trade.html?&categor=all
Mark House (formerly of Hendrickson and the editor on the project)
Mike, yes, they are LSJ's glosses, see Mark's comment.
Mark,
Thanks for the updated information and the history of the project.
James
So sorry. I got LEH and LSJ confused. The glosses are from the Lust Eynikel Hauspie Lexicon of the LXX, not Liddel Scott Jones.
Mark,
But LEH's glosses are simply gleaned from LSJ, so you were correct. That was what Mike was asking about.
James
Post a Comment