Is This an "Invitation to Salvation?"

The theological dictionary of the NT

Some people like The Theological Dictionary of the NT, by Kittel...

Notice that...

PISTEUW (vb.) means generally "to believe, trust."
PISTIS (n.) means "faith, trust."
PISTOS (n.) means "faithful, trusting."
PISTOW (vb.) means "to make someone trust."
APISTIS (n.) means "faithless, unbelieving."
APISTEW (n.) means "to disbelieve, be unfaithful."
APISTIA (n.) means "unfaithfulness, unbelief."
OLIGOPISTOS (n.) means "of little faith."
and OLIGOPISTIA (n.) means "littleness of faith."

Sure, this is "little Kittel" - the abridged version. But we are looking for the predominate meanings, right? The unabridged version simply has more examples from classical Greek, the LXX and the NT.

What words are used in John's gospel? Almost exclusively an articular participle form of PISTEUW. How about Paul's letters? Almost exclusively PISTIS.

These understandings about PISTIS and PISTEUW are universally accepted by translators and exegeticists. I am not in a place where I have access to my Greek concordance, but I am confident by looking it up in BGAD that PISTOS ("faithful") is not used in John's gospel at all. It is used rarely by Paul.

PISTEUW means "to believe, trust." PISTIS means "faith, trust."

How about a lexicon based on semantic domains, which deals with nuances and shades of related words?

Louw and Nida are Bible translators - perhaps the foremost recognized ones in the world today. I have one of Nida's books on translation. PISTIS does not mean, in general, faithfulness. There is a word for that - PISTOS. PISTEUW does noit mean, in general, to be committed or faithful... there is a word for that: PISTOW

I am sorry, but when I see someone defining PISTIS as "faithfulness" or PISTEUW as "to commit" or something similar, I consider that they are forcing their lexicons to agree with their theology. (Not that they are trying to deceive - but... it happens.)

Thx,

FA

 

One should never allow the Bible or the Biblical languages to interfere with a perfectly good system of theology, no?? :laugh:

I agree that some 'mixing' of 'pistos' and 'pistis' is in view in some of these posts, BTW. The words are related, but not the same word.

BTW, Thayer's and Wigram's Lexicons are in substantive agreement with what you are posting, as well. And they are what this old farmer uses, not being persuaded of any real need to invest a C- note and a half or more into BAGD.

'Course, if anyone has a spare one they just wanna' get rid of... :applause: :laugh:

Ed

 

Thx Ed,

Actually, BGAD isn't that expensive - something like $65 or so. I love how it has every NT use - a suggested translation of a word.

Take care,

FA

 

Brand new current edition is suggested at a 'Buck' fifty, from the Univ. of Chicago Press, the USA publisher.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/13055.ctl

I know they can be found used, or older, for less, and have seen it at both B & N and Amazon for less.

Ed

 

Oh yeah, almost forgot. If one has to tack on shipping, and gets it from the U of Chi. press, it becomes "or more."

Ed

 

Ed,

Wow... Well, I got mine about a dozen years ago or more. So I'm not really sure how much it was then. Mine is the older edition, too. I think I picked it up at the DTS student bookstore while at a GES conference - through a student, who got a discount - 10% I think. But it was new. Hey, I'd buy a used edition any day.

I've got L & S also, but only the s/w version, though Logos (which has BGAD as well). I got the beta version of the s/w for something like $350 - about fifteen years ago. It has "little Kittel" and Leuw & Nida on it as well. My 2nd yr. Greek class required BGAD, but I got by with just the s/w version for awhile. I'll admit that I actually mainly used my analytical lexicon until I got the s/w, because it did the parsing for me. Actually, Logos parses for you, as does www.GreekBible.com. And Robertson's Word Pictures are available at Crosswalk and Studylight. I have Thayer's, and Strong's is available everywhere, but I trust BGAD and L & S.

They kept sending me upgrades, which I installed... until it was going to cost me another $350! So mine's pretty old now - a dinosaur version of Nelson's Logos s/w.

BTW, PISTOS does appear in John's gospel one time - in John 20:27. PISTOW only appears one time in the NT - 2 Tim. 3:14.

Another concern I have with this issue of believing is the common claim that since PISTEUW in John's gospel is always (nearly always) in the present tense, and since the present tense is linear in aspect (not continuous, as is often said) that this means that the gospel requires continual believing. But let's save that for another time! Let's just say that this misunderstands aspect, present tense, and the indicative mood. The aspect says nothing about the duration of the action, just the kind of action at the time - in the indicative mood.

Take care,

FA

 

I use the electronic edition simply because it's much more convenient to switch tabs than to have 4 or 5 books open on my lap, then get up to get others to look up one thing, etc.

However, you're paying for the labor, not the materials (mostly), as the electronic version of the BDAG is the same price as the print version.

 

Yeah, I use both. And there is a lot of valuable help online these days as well. But sometimes there's nothing quite like looking it up on the printed page.

FA

 

Yeah, I know. That was the hard part for me: I couldn't afford both, so I had to choose between the print and the electronic BDAG. But, sometimes there's nothing like leafing through a book.

I read some English etymology dictionaries recently. That is the first thing I went to college for, but I had never read an English etymology dictionary. You find out some interesting things, such as yellow used to be blue, some things that we use as profanities today were not when they were first coined, and some things that we accept as every day language was once vulgar. (The word for excrement that starts with a "c" was once simply a term that was synonymous with "chaff", for instance.)

One thing I have learned, is when studying anything, I will at least refer to reference sources that are as far removed from any bias as possible. For example, when looking up an English etymology, I will go to Klein's or Barnhart's, rather than a religious source that is trying to prove a specific theology. The same with a debatable Greek word, or a biblical custom, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these reference sources are very expensive. The others are cheap, and if you look, you can find one that proves anything you want.

 

Lou's quietly trying to get us back on track. :tongue3:

I've already responded to the OP, but I would be interested in how those who think James 4 is an expression of the gospel justify it.

It is so easy to distort the gospel, and that is something we need to handle with kid gloves.

Thx,

FA