Gail Riplinger claimed: "The first Greek-English lexicon and the one from which all subsequent lexicons take their 'definitions' is the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon of 1843. It began merely as a translation of the Greek-German Lexicon of Passow" (Hazardous Materials, 80).
Gail Riplinger asserted: "All Bible study dictionaries are based in great part on the definitions in the first Greek-English lexicon by Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, although this is not expressly written on most of them. The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon is the whorish MOTHER of all harlot lexicons" (p. 83).
It seems that Riplinger skipped over the Greek and English Lexicon of John Jones [printed in London in 1823] and the Greek-English Lexicon of John Pickering [printed in Boston in 1826]. [source: Kiddle, The Cyclopaedia of Education, Third Edition, p. 224).
Are thus a number of Riplinger's claims in her new book based on her incorrect claim, assumption, or premise? If one of her starting premises is clearly incorrect, why should her conclusions based on that incorrect premise be trusted?
Pickering's Greek-English Lexicon was based on the Greek-Latin dictionary of Cornelius Schrevelius (1615-1667).
Dunbar's Greek and English Lexicon [Edinburg, 1843] is said to have been "chiefly a reprint of the second edition of Pickering's work."
Gail is not the brightest person. She makes so many false claims that even many people in the KJVO crowed avoid her. I am not refering to Bro.Schaap and those involved in the recent KJV debating that has been taking place in IFBdom. Good ol' KJVOists have been moving away from her for a while do to some of her foolish claims.
__________________ Eph 4:32Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva
Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue... http://www.kjv-only.com/
I found it curious that Riplinger goes after the Greek and Hebrew lexicons...does she even have training in the biblical languages?
As far as I know, she only has degrees related to Home Economics.
Maybe no one tolf you but you need to take Hebrew and Greek classes to get your Home Economics Degree!
__________________ Eph 4:32Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva
Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue... http://www.kjv-only.com/
John Weisse wrote: "John Pickering wrote the first Greek Dictionary with English interpretations, in the United States. It was ready for the press in 1814; but as no publisher could be found till 1826, Jones' Greek and English Lexicon was issued three years sooner in England" (Origin, Progress and Destiny of the English Language, p. 320).
According to what I have read, one problem with finding a publisher in the United States was no publisher had the Greek type or font needed for the printing. Pickering ended up having to purchase and import the Greek type from Scotland, which was one delay in getting his Greek-English Lexicon printed.
Pickering's Greek-English Lexicon could be traced back to one of the Greek-Latin Lexicons consulted by the KJV translators. Pickering acknowledged that "the basis of the work is [Cornelius] Schrevelius's well known Lexicon" (p. iv of preface of 1846 third edition). In the first 1826 Boston edition, John Pickering noted that "Schrevelus's work was originally extracted from that of Scapula" (pp. vi-vii).
Joanns Scapula's Greek-Latin Lexicon of 1579 was an abridgement of Henry Stephen's 1572 Greek-Latin Lexicon or Thesaurus. It could be considered a plagarized or privated edition since Scapula does not seem to have had permission to use Stephen's work.
KJV translator John Bois in his notes indicated that he and the KJV translators consulted Stephen's Lexicon or Thesaurus. Thus, Pickering's 1826 Greek-English Lexicon could be linked to a Greek-Latin Lexicon consulted by the KJV translators.
Henry Stephens (1528-1598) [Henri Estienne or Henricus Stephanus] was the one of Robert Stephanus. His Greek-Latin Lexicon was not a strictly New Testament only Lexicon so that it included words and uses from pagan Greek authors.
Would Gail Riplinger imply that "poison passed from the past" [pagan Greeks] in Stephens' Lexicon to the KJV?
Concerning her new book, Gail Riplinger asserted or boasted: "This book will provoke grave silence, as none can answer it, except with trite and tiny vagaries" (Hazardous Materials, p. 1192). Riplinger contended concerning herself and her book: "Assuming, 'the author' does not know or understand 'something' will only be possible if the entire book is not read" (p. 40).
Riplinger wrote: "all lexicons and Bible study 'helps' should be buried to prevent the spread of their deadly hazards. This includes all lexicons, as well as all Greek grammar books" (p. 70).
Was Riplinger including the Greek-Latin lexicons used and consulted by the KJV translators?
Gail Riplinger claimed: "The first Greek-English lexicon and the one from which all subsequent lexicons take their 'definitions' is the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon of 1843. It began merely as a translation of the Greek-German Lexicon of Passow" (Hazardous Materials, 80). [bold added by this poster]
Was it the first Greek-English lexicon?
Greek and English Lexicon by John Jones [London, 1823]
Greek-English Lexicon by John Pickering and Daniel Oliver [Boston, 1826]
A Greek and English Dictionary by Rev. John Groves [London, 1826]
New Greek and English Lexicon by James Donnegan [London, 1831]
Gail Riplinger claimed: "The first Greek-English lexicon and the one from which all subsequent lexicons take their 'definitions' is the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon of 1843.....It seems that Riplinger skipped over the Greek and English Lexicon of John Jones [printed in London in 1823] and the Greek-English Lexicon of John Pickering [printed in Boston in 1826]. [source: Kiddle, The Cyclopaedia of Education, Third Edition, p. 224).
Thank you, Rick.
The John Jones (Ben David) link is online, although not in readable format.
The tyro's Greek and English lexicon: or, A compendium in English of the celebrated lexicons of Damm, Sturze, Schleusner, Schweighæuser
John Jones is quite an interesting character, his writings on the heavenly witnesses was technically quite good, although in places conjectural. Yet his overall textual view was weak, as was his theories of Bible origins and doctrinal stuff problematic. His writings on Philo (and Josephus) are rather interesting in parts.
Overall, I don't think this lexicon had a lot of use or effect, I am less familiar with Pickering. Thank you for pointing out the scholastic error, although I am not sure how significant it would be as a technical attack if Scott-Liddell really became the standard. Personally I find the Gail Riplinger material mixed, and don't pay much attention to these aspects, unless a specific issue comes up that spurs more examination.
Shalom,
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-10-2009 at 02:12 PM.
Was Riplinger including the Greek-Latin lexicons used and consulted by the KJV translators?
I am quoting from the part of Gail Riplinger's book, in Awe of Thy Word that might be of interest to someone reading this thread. (Disclaimer: I do not agree with and warn against her assessment that English letters have WORD meanings. See: http://libertytothecaptives.net/abou...ns.html#update)
KJV translators, like John Bois, did not need to rely on works, like Strong's Concordance, which is limited to that author's one or two word subjective judgments (e.g. stocky, chubby). They did not need to rely, as the NIV translators did, on expanded lexicons which show tiny snippets of a word in use (e.g. the corrupt Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). The KJV translators had the entire original work which contains the word in question and could read the word in its entire context.
Bois's bibliographer writes,
"When he left the college, he knew of but few Greek authors, great or small, extant, which he had not in how own private library"
(Translating For King James, p. 138)
Because the KJV translators had access to these primary sources, many of them wrote their own lexicons. (In Awe of Thy Word, pg. 511
The KJV translators occasionally used Greek grammars and lexicons, but never as final authorities. Their authorities were Bible, such as previous English Bibles or foreign Bibles. The notes of the final committee mention a reference to the Lexicon of Constantinus (Romans 3:5). It is a Greek-Latin dictionary, not a Greek-English dictionary, catalogued as: Lexicon Graeco Latinus. Ex R. Constantini aliorumque scriptis...collection, etc. [Geneva], adup lo. Crispinum 1568. The lexicons of Hesychius, H. Stephanus (Greek), and others are also mentioned in their notes (Translating For King James, p. 33).
(In Awe of Thy Word p. 513)
So I think the issue with Gail Riplinger is not so much as any lexicons but rather, corrupt lexicons.
I stay away from lexicons because they serve to cause the reader to question the word the KJV translators provided. My view is the Bible has already been translated and we have well enough to do to obey the light that is in it, not seek out a way to "find out" that it does not mean what it says.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Riplinger's incorrect claims in her new book
Linear Mode
