In developing the layout and content for this interactive online reference work, editors have been guided by foundational principles on term study and the workings of language. These principles were identified, refined, and implemented through collaboration with scholars who have guided project development at its various stages (see About This Project/The Collaboration).

The Contexticon® is based on the view that biblical term usage should be assessed not in isolation from, but in comparison with, term usage found in other Greek literature of the Greco-Roman world.

Useful areas of comparison and contrast reach beyond the conventions of Greek grammar. They also involve a great many understandings and expectations of Greek speakers about the use of terms in everyday speech—the range of their associations in particular life situations, their special points of reference for particular communities, their appropriateness or inappropriateness in particular spheres of life, and the memory of their use in treasured texts.

The Contexticon helps to bring these understandings and expectations into view. By taking them into account, the modern reader is far better positioned to assess the way New Testament authors framed their messages and the likely impact of those messages for those who received them.

The Contexticon project embraces the modern linguistic view that particular words do not convey meaning in-and-of themselves; rather, they play signifying roles within larger verbal configurations designed by authors to communicate. A term like “run” has many associations in English, but only when more context is provided, such as who or what is doing the “running” (a person, a river, a fish, a clock), does the signification of “run” start to become clear. Similarly with texts from antiquity, the function of any particular Greek word becomes clear only in view of the way it is used in specific contexts of communication. Discussions in the Contexticon thus refer to the way a term is “used” by ancient authors, rather than “the meaning” of a word per se.

This approach departs from the practice of assigning single blanket significations to Greek terms used in the New Testament. The emphasis on contextual usage recognizes a great variety of imaginative ways in which biblical (and other) authors configured term usage in their messages.

Often in the Greek of the Greco-Roman world, the same term functioned in various ways, ways not always well translated by a single modern word. The Greek pneuma is most typically rendered “spirit” in English translations; doxa as “glory.” These renderings may go some distance toward indicating to readers the sense of term usage in some biblical contexts. Users of the Contexticon, however, will see that there is precedent in Greek literature for seven distinct usages of pneuma that have relevance for the New Testament, and four main types for doxa. Each type (or category) may also include subcategories, reflecting particularities of context in which the terms are found in literature of the Greco-Roman age.

Attention to ancient precedents of term usage makes it possible to see when New Testament authors align with those precedents, favor some over others, or push beyond the boundaries of convention into new territory.

Efforts to gain empathetic understandings of first-century term usage can be compromised by the influence of modern words commonly employed in New Testament translations. These “glosses” come into play not only in the single modern words that are commonly used to render single Greek terms in Bible translations; they have also become integrated, over many generations, in everyday religious parlance, words such as “charity,” “meekness,” “repentance,” “faith,” “salvation,” and countless others.

Use of the Contexticon is a corrective to two key problems associated with translation glosses. First, the glosses used in modern translations, often with great consistency throughout the biblical texts, may give the impression that most or all uses of a particular term can be confined to a single modern word, closing out options for interpretation. Here the Contexticon is a corrective, bringing into view a variety of legitimate possibilities for translation, based on precedents from Greco-Roman literature.

Second, modern glosses often have associations in modern parlance which were not present for the Greek-speakers of antiquity. For instance, the word “meekness” is often used in translations to render the Greek prautes. In English parlance, meekness is often associated with passivity or a willingness to be walked over. But this association has little to do with

many applications of prautes in Greek literature, where the term often signifies a virtue in which authority is exercised with equanimity or compassion. An inappropriate association with modern glosses can cause confusion in assessing the actual biblical contexts of term usage.

Here again, the Contexticon serves as a corrective by calling into view actual precedents of Greek term usage in antiquity. In describing these precedents, scholars preparing entries for the  Contexticon avoid the use of common glosses. Nowhere in the presentations of pneuma or doxa, for instance, does the Contexticon use the common glosses “spirit” or “glory.” Instead, prevailing usages are described in ways that align with first-century usage, as found in the extant literature.

By offering these correctives, then, the Contexticon fosters readings of the biblical texts that do greater justice to the richness and specificity of ancient term usage. Readers who have treasured traditional glosses for biblical passages, like the beatitude “Blessed are the meek,” may still retain those traditional readings, perhaps now imbued with possibilities they could not previously imagine.

For each set of related term cognates treated in the Contexticon, the evidence of Greek term  usage appears in two main presentations conceived as “tours,” akin to those found at museum exhibitions. These include Range of Usage (“Range” for short), showing the categories of ancient term usage deemed relevant for assessing biblical usage; and Broad Context, providing a narrative description of term usage in Greco-Roman literature, and indicating the various genres of writing in which a term is employed while highlighting comparison and contrast with usages found in the New Testament.

The characterization of both presentations as “tours,” presented in the voice of a tour guide, signals the role envisioned for the Contexticon. This does not involve the direct exegesis or translation of the biblical writings; those roles are left to the commentator and translator. Rather, the Contexticon facilitates an encounter with exhibits of term usage from a variety of extant ancient sources. These exhibits are the primary subject of this reference work; they are not footnote material used to support or justify modern arguments. It is hoped that familiarity with them will prove a helpful step toward interpretation and translation.

The Greek terms selected for treatment in the Contexticon are known to be particularly challenging for exegetes and translators. The reasons may vary. But often the challenges relate to the gulf that separates the worldviews of ancients and moderns, making it difficult for moderns to understand the precise nature of written communications from antiquity. The challenge of understanding and representing term use in antiquity is further complicated by traditions of glossing in translations, as noted above.

The initial selection of terms for Contexticon Version 1.0 has resulted from early pilot research. Here, scholars began by examining different genres of literature in the New Testament, singling out terms known for presenting problems to commentators and translators. The result thus far is treatment of 50 term groups, usually including multiple cognates that have a similar range of usage. The treatment of every term group is comprehensive

in terms of its use throughout the New Testament. Future versions will offer an expanded number of term treatments, anticipated to exceed 300 term groups.

Exhibiting term usage outside the New Testament is a special feature of the Contexticon. Here scholars give priority to selecting usages from literature as contemporaneous to writings of the New Testament as possible. However, research teams may select contexts of usage dating as far back as three centuries before the first century, or three centuries after. Occasionally scholars include a usage exhibit dating earlier or later than the usual six-century time span. This occurs when a usage from early or late literature is deemed helpful for New Testament study, as in cases where a usage in classical literature is known to have been studied in the first century.

Each Range category represents a grouping of usages found in Greek literature that are understood to have some similarity, relation, or reason to be viewed together. The main categories often serve as umbrellas for subcategories. These isolate smaller sub-groupings according to specific functions or genres of discourse.

The ordering of categories is not intended to privilege one category over another, or to suggest that one may be more important than another for considering New Testament usages. The assumption is that each category should be considered in its own right. However, in constructing Range screens, efforts are made to create an overall layout that facilitates overview and minimizes confusion. Toward this end, particular category orderings are thought to be heuristically beneficial.

It is important for Contexticon users to understand that the wording used in categories and subcategories serves only to describe those groupings; it is not meant to be understood as a “meaning” or a “gloss” for translation in

particular contexts. Those preparing Contexticon exhibits understand that each term usage cited on Range, though related to others in its class, involves a unique contextual configuration. Translation requires examination of the specific combination of grammatical constructions, word associations, flow of the literary narrative, and historical points of reference which bear on understanding and rendering the usage—analysis that lies outside the scope of this reference work.

This said, the Contexticon allows analysts to identify valid options for assessing ancient Greek usage, based on literary precedent. Sometimes this reveals new possibilities for interpretation and translation. Thus, although the wording of a Range category represents a generalized description of usage groupings, not context-specific renderings, familiarity with, and exposure to, these groupings should help to prepare readers for the work of translation and exegesis.

In Range, categories provide links to sample usages outside the New Testament. These citations (colored in blue and linking to a display frame called “Comparative Texts” at the right) hold special importance. They demonstrate the existence in Greek parlance of the category of usage described.

Here preference is given to precedents of term usage that have as little ambiguity as possible. Typically the Range includes only a handful of precedents, since that is sufficient to indicate the existence of a usage. Usually many additional samples are discussed in the Broad Context tour.

The extra-biblical samples are particularly important for the study of New Testament usage. They signal ways in which ancient audiences may have been disposed to hear New Testament usage as well. For easy comparison, citations of biblical usage are listed, where possible, in categories established on the precedent of extra-biblical usage. Occasionally the biblical usages are included in categories for which little or no prior precedent could be found in extant Greco-Roman literature. Contexticon users may consider these usages as possible innovations or “coinages” in Christian communities.

In excerpting contexts for the analysis of term usage, the Contexticon tries to strike a balance. On the one hand, each exhibit of a term’s occurrence needs to include sufficient context for readers to understand and analyze the usage effectively. On the other hand, the amount of text provided in each case must be delimited if readers are to have time to examine other contexts as well—a reconnaissance capability that is one of the real services and aims of Contexticon presentations.

Determining what is an adequate amount of text for contextual analysis is obviously a matter of judgment on the part of scholars preparing term usage exhibits. A central purpose of the Contexticon is to provide contexts that are more complete than the phrases typically found in lexicons. However, Contexticon excerpts include only a sufficient amount of text to allow readers to grasp term usage in its immediate context.

To compensate for the brevity of its excerpts, the Contexticon often adds a “context line.” This brief introduction to excerpted materials may provide some perspective on the wider context of a passage, or it may simply help

readers pick of the flow of the text. The intent is to allow readers to engage each occurrence of term usage without the delay involved in stepping back to investigate the larger context. In some situations, readers may wish to undertake such broader investigations on their own. But this can be done through other widely available research tools.

Thus the principle of concise excerpting, set in the framework of tours and powerful computer navigation, makes possible rapid surveys of term usage. But the benefits of rapid reconnaissance reach beyond mere efficiency. The Contexticon is designed to help acclimatize its users to the world of Greco-Roman communications. The effect, often observed in pilot testing, is similar to the experience of participant observers who visit foreign cultures to learn a language. Through encounters with native speakers employing specific terms for various practical purposes, Contexticon users gain a practical grasp of the ways these Greek terms functioned in the ancient Mediterranean. This experience can prove invaluable for students of the Greek language today (see also Guidelines for Teachers).

In the creation of Contexticon term presentations, high value is placed upon keeping options open for interpretation, not closing out any legitimate option. One expression of this goal is seen in the placement of New Testament citations on the Range screen. As researchers develop a framework of categories for a term, they often realize that New Testament citations may be placed in more than one usage category or subcategory. These citations are given an asterisk. When users click on one such citation, all its placements come into view through a bolding of its multiple occurrences. (In some cases, users may find it helpful to view longer Range screens in their entirety by clicking on the “Full Range” function button.)

When a citation is asterisked and placed in more than one category, this signals one of two things: (1) any of the placements is possible, and the reader is left to decide which is most likely; or (2) a term used in the

New Testament could have had multiple associations for early audiences. The latter might have had a special rhetorical impact for audiences, whether perceived as poetic, persuasive, evocative, or humorous. Here again interpretation is left open. But the asterisking on Range quickly alerts readers that they should look out for the possibility of double entendre, or just keep in mind the various options for interpreting term usage in particular verses where different readings seem possible.

An additional device reflecting hermeneutical open-endedness is found in Comparative Text exhibits. Before translations of the Greek excerpts, users will find an occasional annotation showing alternative readings for the Greek term under study. Editorial notes are also provided for clarifications that may assist readers unfamiliar with Greek.

Scholars must inevitably make choices as they assess the available evidence and state of scholarship. Those associated with the New Testament Language Project recognize that their presentations are open to criticism and disagreement.

One vehicle for readers to express their concerns is to recommend revisions that could strengthen tours, or to suggest extra-New Testament usages not presently included. An email comment vehicle is included for this purpose in the bottom navigation bar.

Users are also welcome to explore other ways of organizing the term usage data from antiquity. Teachers, for instance, could ask their students to use the Contexticon database as a resource for creating Range screens, comparing or contrasting their own models with those in the Contexticon. Presentations in the Contexticon may also be constructively compared with those in other reference works.

As alternative models are considered, however, readers should note that careful scholarship has gone into the research behind every Contexticon entry. If the wording of a Range category seems deficient in some way or if a particular citation on Range initially seems out of place, some good reason may underlie those wordings or placements. Often the reason will become clear to a Contexticon user after further exploration of the term tours, or after supplementing the perspectives offered in Range with those in Broad Context.

So while refinements will certainly be needed in future years, and are welcomed, Contexticon users can be sure that its term presentations offer carefully considered perspectives. Above all, the Contexticon aims to foster active and imaginative thinking about biblical language. Toward this end, the rise of debate and fresh inquiry should be as much a part of its use as an appreciation of the perspectives it already brings to light.