I've asked the good doctor to please not use "ANLEX" in posts as if people will know what he's talking about because:

  • it is not a recognized abbreviation
  • it doesn't show up in a Google search
  • he explained that by it he means "analytical lexicon" of which there are many

Here's his most recent post:

Why did Jude use the word “common” to describe salvation in Jude 1:3?

Can you please advise as to whether the use of this abbreviation (without identifying what it means and to which analytical lexicon he's referring) is, as I've suggested, inappropriate?


Actually, even if he explains what it means it is inappropriate!


3 Answers 3


I've added my £0.02 as a comment on the first occurrence of this practice. Since comments on this site can (and often should) be ephemeral, I record it here for posterity:

As has been pointed out on Meta, writing things such as "According to most Greek dictionaries, eg, ANLEX,..." is simply gibberish, and in this case nonsensical: "ANLEX" is not an example of a "Greek dictionary". Please be specific when citing Greek dictionaries: LSJ? BAGD? These are known quantities and can be checked. "ANLEX" is meaningless.

The thing is, in the ten answers that use "ANLEX" (as I type), only one uses the "analytical lexicon" for its intended purpose: to identify grammatical forms.

There are, as OP indicates above, a few examples of this kind of lexicon on the market. (Our "ANLEX" user appears to be using the Logos version of Friberg, Friberg & Miller's.) There is a venerable tradition of such volumes, with the one I know as "Bagster's" being a representative of the genre from the 1870s or so:


Its preface makes clear what makes this an analytical lexicon:

But its distinctive feature consists in an Alphabetical Arrangement of every occurring inflexion of every word. Each form is exactly named, and referred to its root; — the whole thus forming a precise analysis of the entire verbal contents of the New Testament.

In other words, its main interest is in morphological analysis, and not semantic nuance. These "analytical lexica" are thus quite limited for semantic information; their goal rather is to clarify the grammatical analysis of forms.

As I say, only once (that I can see) is "ANLEX" invoked to this purpose in the posts I have surveyed. Otherwise, it is appealed to for semantic distinctions. Here, of course, other lexica (BAGD in particular) are the appropriate reference works to appeal to. So these "ANLEX" posts fall foul of the same kind of category mistake that was identified a few years ago on this site for the (mis-)use of concordances.

Hopefully, "ANLEX" will disappear from these posts, replaced by appropriate and transparent references/citations to the source being used.


I agree with Dɑvïd's twopence. Here is some spare change from a moderator's perspective:

  1. I agree the references are useless because they don't point anywhere I can go lookup the information. They add only the pretense of authority to the post while sending me on a goose chase if I actually want to learn to apply the same hermeneutics myself.

  2. Moderators are NOT charged with overseeing the technical accuracy or usefulness of posts. Please don't flag posts with this king of problem as there is no intervention that a moderator would be expected to take. All the intervention these posts require can be taken by ordinary users.

    • Downvote them. If they are really as egregious as your hand wringing, they surely merit a downvote from you. (By the way, your comments saying "-1" are themselves dishonest when I and many other site users can see there are zero downvotes on the post. If you are going to downvote, actually do it. You don't have to even comment that you did so. You can optionally give a comment as a critique too, but mentioning votes is my no means required, and mentioning them when you didn't actually vote is just counter productive.)
    • Comment on them. But do it nicely. Some of your current comments are rude and bordering on abusive. I've removed some of them. You can criticize, but there is no call to be rude and making them personal attacks on the author will not be tolerated. Linking to a meta post explaining the issue is fine.
    • Edit them. Don't be destructive, but editing the posts to include proper usable references would set an example that could be followed by the author in future posts.

Thank you for your observation. I don't think your advise is inappropriate. When abbreviation is used in a post without identifying what it means and to which analytical lexicon it is implied, intended answers become evasive.

When I saw “ANLEX” on a post while I was seeking for clarification on the question: Why did Jude use the word “common” to describe salvation in Jude 1:3? , I was dumbstruck. I became so confused and started feeling like the Sea mist was rising to paint my face and left beside myself in the directionless. I wasn't even disposed to seeking for the meaning of "ANLEX" because I am new on this site and have yet to fully understand the codes of conduct. I want to thank you, the moderator, for raising this issue and for speaking kindly to the good doctor about it.

  • Thanks Ernest. I'm not actually a moderator but I am extremely generous when it comes to my opinions!
    – Ruminator
    Sep 26, 2018 at 13:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .