BDAG/HALOT ???
Looking to hear from some, who have BDAG/HALOT. I would love to hear/see an example of how you used these tools and the info was so good that you just had to share.
THANKS
Armwood
Comments
-
BDAG is THE "go to" lexicon for Greek. I had the dead tree version (BAG) and appreciate the L4 version with sympathetic highlighting. If a Greek word has several possible meanings, the editors of BDAG have cited which meaning (in their opinion) is being used in each biblical reference.
Personally, NIDOTTE (New Interntional Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis) is more helpful is discovering nuances of word meaning in Hebrew.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
0 -
Armwood, these are serious tools for those who have some ability in the original languages. Logos did produce a video series on how to use Biblical Greek and Hebrew that showed how to use resources like these for people lacking a background in Greek and Hebrew, but that wasn't how they were designed to be used.
If you do not have any background in Hebrew and Greek there are probably better tools to help you. I think the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and the similar New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis are scholarly works that are more accessible to the average Bible student. These are not lexicons like HALOT/BDAG, but help you understand key Greek and Hebrew words. If that's what you are interested in, I'd look into those and similar resources.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Any one know the name of the little drawing program that Morris Proctor was suggesting at camp logos?
0 -
David Thomas said:
Personally, NIDOTTE (New Interntional Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis) is more helpful is discovering nuances of word meaning in Hebrew.
Not to disparage the NIDOTTE, it is a great resource, but it is not a lexicon, it is a theological dictionary. The purpose of these two are quite different and I find both useful for different reasons.
0 -
Alan Charles Gielczyk said:
The purpose of these two are quite different and I find both useful for different reasons
Agreed! For my exegesis and sermon prep I find HALOT to be a more cumbersome way of getting the same information (list of glosses and usages) that I can get from right clicking on a word, selecting Lemma and doing a Bible Word Study. Using NIDOTTE and other resources helps me to decipher meaning. It is just the way I process information. Others may travel different paths.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
0 -
BDAG and HALOT or BDB are the goto resources for original language study of the scriptures. The are much more preferable than many other lexica which either present you with a list of glosses (definitions, sort of) from which you can choose in that they provide examples of usage in the various senses of the words so that you can see why one sense is preferable to another rather than simply pasting a list of glosses on the wall and throwing a dart to choose. While they tend to be more specialist tools, a person who has not yet attained a proficiency in the languages can profit from them if he takes the time and trouble to check the various uses given.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Hi George
George Somsel said:BDAG and HALOT or BDB are the goto resources for original language study of the scriptures
How would you position Concise HALOT (http://www.logos.com/product/7850/a-concise-hebrew-and-aramaic-lexicon-of-the-old-testament) vs HALOT?
Does it simply contain less information - but the information it has is of the same value - or are there significant things it doesn't provide?
Thanks, Graham
0 -
I LOVE BDAG! It's the best lexicon I have seen anywhere for any language.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
Hi George
George Somsel said:BDAG and HALOT or BDB are the goto resources for original language study of the scriptures
How would you position Concise HALOT (http://www.logos.com/product/7850/a-concise-hebrew-and-aramaic-lexicon-of-the-old-testament) vs HALOT?
Does it simply contain less information - but the information it has is of the same value - or are there significant things it doesn't provide?
Thanks, Graham
I tend to think of the Concise HALOT as the Barclay Newman of the OT.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I tend to think of the Concise HALOT as the Barclay Newman of the OT.
Thanks, George
That's helpful, Graham
0 -
Armwood, you asked about practical use etc. and obviously each person will be different.
The way I 'operate' is I keep two panels for lexicons, one for hebrew/aramaic and one for greek. In each I keep typically five open at all times.
For both panels, I lead off with one of the Strongs Hebrew and Greek lexicons and prioritize it at the top of both hebrew and greek. The reason is most often all I want to know is if there's any translational variation in the word (most often not). So a quick 'hit' on the Strongs does the trick. However since all the lexicons are connected to this first one, while I'm reviewing, Logos is lining up the respective deeper lexicons if needed.
On the hebrew side I typically move down to Gesenius first, only because it's fairly decent and arranges the information for quick scanning better than the others. But if there's a real issue, then the next is definitely HALOT followed by TLOT. TWOT is time-consuming to read but still useful.
On the greek side, I order Liddel Scott first followed by Moulton/Milligan. I personnally have BDAG but rarely use it because I don't agree very often with its verse assignments. It's background information though is the best. Finally there's TLNT and TDNT for more discussion depth.
Overall, if I were considering my first grouping of in-depth lexicons the BDAG/HALOT would far precede the others.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
George Somsel said:
BDAG and HALOT or BDB are the goto resources for original language study of the scriptures... While they tend to be more specialist tools, a person who has not yet attained a proficiency in the languages can profit from them if he takes the time and trouble to check the various uses given.
[Y]
I am very worried about myself because I find myself agreeing with George more and more. [A]
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Darren Ratzlaff said:
Any one know the name of the little drawing program that Morris Proctor was suggesting at camp logos?
Welcome to the forums Darren,
The program you are looking for is called "Click Tricks" and is sold by Morris on his website (Google it and you can find it.)
In the future it might help to start a new thread for an unrelated question. Most people are coming to this one to discuss BDAG/HALOT. [:)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
You just can't do serious original language study without BDAG / HALOT. They are the best lexicons available. They will give you the reasonable options for the meaning of a word. Context and other factors determine which option is correct. It is not a take your choice kind of thing, or "I like this meaning."
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Actually, if you read much of the scholarly work, picking/choosing is exactly the process oddly enough. Though the concept of turning the roulette wheel is supposed to be preceded by decades of guessing (as long as it's preceded by a PhD or similar).
I only point this out in humor, because common sense would underline this.
For example at church, our pastor prints out his sermon for us to peruse in depth. A group of us within just seconds can arrive at multiple meanings and no trouble at all. And that's within just hours of his sermon and having heard (and read) 400-500 more of his sermons.
And so I always smile when I hear of scholars confidently describing the meaning for writings thousands of years ago, having few samples to work with etc. I'm reading a commentary now on the Apostolic Fathers (who seemed to have appreciated this principle, never really wanting to quote anything exactly). But the commentator is refreshingly honest, using phrases like 'Well, my wild guess would be ...' since he knows no one really knows.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Actually, if you read much of the scholarly work, picking/choosing is exactly the process oddly enough. Though the concept of turning the roulette wheel is supposed to be preceded by decades of guessing (as long as it's preceded by a PhD or similar). … And so I always smile when I hear of scholars confidently describing the meaning for writings thousands of years ago, having few samples to work with etc. I'm reading a commentary now on the Apostolic Fathers (who seemed to have appreciated this principle, never really wanting to quote anything exactly). But the commentator is refreshingly honest, using phrases like 'Well, my wild guess would be ...' since he knows no one really knows.
That's true to a certain degree, especially with rather rare words or phrases, but when you've seen a large number of the same thing in similar contexts, the meaning becomes clear. This is basically the same way we learned our mother tongue—by hearing words used frequently and putting 2 + 2 together. Since Greek and Hebrew of this particular age is not our mother tongue, however, it's good to have some guidance from those who have "been there, done that."
NOTE: I must confess that I sometimes translate using words none of the lexica recommend—mostly not disagreeing but trying to find a more felicitous term.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I like Liddell's A Greek-English Lexicon (unabridged). Every bit as extensive as BDAG, but focus's on Classical Greek. Some entries are more extensive than BDAG, and more complete.. I've gotten a better perspective on the meanings of some Greek words from studying it.
0 -
George Somsel said:
BDAG and HALOT or BDB are the goto resources for original language study of the scriptures. The are much more preferable than many other lexica which either present you with a list of glosses (definitions, sort of) from which you can choose in that they provide examples of usage in the various senses of the words so that you can see why one sense is preferable to another rather than simply pasting a list of glosses on the wall and throwing a dart to choose. While they tend to be more specialist tools, a person who has not yet attained a proficiency in the languages can profit from them if he takes the time and trouble to check the various uses given.
I love darts. The outcome can almost be algorithmically calculated! [;)]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Darren Ratzlaff said:
Any one know the name of the little drawing program that Morris Proctor was suggesting at camp logos?
Hi Darren,
I don't know anything about a drawer, but I do know that we might be related. My mother's side is Ratzlaffs from Kansas/Oklahoma. I'd be interested in knowing which Ratzlaff family you stem from. My e-mail is kendallsholtess at yahoo dot com.
0 -
Christopher Michaud said:
I like Liddell's A Greek-English Lexicon (unabridged). Every bit as extensive as BDAG, but focus's on Classical Greek.
Christopher,
welcome to the Logos user forums!
I think, focussing on Classical Greek might become a bit of a problem. Words evolve and change their meaning over time - and we are talking several hundred years here. For example, Luther used a word for a female relative, I think it was daughter-in-law, Schnur. Even though his bible translation became the blueprint for German as a written language, no one knows this word anymore in this sense (you'll find its other meaning, cord, if you look it up someplace). Other words may continue to point at the same thing, but may carry a totally different overtone, e.g. change from a neutral to positive descriptive meaning to a pejorative.
The other thing is that there seems to be a certain difference between Greek that was used for writing theater plays, political speeches, history etc. and the Greek of common people used for shopping lists, employment contracts, personal letters. Again a focus on Classical Greek may lead one to understand less of the meaning of a certain word than more. The Logos product page of M-M explains and has examples for this.
That said, I wish I had the funds to buy BDAG and LSJ. Currently I stick with TDNT, M-M, Louw-Nida
Mick
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Christopher Michaud said:
I like Liddell's A Greek-English Lexicon (unabridged). Every bit as extensive as BDAG, but focus's on Classical Greek. Some entries are more extensive than BDAG, and more complete.. I've gotten a better perspective on the meanings of some Greek words from studying it.
I like it as well and occasionally use it (especially for Perseus items and sometimes in the LXX though I have Lust for that as well). LSJ isn't, however, as much in depth with NT usages. I recommend BOTH LSJ and BDAG. If you have only one, BDAG should be that one.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Not arguing here but just explaining. My interest in LSJ 'first' is mainly due to my own belief (which could easily be wrong; we weren't there). But typically if a religious group is working off a religious writing from 1-2 centuries earlier, then the dictionary in theory should be consulted relative to the earlier period.
Very similar to Logos offering an older Webster dictionary due to translations from the 1600-1800s. Today's dictionaries might or might not hit the older usage.
Most of my more liberal commentaries knock Paul for his abuse of the LXX/MT but I suspect he had no choice; that was his audience's religious world and conceptual usage.
Of course there's the argument for common everyday language (koine) and so I next take a look at MM and possibly TDNT/TLNT for more discussion.
That's also why I really think Sophacles for the later post-apostolic period is needed. As you read in the late 200s to the late 400s, you just hope nothing's changed much (or ask someone like George).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Michael Childs said:
I am very worried about myself because I find myself agreeing with George more and more.
That is frightening, for I also find myself agreeing with him. I just tell myself that George is simply becoming more intelligent [:D]
0
