Which Dead Sea Scrolls Database?

I am getting a bit confused between the different offerings of DSS databases on Logos (what to choose), particularly between the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts

https://www.logos.com/product/4242/qumran-sectarian-manuscripts

and Qumran Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Database

https://www.logos.com/product/5961/qumran-biblical-dead-sea-scrolls-database

This is for OT PhD studies. I would rather just buy one than both.

Anybody with experience of these two who can shed some light on my quandary?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

fgh

One includes the Biblical scrolls, one the non-Biblical scrolls.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655245#Comment_655245

One includes the Biblical scrolls, one the non-Biblical scrolls.

Just to put a point on what fgh noted, you need BOTH.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655251#Comment_655251

Thanks to both of you. It must be a sign that it's time to go to bed when I couldn't even see that even though it IS in the description of the products!

Thanks again.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655257#Comment_655257

What about how the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition

https://www.logos.com/product/4241/the-dead-sea-scrolls-study-edition-vol-i-1q1-4q273-vol-ii-4q274-11q31

Compares with Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts?

Both apparently treat of sectarian/non-biblical scrolls.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655268#Comment_655268

What about how the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition

https://www.logos.com/product/4241/the-dead-sea-scrolls-study-edition-vol-i-1q1-4q273-vol-ii-4q274-11q31

Compares with Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts?

Both apparently treat of sectarian/non-biblical scrolls.

The Study Edition has translations.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655271#Comment_655271

It is mentioned specifically, with regard to Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts that they are tagged morphologically. There are English glosses but apparently no actual translation? The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition is not tagged. Makes you wonder what that means in the context of where Logos is at. Are these just "pictures"? I mean, can it really be that you can't right-click on a word and do a lemma search in the "Study Edition"?

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655285#Comment_655285

might i suggest browsing:

https://www.logos.com/product/guide/dead-sea-scrolls

It discusses the differences

Mark Barnes

I have all these products.

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts has morphological tagging. Supports only the Sectarian manuscripts
Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls database also has morphology. Only supports Biblical Scrolls.
Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition doesn't have morphology, but it does have translations. It has the Sectarian manuscripts, and lists which fragments of the biblical scrolls match which scriptures, but doesn't provide transcriptions of the Biblical Scrolls. It does give some bibliographic info though.

They're all useful in their different ways. The DSSSE is my first-port of call, as it covers (sort of) both sectarian and biblical scrolls, and the translations are incredibly useful to me. I don't miss the lack of morphology very much at all.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655299#Comment_655299

Thanks, Mark. Very useful. I already have The Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Vermes and The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, by Wise, Abegg and Cook.

Just recently however I had an experience that made me paranoid: I was sitting in a seminar and the topic was on a passage in a scroll. Thinking that I "had" the DSS, I typed in the reference only to find out (after checking manually) that I did not have this particular one. So, my questions tend to the desire to ensure that I have the proper resources but also avoid unnecessary purchases and duplication.

So, if you have further comments about the three titles previously mentioned in relation to the two I already have, that would be helpful as well!

I am absolutely certain that morphology will be very important to our studies. But translations are also handy for those of us who are not good enough to be able to read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek as if it were English.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655285#Comment_655285

Franscis, multiple translations are ALWAYS helpful, especially when you're dealing with fragments, guesses relative to space, etc. Morph tags follow the guesses.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655307#Comment_655307

So, if you have further comments about the three titles previously mentioned in relation to the two I already have, that would be helpful as well!

The two that you have are translations for 'everyman', rather than scholarly tools. They're incomplete, and often don't provide the level of detail required to be able to check precise references to particular columns and lines.

I like them - they read well - but they're of limited use for postgrads (as you've discovered).

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655299#Comment_655299

I don't miss the lack of morphology very much at all.

I'm curious about this comment, Mark. Perhaps we are in different branches, but how do you use the DSS for research without morphology? Do you rely on indices to find relevant passages? Do you use specific features of the Logos guides to get to what you want without considerations of morphology?

I am, at present, not buying out of specific need, but to equip myself as it were as far as primary sources are concerned. My thinking is that generally, morphologically tagged primary sources will allow one to unearth specific phrases and word usages that can help illuminate biblical usage or important concepts in Jewish thinking. Thoughts?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/655509#Comment_655509

Do you rely on indices to find relevant passages?

Yes. An English translations, of course. But probably more so on the secondary literature pointing me to the right places, then searching my Logos library for references to those parts of the DSS, to expand my search.

In the Biblical DSS morphology was largely unimportant to me, because it's very rare that I need to find the differences between the DSS and BHS. So, whilst I'm very interested in which biblical manuscripts they had, and I don't really need to search the biblical scrolls morphologically. I'd be more likely to create passage lists from the BHS, and then show those passage lists with the DSS so I could see at a glance which I knew they had.

Morphology is more useful in the secular scrolls. But my primary research topic doesn't lend itself to lexical searching, so even that wasn't as useful as it might have been.