Hebrew search vs lemma search from English text

I was watching a Heiser video where he was talking about the short version of God's name and was using Logos. In the video, for reasons I truly don't know, he decided to find all instances of this short form in the Hebrew by starting in English. Huh? This produced 26 results. I then stopped the video and went to Accordance, and obviously there are 49 hits.

I ran the search myself in Logos and also produced 26 results. I then used the Hebrew in Logos which also produced 49 hits. While a lot of questions could be asked about why he would start with an English text, it did leave me wondering, why is there a number discrepancy between the English and Hebrew? Is it just an error?

While I personally would never do a search starting with English, what is the 26 supposed to be representing if not the Hebrew behind it? I thought that is what "lemma.h:יָהּ" meant.

Thank you for any clarity anyone is able to provide.

Kristin

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

I thought that is what "lemma.h:יָהּ" meant.

One starts with the English when one wants to know every Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic lemma that is translated by the Enteglish word somewhere in the translation. One starts with the Hebrew when one wants to know what English words are used to translate the lemma. In both cases, you find all occurrences of word/lemma in the text. One starts with the English or with the Hebrew depending upon what you want to know. Both help you understand where the meanings in the two languages overlap and where they differ. Logos specifically prides itself in making some elements of original language study available to those who don't know the original languages ... following in the tradition of Strong. The Hebrew lemma is simply a search for that text in the Hebrew text without regard to the English translation. The English search on Lord is simply a search on the English text without regard for the Hebrew. One must use both with the logical operator INTERESTS if you are looking for cases when the Hebrew lemma is translated by the English Lord.

I have are as a result of not being familiar with the software.

I find many of your questions relate to language study in general rather than relating specifically to Logos implementation. This question is an example where the issue is when to search on the English vs. when to search on the Hebrew. The answer is the same whether you are using paper concordances + Englishman concordances or if you are using one of the many multi-language software tools.

Brian Leathers

Hi Kristin,

There appears to be a difference in tagging between the Lexham Hebrew Bible and SESB:

This might explain the difference in the number of hits that you are seeing. The ESV appears to follow the LHB instead of the SESB.

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313669#Comment_1313669

There appears to be a difference in tagging between the Lexham Hebrew Bible and SESB. This might explain the difference in the number of hits that you are seeing. The ESV appears to follow the LHB instead of the SESB.

Hi Brian,

Thank you so much for the screenshot! Yes, that is for sure the reason for the discrepancy. [:)] Thank you.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313669#Comment_1313669

The ESV appears to follow the LHB instead of the SESB.

Just as an information that might be obvious to long-time Logos users, but not so obvious to users coming from someplace else.

First, you can find the information which original text the RI maps to an English bible in the information pane of the resource here:

Second: This original language text is usually not exactly the precise version the translators used (which is unknown anywaynin most cases). For practicality and also copyright reasons this RI source is quite standardized - for the NT it will nearly always be the SBL Greek NT, with Textus Receptus-based NTs like the KJV being mapped to Scriveners TR. For the OT I think it always is the Lexham Hebrew Bible, I haven't seen anything else (but I don't do Hebrew research at all).

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313666#Comment_1313666

using paper concordances

Because of Kristins questions in the Accordance thread I have lately dusted off my paper concordances.

In this case I notice that Even-Shoshan's New Concordance lists 24 occurences:

Just above the list of passages there is a note directing the user to the entry "הלל" for the occurences of הללויה.

It seems that Psalm 118:5 is only listed once.

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313711#Comment_1313711

Just as an information that might be obvious to long-time Logos users, but not so obvious to users coming from someplace else.

First, you can find the information which original text the RI maps to an English bible in the information pane of the resource here

Hi NB.Mick,

Thank you for the screenshot! Yes, that is very helpful information. However, I can't quite figure out how to find this information. I first tried finding it from the ESV open, then I looked for it in my Library, then the ESV on the Logos store, but I can't find this info section anywhere. Could you please clarify how to find it?

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313738#Comment_1313738

Because of Kristins questions in the Accordance thread I have lately dusted off my paper concordances.

In this case I notice that Even-Shoshan's New Concordance lists 24 occurences:

Just above the list of passages there is a note directing the user to the entry "הלל" for the occurences of הללויה.

It seems that Psalm 118:5 is only listed once.

Hi HJ. van der Wal,

Thank you for this screenshot, that is really interesting. [:)] After Brian Leathers response I had been comparing the texts and had found that to be the source of the discrepancy as well, that the Lexham is not counting it in words like הללויה. Given what you showed with Even-Shoshan, it really speaks to the critical nature comparing multiple texts.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313797#Comment_1313797

Just as an information that might be obvious to long-time Logos users, but not so obvious to users coming from someplace else.

First, you can find the information which original text the RI maps to an English bible in the information pane of the resource here

Hi NB.Mick,

Thank you for the screenshot! Yes, that is very helpful information. However, I can't quite figure out how to find this information. I first tried finding it from the ESV open, then I looked for it in my Library,

My screenshot was from the resource itself, I'll post about that down below. But the information pane is one of the most relevant functionalites in the library: you can see lots of information here, edit titles and short titles there, manage the series a resource belongs to and - my primary use case - you can manage the mytags for one or more resources. It is toggled on/off with that (i)-icon in the top right of the library panel (see green arrow pointing to it):

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313801#Comment_1313801

My screenshot was from the resource itself, I'll post about that down below. But the information pane is one of the most relevant functionalites in the library: you can see lots of information here, edit titles and short titles there, manage the series a resource belongs to and - my primary use case - you can manage the mytags for one or more resources. It is toggled on/off with that (i)-icon in the top right of the library panel (see green arrow pointing to it):

Hi NB.Mick,

Oh! Thank you! I had recently been advised to use independent threads for independent topics, so I actually had just posted another thread about the nicknames, which I now see in the info pane. So I will respond more about that there, but thank you again for the screenshot. I will for sure at the info of all my resources to see where it is linking (such as the Lexham or whatever).

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313797#Comment_1313797

how to find this information. I first tried finding it from the ESV open

That's how in the classic panel menu of the resource - some call it kebap menu - which is the three vertically stacked dots on the top right corner of the open ESV panel (see pointing arrow again):

The resource information tab will open as a replacement of the panel content, you click "done" to return to the resource itself.

Alternatively, you can open the information pop-up with a keyboard shortcut, Ctrl-Shift-i (this will look a bit different on a Mac, maybe Cmd-Shift-i?)

In the new resource menu bar (available for subscribers in the current beta) this has been taken out of the panel menu and put more into the open: A button in the Home section of the menu bar will now open the info panel:

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313806#Comment_1313806

That's how in the classic panel menu of the resource - some call it kebap menu - which is the three vertically stacked dots on the top right corner of the open ESV panel (see pointing arrow again):

Hi NB. Mick,

Thank you for the two screenshot comparisons. That was helpful, and mine looks like the first classic version.

Alternatively, you can open the information pop-up with a keyboard shortcut, Ctrl-Shift-i (this will look a bit different on a Mac, maybe Cmd-Shift-i?)

I just tried it, and yes, Cmd-Shft-i works on a Mac. [:)]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313808#Comment_1313808

Glad to hear!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313671#Comment_1313671

There appears to be a difference in tagging between the Lexham Hebrew Bible and SESB. This might explain the difference in the number of hits that you are seeing. The ESV appears to follow the LHB instead of the SESB.

Hi Brian,

Thank you so much for the screenshot! Yes, that is for sure the reason for the discrepancy. Thank you.

Other Hebrew Bibles give 49 results in 45 verses, so the LHB is somewhat idiosyncratic with 26 in 24 verses. ESV has the same result given that it uses the LHB for its Hebrew. However, LHB gives 49 in 45 with root.h:יָהּ = Yah, showing that its compound lemma for Hallelujah is based on Yah. ESV has 72 in 45 verses for root.h:יָהּ because it counts the English words aligned with Yah.

Note that you can get the Hebrew term for Yah (transliterated form for short name of God) by typing h:Yah.in different bibles.e.g. lemma.west.h:יָהּ in a Search of BHW 4.18.

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313894#Comment_1313894

Other Hebrew Bibles give 49 results in 45 verses, so the LHB is somewhat idiosyncratic with 26 in 24 verses. ESV has the same result given that it uses the LHB for its Hebrew.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for explaining this, and that is my impression of the LHB also, that it is sort of the odd man out. Is there a reason why Logos is using the LEH for the Hebrew in most Bibles (I admit I have only checked a few, but the few I checked are major, like the ESV and NIV, and they both use it).

Also, I went to check the root like you mentioned, and while I have the option with Lexham, the option seems to be missing from BHS and BHW. This seems odd since it had previously been there.

I can attach a screenshot.

Thank you,

Kristin

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313905#Comment_1313905

Is there a reason why Logos is using the LEH for the Hebrew in most Bibles (I admit I have only checked a few, but the few I checked are major, like the ESV and NIV, and they both use it).

Also, I went to check the root like you mentioned, and while I have the option with Lexham, the option seems to be missing from BHS and BHW. This seems odd since it had previously been there.

I think I wrote a bit about why LHB is the source for all Logos OT reverse interlinears - you will find much more in this thread and the threads linked from there. The gist of it is that the LHB doesn't differ much from BHS/BHW (lies between those two), follows the most accepted scholarschip = the HALOT lexicon and allows for all kinds of newly developed data such as referents, clause tagging etc and roots. I don't think any of the several editions of BHS/BHW in Logos ever contained roots data, to the best of my knowledge from the Hebrew-first bibles only LHB does (which you can overcome by linking both together in a link set or a multi-book-display panel as you do). Note I put Hebrew-first since there is one other Hebrew bible in Logos with roots, the Richter Biblia Hebraica transkripta

Note: you may not have come accross the Reading Lists (RL) feature in Logos, which allows for making lists of Logos resources relating to a specific topic. I once put together two such RLs trying to be a complete list of all original language texts available in the Logos universe (helps with easily opening the exact resource I want from several very identically titled books [:)] ). The Hebrew one is found here in your Logos and looks like this:

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313938#Comment_1313938

think I wrote a bit about why LHB is the source for all Logos OT reverse interlinears - you will find much more in this thread and the threads linked from there. The gist of it is that the LHB doesn't differ much from BHS/BHW (lies between those two), follows the most accepted scholarschip = the HALOT lexicon and allows for all kinds of newly developed data such as referents, clause tagging etc and roots.

Hi NB.Mick,

Thank you for the detailed explanation and link. [:)] I had the chance to look at the link you provided briefly, but I hope to be able to review it more in depth in a few hours. Thank you again.

I don't think any of the several editions of BHS/BHW in Logos ever contained roots data, to the best of my knowledge from the Hebrew-first bibles only LHB does (which you can overcome by linking both together in a link set or a multi-book-display panel as you do). Note I put Hebrew-first since there is one other Hebrew bible in Logos with roots, the Richter Biblia Hebraica transkripta

Oh, ok, interesting. I had really thought I had seen that little root symbol by the BHW, and so I was alarmed when it was missing. Given what you wrote though, I was clearly seeing the root symbol somewhere else. Thank you for clarifying this. My HMT-W4 has root tagging, so I can check that if I need to know about the BHW in Logos, as my understanding is that the two texts are the same. I think what is the true mind warp is how the LHB and BHW handle the lemma (Acc lingo "lexeme") vs the root. Such as the LHB providing 49 hits for the root, when that is the lemma of the BHW. By contrast, while the LHB has 49 hits for the root, the HMT-W4 provides 9616 hits for the root. So somewhat of a different philosophy to say the least. Thank you again for the clarification, and I will for sure take a close look at that link.

Note: you may not have come accross the Reading Lists (RL) feature in Logos, which allows for making lists of Logos resources relating to a specific topic. I once put together two such RLs trying to be a complete list of all original language texts available in the Logos universe (helps with easily opening the exact resource I want from several very identically titled books ). The Hebrew one is found here in your Logos and looks like this:

Oh! That is really cool! Thank you! No, I had not come across the Reading Lists in Logos yet. The list you provided is for sure motivation to become familiar with it though. [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314053#Comment_1314053

By contrast, while the LHB has 49 hits for the root, the HMT-W4 provides 9616 hits for the root.

I don't have the resources to check but this is likely explained by a difference in how compound words are handled. I suspect Abijah and Jehoash are included in HMT-W4 but not LHB.

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313938#Comment_1313938

I don't think any of the several editions of BHS/BHW in Logos ever contained roots data, to the best of my knowledge from the Hebrew-first bibles only LHB does (which you can overcome by linking both together in a link set or a multi-book-display panel as you do).

Hi NB.Mick,

Concerning the LHB having 49 hits for the root, and the HMT-W4 providing 9616 hits for the root, it is fairly easy to compare since 49 isn't much. However, I just ran another search where the two texts had a hit discrepancy of 5 or 6 hits among over 3,000 hits. So obviously I can't scroll through 3000 hits looking for 5 verses which are not cross-highlighted. However, my understanding is that there is not an easy way to simply copy all the references like I can do in Accordance. Is that correct?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314254#Comment_1314254

I just ran another search (...) looking for (...) an easy way to simply copy all the references

You use the panel menu of serach (the three vertically stacked dots at the top right) and choose "Save as Passage List"

those you can scrool through quite easily - or export to Excel with the panel menu of the Passage List and Print/Export. There you can use formulas or other features to compare two long lists of search hits.

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314275#Comment_1314275

You use the panel menu of serach (the three vertically stacked dots at the top right) and choose "Save as Passage List"

Hi NB.Mick,

Thank you for the screenshot! That was really helpful. It was a little challenging at first, since apparently I can't do anything with the Lexham until I re-open it and re-run the search in the Lexham (even though it is sitting there as a parallel already). But after I figured that out I was able to create the two passage lists and compare the differences. [:)] I think I will need to play with it a little before I really have it down, but this is helpful to know.

or export to Excel with the panel menu of the Passage List and Print/Export. There you can use formulas or other features to compare two long lists of search hits.

Ok, great! It appears that there is no way to copy JUST the verses, but after I moved it to Numbers I was able to delete the passages and was left with just the verses. So for sure another thing I will mess around with.

Thank you again for the screenshot.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314275#Comment_1314275

those you can scrool through quite easily - or export to Excel with the panel menu of the Passage List and Print/Export. There you can use formulas or other features to compare two long lists of search hits.

Or use the "Merge" option in the Passage List that allows you to create a new Passage List with the difference between the Passage List and another Passage List.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314284#Comment_1314284

Ok, great! It appears that there is no way to copy JUST the verses

I'm not sure what you mean by verses here (the references or the text) but if you are wanting to get just the verse references you can switch to Compacy view and then do the Print / Export

Kristin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1314501#Comment_1314501

Or use the "Merge" option in the Passage List that allows you to create a new Passage List with the difference between the Passage List and another Passage List.

Thank you, Andrew. [:)]

I'm not sure what you mean by verses here (the references or the text) but if you are wanting to get just the verse references you can switch to Compacy view and then do the Print / Export

Hi Graham,

Sorry for being unclear, and yes, you guessed correctly, I had meant just the verse references. Thank you for the compact idea and screenshot. I will for sure try that! [:)]