Which do you prefer and why?
Although both have their value if I only had the choice between those two resources I would choose Vines. Robertson's Word Pictures is set up by canonical order which is good if you are going through a particular book but Vine's is more of a dictionary to look up specific words.
Robertson's Word Pictures is set up by canonical order which is good if you are going through a particular book but Vine's is more of a dictionary to look up specific words.
If you don't have commentaries that deal with the Greek text, then using Robertson linked to your English Bible will help fill the gap in your commentaries by giving some information on the original language level as you study a passage. As Bruce pointed out, it is not a lexicon or dictionary, but for the use stated would be helpful.
If you need a Greek dictionary, of the two, go with Vine's.
Ok, I assume that "parallel" resources to Vines would be Vincent and Wuest- right?
What would be a "parallel" resource to Robertson?
Here is a screen shot of the four you mentioned.
Robertson, Vincent, and Wuest are all verse-by-verse commentaries on the words in the text. Vines is a dictionary that has an entry for each word.
Ah, I see now. So then, what are the "parallel" resources to Vines?
https://www.logos.com/product/5407/mounces-complete-expository-dictionary-of-old-and-new-testament-words
Others would seem to be:
https://www.logos.com/product/45638/lexham-theological-wordbook
https://www.logos.com/product/7296/holman-treasury-of-key-bible-words
https://www.logos.com/product/1197/king-james-bible-word-book
These, like Vines, focus on the English text. There are also others which focus on the Hebrew or Greek text.
Now, whether the ones I listed are set up to be parallel resources or not, I do not know.
I have no automatic parallels in Platinum
Michael, Do you have any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew? What are you hoping the resource will provide? If we knew the answers to these questions, we could probably give better advice.
I'll pose an uneducated observation. On Vines, I didn't have any parallels listed (empty menu). But I touched the arrow key and then back. Then I had a million choices (mainly english dictionaries/lexicons). But also including canaanite inscriptions. I don't ever use the parallels.
I would not hesitate to choose Robertson over Vines. Robertson is the superior scholar.
I have no Greek or Hebrew skills or training.
I have Reformed Platinum in v5, and Baptist Starter in v6.
I am trying to learn how to use my resources to properly study and also trying to see if I have any weak areas of my resources that I need to plan to supplement.
Thank you all
Of the works you mentioned, I would go with Robertson. First, he was an impeccable scholar. You mentioned you have Baptist Starter. Robertson was a Southern Baptist. Second, because his work is verse-by-verse the words are discussed in context. People with no understanding of Greek or Hebrew often get a dictionary but do not have the skill to really understand it. With Robertson, when you look up a verse he will be discussing the shades of meaning that apply in that context.
My second choice would be Vincent. I have found him very helpful over the years. His work is formatted like Robertson.
I hope this helps. Blessings on your studies.
Where would Thayer fit into the mix?
Thayer doesn't fit at all. He wrote before the discovery that the NT was not written in "Holy Ghost Greek" but in the popular Koine Greek of the time which has different meanings in some cases from classical Greek. Sell your first-born child and buy BDAG https://www.logos.com/product/3878/a-greek-english-lexicon-of-the-new-testament-and-other-early-christian-literature-3rd-ed. If you intend to get involved with Hebrew as well, you can get the BDAG/HALOT bundle and save a bit https://www.logos.com/product/5228/bdag-halot-bundle. For NT work, BDAG is the ONLY lexicon that is worth getting as your main source (It is also helpful with the Apostolic Fathers and frequently helpful with the LXX).
For NT work, BDAG is the ONLY lexicon that is worth getting as your main source
For example:
"One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word."
Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed., p. 28). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.
For NT work, BDAG is the ONLY lexicon that is worth getting as your main source I agree that BDAG is the authoritative lexicon that is obviously an indisputable point. However, I don't believe it is good advice for someone without a knowledge of Greek to try to use it. Most people know enough Greek to be dangerous, meaning they don't really know what they think they know. For example: "One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word." Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed., p. 28). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.
[Y][Y] Fully Agree!! I shudder to think about all the poor sermons I preached in years past based upon a loose reading of BDAG.
Other lexica are far more likely to be misused by someone unacquainted with Greek. Since, in many cases, BDAG has multiple glosses and lists passages of examples of the usage for particular words, they are likely to be able to get a sense of how the word is being used in their particular passage. Contrast this with some "lexicon" that simply lists various glosses for a word one after another and the user simply picks one that he likes (probably for a theological reason). Now, THAT is dangerous.
Other lexica are far more likely to be misused by someone unacquainted with Greek.
Thanks for mentioning Vine's and Exegetical fallacies guys. I hope to add those to my resources.
God Bless you always forever!
James
Why settle for one, when you can have them both? They are relatively cheap and compliment one another; though I prefer Vine's and use it more often. BDAG is a superb resource, you should consider it too.
DAL
I shudder to think about all the poor sermons I preached in years past based upon a loose reading of BDAG.
I'm with George. Start with BDAG, and you'll probably end there.
Here's something that I think is important to know at this specific point in time: Logos 6 has made using BDAG almost like cheating. If you turn on "Outline Formatting" in the visual filter menu for BDAG, it makes BDAG readable for the uninitiated (it doesn't expand abbreviations or the like). It structures the display in an outline format according to the hard-to-discern structure implicit in the BDAG arrangement on a word. Again, it makes it so much more readable that it really feels like cheating.
FWIW...
Donnie
Thanks Gentlemen,
I do have BDAG- as it was recommended on the "how to use Greek and Hebrew" video series (Another thread, and having update issues). And I also have Carson's book, paper edition- not on Logos. I have not studied the languages, but have already studied enough to know that there is a danger for me, which is why I want to utilize this wonderful program to do the heavy lifting for me- and why I want good resources to ensure I am doing thorough study and "correctly handling the Word of God".
I don't have HALOT- but I do have Holladay, BDB, and some others. So with these and Louw-Nida, Kittels, Robertson, Wuest, and Vincent- plus the Lexham works, do you think I am equipped enough as far as having the tools to "cheat" with Logos?
Thanks.
While BDB isn't up to date with the latest discoveries in the field, unlike Thayer with Greek, BDB is still quite useable. If you decide to get into Hebrew seriously, I would recommend HALOT or even The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, but that can wait.
George,
what do you think of CHALOT (Holladay)?
George, what do you think of CHALOT (Holladay)?
I have it but never use it. I go for the full-blown version. It's not too bad, but for me it's a bit deficient. It does have some examples of usage which I would require of any lexicon I would consider, and at a fifth the price of HALOT it might seem attractive.
How does Liddell and Scott Lexicon relate? Evaluations? Comparisons with the others mentioned?
Great for classical works, but you need BDAG for NT.
If you turn on "Outline Formatting" in the visual filter menu for BDAG, it makes BDAG readable for the uninitiated (it doesn't expand abbreviations or the like). It structures the display in an outline format according to the hard-to-discern structure implicit in the BDAG arrangement on a word. Again, it makes it so much more readable that it really feels like cheating.
Oh wow! I had not discovered that. It is like wiping the condensation off a window. Thanks so much!!
If you turn on "Outline Formatting" in the visual filter menu for BDAG, it makes BDAG readable for the uninitiated (it doesn't expand abbreviations or the like). It structures the display in an outline format according to the hard-to-discern structure implicit in the BDAG arrangement on a word. Again, it makes it so much more readable that it really feels like cheating. Oh wow! I had not discovered that. It is like wiping the condensation off a window. Thanks so much!!
I just recently got L6 and have not used any of the new features such as "Outline Formatting," The problem is that I don't find it. Help !
Do visual filters help?
No, that's where Donnie said it was located, but I don't find it.
I just did a little search of Logos' site and found that they're selling a "Lexicon Reformatting Dataset" for $5.00 (https://www.logos.com/product/45626/lexicon-reformatting-dataset). Wasn't that supposed to be included in the crossgrade?
I believe it is ... but if you didn't buy the crossgrade ...
I just did a little search of Logos' site and found that they're selling a "Lexicon Reformatting Dataset" for $5.00 (https://www.logos.com/product/45626/lexicon-reformatting-dataset). Wasn't that supposed to be included in the crossgrade? I believe it is ... but if you didn't buy the crossgrade ...
I did buy the crossgrade, but I think I might have bought the wrong crossgrade (I didn't want a basket of resources of their choice).
It appears to be in the feature crossgrade but not the core cross-grade. This will cost you $5 more ...
Logos 6 has made using BDAG almost like cheating. If you turn on "Outline Formatting" in the visual filter menu for BDAG, it makes BDAG readable for the uninitiated (it doesn't expand abbreviations or the like). It structures the display in an outline format according to the hard-to-discern structure implicit in the BDAG arrangement on a word. Again, it makes it so much more readable that it really feels like cheating.
Do you really feel that this visual filter makes BDAG so much more accessible? I have turned it on a few times, but I often find myself switching it off within minutes. For example, in the screenshot below, I personally don't feel the outline formatting is all that helpful, and it breaks the text up at sometimes odd places (e.g. second item under 4, and when referencing resources).
Be sure to report places where the breaks don't make sense - its the only way Faithlife will know how to improve it.
Since the outline seems to be the result of an automated process, every article of BDAG (and probably other lexicons as well) is affected by this. There would only be a benefit of reporting individual issues if Faithlife decides to manually curate this process.
Be sure to report places where the breaks don't make sense - its the only way Faithlife will know how to improve it. Since the outline seems to be the result of an automated process, every article of BDAG (and probably other lexicons as well) is affected by this. There would only be a benefit of reporting individual issues if Faithlife decides to manually curate this process.
Having seen the refinement of the algorithm during the beta and having some knowledge of open questions and NLP, I respectfully disagree. The question is simply one of whether or not the reported problems are sufficient to identify a pattern in the errors. Identifying such patterns is the easy part; collecting the reports of errors to use as data is the hard part.
If you turn on "Outline Formatting" in the visual filter menu for BDAG, it makes BDAG readable for the uninitiated
Donnie, feel free to give me your mailing address and I'll forward my first born to you in exchange for this tip. Granted, she was born in 1975 and may have an opinion on the matter, not to mention the dubious merits of receiving a grown woman through postal delivery.... but its the thought that counts here. I appreciate you passing this tip along!
