Question: Hebrew Lexicons and Dictionaries

What lexicons and dictionaries do most- and I am asking those well versed in Hebrew- have prioritized and first go to resources.

I have accelerated my hebrew studies and looking to get resources setup for approaching the biblical text.

Any help will be appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

What lexicons and dictionaries do most- and I am asking those well versed in Hebrew- have prioritized and first go to resources.

I have accelerated my hebrew studies and looking to get resources setup for approaching the biblical text.

Any help will be appreciated.

I probably have

I probably have about every Hebrew lexicon offered (except for the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew which was supposed to have shipped yesterday but for some reason did not. I'll have to check on what happened with it, but I wouldn't have had time to work with it to any degree even if I had received it. I use HALOT for most of my work. Occasionally I'll check BDB or even Gesenius, but HALOT is my workhorse. As for Swanson … eh ! I wouldn't touch Strong's (you might as well just read the AV [AKA: KJV]). If you want something quick and dirty the abridged BDB by Whittaker is better than Strong's (but isn't everything better than Strong's?), and it's free.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793561#Comment_793561

the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew which was supposed to have shipped yesterday but for some reason did not

Some are reporting it as having shipped - https://community.logos.com/forums/t/121273.aspx

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793561#Comment_793561

What lexicons and dictionaries do most- and I am asking those well versed in Hebrew- have prioritized and first go to resources.

I have accelerated my hebrew studies and looking to get resources setup for approaching the biblical text.

Any help will be appreciated.

I probably have

I probably have about every Hebrew lexicon offered (except for the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew which was supposed to have shipped yesterday but for some reason did not. I'll have to check on what happened with it, but I wouldn't have had time to work with it to any degree even if I had received it. I use HALOT for most of my work. Occasionally I'll check BDB or even Gesenius, but HALOT is my workhorse. As for Swanson … eh ! I wouldn't touch Strong's (you might as well just read the AV [AKA: KJV]). If you want something quick and dirty the abridged BDB by Whittaker is better than Strong's (but isn't everything better than Strong's?), and it's free.

Thanks George- thats my problem- I think i have all the Hebrew as well- and struggling to sort them out, in a fashion to where the most relevant show up in right click and the rest i can reference through a collection. Of course all this will be defined by what i am actually working on.

Direction and suggestions from others is always worth an "ask."

Tim Finlay

For in depth study of certain theological words, I like Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament and New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. For a quick look-up, and for words that are not covered in the above lexicons, I use both HALOT and BDB. BDB does not have the Ugaritic and Dead Sea Scrolls material available to HALOT, but its methodology is excellent. I include a quote from Joshua Blau's Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction

The best known dictionary in the Gesenius tradition and the most widely used English biblical lexicon is the excellent, though somewhat outdated, work of F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (1907), generally quoted as BDB. In the same tradition, in German, and up to the same standard is the likewise somewhat obsolete dictionary of F. Buhl (1915), nominally the seventeenth edition of Gesenius’ German work. More modern dictionaries, such as the various editions of the work of Ludwig Koehler and W. Baumgartner, are not up to the same standard, with the notable exception of their Aramaic portion, composed and guided by Baumgartner (Koehler and Baumgartner 1953, 1958, 1996, 2000; Holladay 1971; Reymond 1991).

Joshua Blau, Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction (ed. M. O’Connor and Cynthia L. Miller; Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

My personal take is that for the Aramaic words I use HALOT and Jastrow. For the words beginning with letters in the second half of the alphabet, HALOT is superior to BDB, although BDB does let me see all the words with the same root in the same place. (HALOT takes about 500 pages for the first half of the alphabet, and 1500 pages for the second half of the alphabet). For the words beginning with letters in the first half of the alphabet, I use a combination of BDB and HALOT.

I agree with George that Swanson is of little value, as is the Concise HALOT. I have only just downloaded the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew but I shall use that alongside HALOT and BDB. From looking through it yesterday, DCH's advantages seem to be far more extensive use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and including some of the information that one finds in the Clause Participants section of the Word Study Guide in Logos. This can be handy, but it also makes it a bit more cluttered because the same reference to a word gets listed several times.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793712#Comment_793712

Thanks Tim- very helpful [Y]

I just got Logos Cloud (over 1400 resources added) so I have the Old and New Testment Library Studies downloaded- also included were "Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic Series" which has some books you mention and I wanted.

Tim Finlay

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793717#Comment_793717

You're welcome, Whyndell! That Linguistic Studies series is superb. I had bought two in hardback--Joshua Blau's book mentioned previously, and Andersen/Forbes on their Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text--before I bought the entire series in hardback. As a Logos user, you should look at the Andersen/Forbes book if you intend to do Syntax Searches. I shall post some screenshots of Hebrew Syntax Searches I have done in the near future.

Al Het

You've gotten two great answers from George and Tim, I just wanted to back that up with an "I agree."

I use HALOT and BDB as my first two sources. TDOT is very good, and very extensive.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793901#Comment_793901

You're welcome, Whyndell! That Linguistic Studies series is superb. I had bought two in hardback--Joshua Blau's book mentioned previously, and Andersen/Forbes on their Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text--before I bought the entire series in hardback. As a Logos user, you should look at the Andersen/Forbes book if you intend to do Syntax Searches. I shall post some screenshots of Hebrew Syntax Searches I have done in the near future.

Thanks, looking forward to the screen shots.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793921#Comment_793921

You've gotten two great answers from George and Tim, I just wanted to back that up with an "I agree."

I use HALOT and BDB as my first two sources. TDOT is very good, and very extensive.

I don't have TDOT, but maybe sometime this year. So far my line up is: HALOT, BDB, NIDOTTE, DCH, TLOT- have others I can use through my collection that is set up.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/793927#Comment_793927

Just offering a slightly different opinion. David Knoll mentioned in another thread that HALOT is probably the lexicon most users would ever need, and I agree.

If you're analyzing words through a theological lens, NIDOTTE and TDOT are supremely useful. (Caveat: how valid is that approach, e.g. for words that are less theological? I'll just say there are points on both sides.)

To truly deal with the very small percentage of words that remain arguable, to be really at the cutting edge, you would need mastery of the cognate languages and awareness of semitic philology.

John Goodman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794069#Comment_794069

I use HALOT very often however I have CHALOT prioritised higher because it gives very handy and much briefer results in the info panel. I have my Hebrew Lexicons in a link set so that when I click a word they all jump to it. I also really like the way the info panel can summarise the different translations because it reflects a variety of considered opinions from expert translators on the meaning of the word in this specific context.

I have used the print edition of DCH while at college and I'm not really a fan because it offers so little reasoning - but an expert opinion non the less. I haven't bought the Logos edition because I feel that what it offers is eclipsed by the word study tool.

If they offer the concise DCH then I will purchase it.

Tim Finlay

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794069#Comment_794069

Lee, I think that George, David and I are largely in agreement. HALOT is my number one lexicon, BDB is my number two lexicon, and I use TDOT, NIDOTTE and TLOT for in-depth analysis on certain theological words on occasion. The advantage of TDOT etc is that they also give you a bibliography of other relevant articles and books. One feature I like about BDB is the grouping of cognate words together. [Its biggest drawback in print form, is that you had to know the root of the word in order to look it up. In part, I got good at parsing Hebrew words by constantly having to look up words from the Hebrew Bible in BDB. But it is an acquired skill and other print lexicons were easier to use for those with less Hebrew. However, this drawback is eliminated in Logos via the right-click menu.] Yet this feature is less important now in Logos because of the Root section in Bible Word Study. Similarly, the best feature in DCH is its listing of the DSS material. David Knoll points out that you can search all these features out for yourself by doing searches on the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts, making DCH less important. The serious drawback to DCH is its lack of etymology and comparative philology. James Barr pointed out the pitfalls in comparative philology but it has a legitimate function and I think that DCH made a mistake in not including it. But DCH still has a place and is obviously the go-to lexicon for Hebrew words found in the DSS or other ANE materials but not found in the Hebrew Bible.

Tim Finlay

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794069#Comment_794069

I should have mentioned another drawback to BDB. Because it analyzes words in terms of triliteral roots, it has to invent a triliteral root for the words with only two consonants, usually either a geminate or a hollow root. Also, there are some Hebrew words which oscillate between two different root patterns (hollow/geminate or pe-yod/pe-nun). It give documentary source information (J, E, D, P etc.) according to the scholarly consensus at that time. Some people find this annoying; others find it helpful.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794177#Comment_794177

How far back should we trace etymological influences? That's a question we need to determine. I think BDB is overly imaginative in some etymologies, and even for words where the etymology is indisputable, BDB freely imposes past meanings on the current usage. So BDB has been frequently misused by exegetes.

When normal people say "Good bye" do they even think or communicate "God be with you"?

When people say "opossum" do they care for Algonquin heritage or hark back to the "white dog"?

It's a lot harder to misuse HALOT, in that regard!

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794252#Comment_794252

Ok so now this discussion makes me feel really uh, lacking [:(]

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/794443#Comment_794443

Don't be discouraged, my brother. Part of this discussion has been about how some resources can take us too far away from the basic schema of arranging core packets of meaning (words) into logical associations (phrases and sentences), that *powwww* communicate a cosmic principle.

The magic, the message does not usually lie in each individual word.

Just use BDB, TDOT, NIDOTTE with that in mind. Etymology is great for dating, authorship issues, but in terms of exegetical impact there is less pay-off.