What’s the difference between these two and which one is better? Or do you need both?
1. https://www.logos.com/product/5961/qumran-biblical-dead-sea-scrolls-database
2. https://www.logos.com/product/4241/the-dead-sea-scrolls-study-edition-vol-i-1q1-4q273-vol-ii-4q274-11q31
DAL
If you are going to study the Dead Sea Scrolls then both would be very helpful. I acquired both because of Craig Evans in Mobile Ed teachings.
There’s no overlap between these two resources. The first one contains only biblical texts, the second contains only non-biblical texts. The first one also doesn’t contain any English translation, while the second does. Unless you’re familiar with Hebrew, therefore, I would recommend only the DSSSE. There is a Dead Sea Scrolls Bible in English, which is pretty cheap.
Thanks Matt and Mark! I’ll stick with English, as my Hebrew is virtually none existent (Words Studies only). 👍😁👌
Adding to Mark, you may already have:
https://www.logos.com/product/55512/lexham-dead-sea-scrolls-hebrew-english-interlinear-bible
which is a fragment-smashup of the DSS Biblical, in interlinear format (to include english glosses, and which fragment(s) were involved).
I prefer the Biblical one DAL listed. First, it's about the only OT game in town until a thousand years later (the MT). Second, it has a really nice index that you can attach to your OT, thereby quickly showing the choices. The DSSBible is great, except the Lexham interlinear is even better.
The DSSSE sectarian scrolls really demand an intro text, if you have any hopes of seeing beyond which cave (ie the theology, dating, other sectarian writings etc.).
ADDED:
For lunch, was reading that Jewish Law resource elsewhere discussed, and the use of the Septuagint. It references Exo 21:7 (LXX vs Talmud). But in Exo 21:6, the LXX goes with 'place of judgement' instead of the MT hebrew god(s). Which is it? DSS Biblical quickly answers 'god(s). Handy.
Alright Denise, I’m confused now: which one is the “Biblical one” I listed - the Study Edition or the Database?
Alright Denise, I’m confused now: which one is the “Biblical one” I listed - the Study Edition or the Database? DAL
The clue is in the name ;-) - it’s the Biblical Scrolls Database.
Alright Denise, I’m confused now: which one is the “Biblical one” I listed - the Study Edition or the Database? DAL The clue is in the name ;-) - it’s the Biblical Scrolls Database.
👍😁👌 Thanks!
Thanks Mark! Truth be told, looking at both, I don’t think that’s something I’m going to be specializing on, so I may just save my money for now. I’m even rethinking the Large Jewish Bundle as I may just study the resources here and there. Maybe for future reference, but is it something I must have? (Talmud, Jewish Law vols., etc). I still have some time left 👍😁👌
Thanks Mark! In truth, I think I may just pass on both, since I'm not looking to specialize myself on that. I'm a more practical guy. I'm even rethinking the Large Jewish bundle since I'm not sure I'll use it very often other than referencing the Talmud every now and then, but even so, how often will that be? I also ask myself, is the Jewish bundle with both Talmuds and the Jewish Laws vols. a must have bundle or not.
We'll see, I still have some time to think about it.
Blessings!
My apologies, DAL. I used to get the two mixed up all the time.
Just joking, but one of the few inscriptions the late 40s archaeologists found at Qumran, was what appears to be a sign '<= Our Stuff --- Biblical =>'. It was one reason the room block was assumed to be their library.
On the usefulness of DSS vs Talmud, etc., it really depends on what you're wanting. For NT studies, DSS is far more relevant than Talmud. For studies of later Judaism (medieval and post-medieval), the opposite is true. This recent thread has a helpful discussion on the NT question: Can someone help me learn how to use these resources? (Jewish studies)
I went to head and order the extra large Jewish bundle along with some messianic Jewish resources. I’m going to have to start learning a little bit of Hebrew first before I order the Dead Sea Scrolls study edition and the biblical one that Denise mention 👍😁👌
So here is my question which of these two resources do you recommend to start learning Hebrew?
1. The first Hebrew primer or
2. Basics of biblical Hebrew
I own them both along with some of Futato’s resources.
I figure I might as well learn a little bit of the language so the resources won’t be sitting there without being used. Plus, I’m sure they will eventually go on sale and I’ll be able to get them at a better price.
This is literally true. But Biblical 'scholars' keep using the Mishnah/Talmud to explain Jesus, And the conservative background commentaries are the worst at it.
But being blind to the Talmud isn't a good answer. The upper-case Rabbi's didn't make a perfect 4-point landing at the Babylon spaceport, hop out like Las Vegas Elvis's, and start pronouncing opinions. The material logically goes back well into the first century with lower-case rabbi's. Even the DSS sectarian make heavy use of 'the teacher', as also the NT. And 12 year old Jesus was arguing with 'someone' in the Temple. Rumor, was the Temple even did sacrifices.
On the usefulness of DSS vs Talmud, etc., it really depends on what you're wanting. For NT studies, DSS is far more relevant than Talmud. For studies of later Judaism (medieval and post-medieval), the opposite is true. This recent thread has a helpful discussion on the NT question: Can someone help me learn how to use these resources? (Jewish studies) This is literally true. But Biblical 'scholars' keep using the Mishnah/Talmud to explain Jesus, And the conservative background commentaries are the worst at it. But being blind to the Talmud isn't a good answer. The upper-case Rabbi's didn't make a perfect 4-point landing at the Babylon spaceport, hop out like Las Vegas Elvis's, and start pronouncing opinions. The material logically goes back well into the first century with lower-case rabbi's. Even the DSS sectarian make heavy use of 'the teacher', as also the NT. And 12 year old Jesus was arguing with 'someone' in the Temple. Rumor, was the Temple even did sacrifices.
When you say "the material logically goes back well into the first century" are you meaning the whole of the Mishnah? The Talmud? What? As I've said elsewhere, critical scholarship (both Christian and Jewish) has shown that there is "some" material in the Rabbinic corpus which can be traced back to the first century with any certainty. Martin Goodman estimates this to be about 20%. The rest of the corpus is much later - post-first century. This is too late for the historic party we know as the "Pharisees". In scholarship of yesteryear, there used to be a simple equation made: Rabbinic = Pharisaic. We now know that to be simply wrong.
The main problem with the Rabbinic corpus is, as Neusner has stated: it is idyllic; it is rarefied; it is imaginative. That means a lot of it is made up! For example, the whole tradition about the "oral law" - this is pure fiction; invented to give credence to their later traditions. It is not historical. It suggests that there was an oral Pharisaic law in existence in the first century which everyone followed and obeyed. But what we now know is, nobody but the Pharisees themselves kept their halakhah in the first century. The "common Jew" - the amme ha'aretz - ignored them, and only followed the ancestral traditions reaching back into the time of the first temple. This was something the Pharisees themselves complained about. We can tell from these complaints that the Pharisees were ignored on matters which the Pharisees themselves thought were critical: the "common Jew" did not tithe properly, and they did not keep ritual purity. If there was an "oral" LAW in the first century, binding on all persons, then why are the Pharisees complaining that nobody kept to it? The answer is simple: there was no binding "Jewish law" in the first century, other than the ancestral traditions reaching back to the time of the first temple. This was not "oral" in nature. It is written in the Torah.
The Sadducees - these are the guys who actually ran the temple. And from what we can tell, most often NOT in accord with the halakhah of the Pharisees. In the 20% of traditions I said above were reliable for revealing things that happened in the first century, the debates between the Sadducees and Pharisees on matters of temple conduct, the Sadducees always disagreed with them. And as the Sadducees were the guys who actually ran the temple, what the Pharisees thought was right amounted to little, if anything at all. Again, if there was an Pharisaic "oral law" binding on all persons in the first century, then why did the Sadducees follow it? Again, the answer is obvious: there was no such "oral law" in existence in the first century which everyone followed and obeyed.
Fact of the matter is, the Pharisees, although wanting to run things in the first century, never ran anything at all. The Great Sanhedrin where supposedly the Pharisees ran everything, is, as Sanders, Goodman, and McLaren have proved, another Rabbinic invention: pure fiction. The only time the Pharisees amounted to anything was under Salome Alexander. After she died, the Pharisees lost all of their power and position.
When you say "the material logically goes back well into the first century" are you meaning the whole of the Mishnah? The Talmud? What? As I've said elsewhere, critical scholarship (both Christian and Jewish) has shown that there is "some" material in the Rabbinic corpus which can be traced back to the first century with any certainty. Martin Goodman estimates this to be about 20%. The rest of the corpus is much later - post-first century. This is too late for the historic party we know as the "Pharisees". In scholarship of yesteryear, there used to be a simple equation made: Rabbinic = Pharisaic. We now know that to be simply wrong. The main problem with the Rabbinic corpus is, as Neusner has stated: it is idyllic; it is rarefied; it is imaginative. That means a lot of it is made up! For example, the whole tradition about the "oral law" - this is pure fiction; invented to give credence to their later traditions. It is not historical. It suggests that there was an oral Pharisaic law in existence in the first century which everyone followed and obeyed. But what we now know is, nobody but the Pharisees themselves kept their halakhah in the first century. The "common Jew" - the amme ha'aretz - ignored them, and only followed the ancestral traditions reaching back into the time of the first temple. This was something the Pharisees themselves complained about. We can tell from these complaints that the Pharisees were ignored on matters which the Pharisees themselves thought were critical: the "common Jew" did not tithe properly, and they did not keep ritual purity. If there was an "oral" LAW in the first century, why are the Pharisees complaining nobody kept to it? The answer is simple: there was no binding "Jewish law" in the first century, other than the ancestral traditions reaching back to the time of the first temple. This was not "oral" in nature. It is written in the Torah. The Sadducees - these are the guys who actually ran the temple. And from what we can tell, most often NOT in accord with the halakhah of the Pharisees. In the 20% of traditions I said above was reliable for revealing things that happened in the first century, the debates between the Sadducees and Pharisees on matters of temple conduct, the Sadducees always disagreed with them. And as the Sadducees were the guys who actually ran the temple, what the Pharisees thought was right amounted to little, if anything at all. Fact of the matter is, the Pharisees, although wanting to run things in the first century, never ran anything at all. The Great Sanhedrin where supposedly the Pharisees ran everything, is, as Sanders, Goodman, and McLaren have proved, another Rabbinic invention: pure fiction.
The main problem with the Rabbinic corpus is, as Neusner has stated: it is idyllic; it is rarefied; it is imaginative. That means a lot of it is made up! For example, the whole tradition about the "oral law" - this is pure fiction; invented to give credence to their later traditions. It is not historical. It suggests that there was an oral Pharisaic law in existence in the first century which everyone followed and obeyed. But what we now know is, nobody but the Pharisees themselves kept their halakhah in the first century. The "common Jew" - the amme ha'aretz - ignored them, and only followed the ancestral traditions reaching back into the time of the first temple. This was something the Pharisees themselves complained about. We can tell from these complaints that the Pharisees were ignored on matters which the Pharisees themselves thought were critical: the "common Jew" did not tithe properly, and they did not keep ritual purity. If there was an "oral" LAW in the first century, why are the Pharisees complaining nobody kept to it? The answer is simple: there was no binding "Jewish law" in the first century, other than the ancestral traditions reaching back to the time of the first temple. This was not "oral" in nature. It is written in the Torah.
The Sadducees - these are the guys who actually ran the temple. And from what we can tell, most often NOT in accord with the halakhah of the Pharisees. In the 20% of traditions I said above was reliable for revealing things that happened in the first century, the debates between the Sadducees and Pharisees on matters of temple conduct, the Sadducees always disagreed with them. And as the Sadducees were the guys who actually ran the temple, what the Pharisees thought was right amounted to little, if anything at all.
Fact of the matter is, the Pharisees, although wanting to run things in the first century, never ran anything at all. The Great Sanhedrin where supposedly the Pharisees ran everything, is, as Sanders, Goodman, and McLaren have proved, another Rabbinic invention: pure fiction.
Now, Dr David, don't lead off with the 'of course not'. And keep in mind, as you list the opinions, they're guessing. They, you, and I don't know.
Which is equally true of Qumran. Don't know when, who, why or how. Lots of probablies. Ergo, you can purchase a sizable Logos library just opining about Qumran. One of the best factoids is the absence of a single scrap of papyri or scroll from the Sadducees who (apparently) led the jewish enterprise.. But that has never stopped full discussion.
My point remains ... some data ... keep an open mind. Opinions are opinions.
I went to head and order the extra large Jewish bundle along with some messianic Jewish resources. I’m going to have to start learning a little bit of Hebrew first before I order the Dead Sea Scrolls study edition and the biblical one that Denise mention 👍😁👌 So here is my question which of these two resources do you recommend to start learning Hebrew? 1. The first Hebrew primer or 2. Basics of biblical Hebrew I own them both along with some of Futato’s resources. I figure I might as well learn a little bit of the language so the resources won’t be sitting there without being used. Plus, I’m sure they will eventually go on sale and I’ll be able to get them at a better price. DAL
The seminary I attended used Basics of Biblical Hebrew. If you go that route, I would strongly recommend using the companion workbook. In addition, there are companion lectures by one of the authors available in Zondervan Biblical Languages Video Lectures (2 vols.). That package also includes Mounce's companion lectures for Basics of Biblical Greek (which the seminary also used). If you can afford it, I would recommend getting the lectures and working through them as you go through the book. The combination of the grammar, lectures and workbook get you pretty close to the classroom experience (other than the opportunity to ask questions, and of course the discipline imposed by quizzes and tests).
Thank you, eastTN!
Yes, I have the workbooks for both Hebrew and Greek.
I can afford the videos, but aren’t they available for free online?
I’d like to learn Hebrew since I’ve never taken Hebrew and I would also like to refresh my Greek at a later time so I can focus on Hebrew only. Hopefully I can stay motivated. This is my early New Year‘s resolution; along with learning to play my guitars (Acoustic and Electric ⚡️ 🎸). 🤟😁🤘
Probably? If so, I'm going to be annoyed with myself for buying them.
The first Hebrew primer
I have this. It's good for getting the student going quickly with lots of positive reinforcement through tangible progress over a relatively short time.
It's not very technical (i.e. full of jargon) so it's easier to comprehend.
Having it in Logos makes using it a lot more easier as its relatively easy to set up the Glossaries as separate tabs for extra quick accessibility.
I'm not sure that it's available anymore for purchase but as you already have it, that doesn't matter, but it will for those who might read this post and think that they might purchase it through Logos.
Is https://www.logos.com/product/163192/the-first-hebrew-primer the book you are discussing?
If so it is still available for purchase in Logos
I'm not sure that it's available anymore for purchase but as you already have it, that doesn't matter, but it will for those who might read this post and think that they might purchase it through Logos. Is https://www.logos.com/product/163192/the-first-hebrew-primer the book you are discussing? If so it is still available for purchase in Logos
Uh? It used to be more expensive. I guess it doesn’t include the audio and answer key anymore. I paid around $80 bucks if I’m not mistaken.
I can afford the videos, but aren’t they available for free online? Probably? If so, I'm going to be annoyed with myself for buying them.
Don’t be annoyed, I just bought them too! I checked the website and it’s $99 bucks for a year’s access only for the Greek course! So I bought the two for $159 and I get permanent access to replay any time I want; how awesome is that?!!! I’m still not sure which pronunciation he uses for Hebrew and which one Mounce uses for Greek, but what matters is that I’ll be learning Hebrew and refreshing my Greek within the next few months
👍😁👌
I can afford the videos, but aren’t they available for free online? Probably? If so, I'm going to be annoyed with myself for buying them. Don’t be annoyed, I just bought them too! I checked the website and it’s $99 bucks for a year’s access only for the Greek course! So I bought the two for $159 and I get permanent access to replay any time I want; how awesome is that?!!! I’m still not sure which pronunciation he uses for Hebrew and which one Mounce uses for Greek, but what matters is that I’ll be learning Hebrew and refreshing my Greek within the next few months 👍😁👌 DAL
Thanks for setting my mind at ease on that one!
I'm not sure that it's available anymore for purchase but as you already have it, that doesn't matter, but it will for those who might read this post and think that they might purchase it through Logos. Is https://www.logos.com/product/163192/the-first-hebrew-primer the book you are discussing? If so it is still available for purchase in Logos Uh? It used to be more expensive. I guess it doesn’t include the audio and answer key anymore. I paid around $80 bucks if I’m not mistaken. DAL
I'm interested but have serious doubts about how helpful it would be if it doesn't include any audio or the answer key. [:(]
I'm interested but have serious doubts about how helpful it would be if it doesn't include any audio or the answer key.
The key is available: https://www.logos.com/product/163191/the-first-hebrew-primer-answer-book. There's no audio, though.
I’m glad I got the Primer when it included the audio 👍😁👌
