Hebrew & Greek Lexicons

[Freedom]

I have Strongs exhaustive concordance, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the new Testiment. I was having a discussion with another Christian and when I demonstrated one of my points with these books; however he felt they were not considered accurate or reliable. It was not a heated discussion so it was not his attempt to crush my argument and the point I was making was not a mormon versus evangelical concept. But it got me thinking, do I have a good resource?

[Freedom]

bump

[Mudcat]

You might want to send Maklelan a PM. I haven't seen him lately, but I think he could give you a very competent answer.

[Nevo]

The standard Hebrew lexicon is Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT).

The standard NT Greek lexicon is W. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG).

Maklelan gives his opinion of Strong's concordance here.

[Freedom]

Thanks. Now I'm depressed. Do these other lexicons come in a bundle with an accompanying concordance? What I like about the Baker (which combines Storng, Thayer and Gesenius) collection is that I can look up any given work in the bible and find out what it realy means. I will send Maklelan a message.

[e=mc2]

Hi Freedom. Here is what David Bokovoy told me the other day on my thread with the same questions.

In my humble opinion, no home should be without the following resources:

Waltke and Oâ??Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

Paul Jouon and S.J. T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew

Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

The Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

Geseniusâ?? Hebrew Grammar

These are five of the most exciting books ever written. Don't let the title fool you, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, is not a work for mere novices. Once a person learns to use these fundamental resources effectively, commentaries, though still somewhat helpful, become in many ways obsolete. They will never be nearly as much fun.

[maklelan]

Perhaps it would do some good to explain my position about Strong's, since I clearly come across as a jerk in Nevo's quote (although it is not inaccurate). Strong's is a concordance, which is good for one thing: finding where words appear in the Bible. There are a number of electronic tools that are more helpful with that, but my problem with Strong's is that usually people aren't quoting the concordance, but the dictionary, which really only provides the translations already made by the English translations of the Bible. It's a KJV dictionary more than a Hebrew or Greek dictionary. Telling me how a word was translated in the KJV doesn't tell me what the word means, it tells me what the KJV translators thought it meant. This kind of dictionary is for those who aren't well acquainted with Greek and Hebrew, and if that's the case, they're probably not going to be able to properly digest the kind of information provided in such a dictionary. There are very important principles at work in these languages that are skipped over entirely in dictionaries. The resources mentioned by Nevo and e=mc2 are the academic standards, but even they will not be useful without learning the actual languages. Until someone learns the languages to a respectable degree they should avoid trying to use them (the languages) as the foundation of an argument.

[cdowis]

Regarding the Greek NT,

Bauer rocks. His exposition on "one" in John 17 blew me away.

Strong is....predictable.

[The_Monk]

The problem with both of them (to build on Mak's explanation) is that they're both reductionist, providing little more than glosses (not true definitions, but potential translational equivalents) AND they're both quite outdated, being written before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, lots of Greek papyri, and a ton of other relevant sources.

[David Bokovoy]

In my estimation, the Strong's dictionary is useless.

For folks that don't know the original languages, I think the best thing to do would be to use the Strong's numbering system and then look up a definition with one of the Lexicons coded with the Strong's numbering system.

These day, for a small sum, one could purchase the Brown, Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament that have been coded with the Strong's Concordance numbers, both of which would be far preferable than the Strong's Dictionary in terms of identifying a definition.

[e=mc2]

THANK YOU all you guys for your insights. I always learn so much from all of you.

[Freedom]

Thanks everybody for the information, including maklelanâ??s private messages. Although just having Strongs concordance, Geseniusâ?? Hebrew-chaldee lexicon and Thayerâ??s Greed lexicon on my book shelf, be they ever so inadequate, makes me a scholar of great renown among the members in my local stake. Sadly I will have to somehow break it to my wife that I have to buy more books.

[e=mc2]

Thanks everybody for the information, including maklelanâ??s private messages. Although just having Strongs concordance, Geseniusâ?? Hebrew-chaldee lexicon and Thayerâ??s Greed lexicon on my book shelf, be they ever so inadequate, makes me a scholar of great renown among the members in my local stake. Sadly I will have to somehow break it to my wife that I have to buy more books.

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boy do I ever know that feeling!

[Bill Hamblin]

In my estimation, the Strong's dictionary is useless.

I DISAGREE--in the most disagreeable, obnoxious and noisome way possible.

Strong's is useful for trying to understand the way the KJV translates Greek and Hebrew terms. So, while it is not useful for understanding the original text, it can be useful for understanding the lexical world of the KJV and its relationship to Greek and Hebrew, which can be interesting when interpreting the BOM.

[David Bokovoy]

I DISAGREE--in the most disagreeable, obnoxious and noisome way possible.

Strong's is useful for trying to understand the way the KJV translates Greek and Hebrew terms. So, while it is not useful for understanding the original text, it can be useful for understanding the lexical world of the KJV and its relationship to Greek and Hebrew, which can be interesting when interpreting the BOM.

Ok Mr. Disagreeable.

I'm going to agree with you that Strongs is a valuable tool as a "concordance" of King James English that one can use to understand the way the KJV translates Greek and Hebrew terms, however, I will stand by my statement that the "dictionary" section of Strongs is useless and should not be cited to determine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic definitions.

With love and kindness,

Mr. Agreeable (who still disagrees).

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok Mr. Disagreeable.

I'm going to agree with you that Strongs is a valuable tool as a "concordance" of King James English that one can use to understand the way the KJV translates Greek and Hebrew terms, however, I will stand by my statement that the "dictionary" section of Strongs is useless and should not be cited to determine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic definitions.

With love and kindness,

Mr. Agreeable (who still disagrees).

Taking extreme umbrage at your disagreeableness, I regret to inform you that I am forced to agree with you, but only in the most disagreeable manner possible.

[maklelan]

Taking extreme umbrage at your disagreeableness, I regret to inform you that I am forced to agree with you, but only in the most disagreeable manner possible.

We wouldn't expect anything less from you.

[Calm]

We really need to have a recommendation list somewhere permanent on the board, maybe in Pundits?

[e=mc2]

We really need to have a recommendation list somewhere permanent on the board, maybe in Pundits?

What an agreeable suggestion!