HALOT vs. DCH

[Boni]

Hi,

I am considering to purchase a Hebrew dictionary for accordance, but I can't find any information that might help me to decide, which one to choose. Is there anybody, who can give me some hinds? Or is there a discussion on the forum that I haven't seen?

I mainly work on text critical stuff using several Biblical languages and prepare critical editions of Biblical books (Latin and Hebrew at the moment).

Thanks for any advise,

 

Boni

[Douglas Fyfe]

I don't think I'm being controversial to say that HALOT is the standard and would be my primary recommendation to anyone doing anything serious with Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

 

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/18403-theological-wordbook-of-the-old-testament-or-bdb-complete-upgrade-from-bdb/?hl=halot&do=findComment&comment=89404

[Mark Allison]

HALOT is the standard Hebrew Lexicon for most people working with the HMT.

In addition to being a good resource for the HMT, DCH is used by those working with extra-biblical texts, including Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and all the other known Hebrew inscriptions and manuscripts.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mark Allison

[Boni]

HALOT is the standard Hebrew Lexicon for most people working with the HMT.

In addition to being a good resource for the HMT, DCH is used by those working with extra-biblical texts, including Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and all the other known Hebrew inscriptions and manuscripts.

Thanks! Actually, I tend to HALOT. But it is also true, that Ben Sira is one of my main research fields, though I am not focused on the Hebrew version. And it would be useful for different reasons to have the extra-biblical material at hand as well, especially as I don't have access to a good library.

Well, still not sure, what to do... But this and also Douglas's remarks helped. Thanks to both of you.

[Peter Bekins]

You should also understand that the two have differing methodologies and goals.

 

HALOT is geared more towards classical philology and provides extensive info about cognate languages and etymology. HALOT will also make text-critical suggestions within an entry (e.g., if the editors accept an emendation from BHS they will provide a cross reference to the other entry).

 

DCH is interested in the semantic and syntactic contexts in which a word appears. It is so large because it gives an exhaustive listing of the other words with which the head of the entry combines (i.e., for a verb it lists the subjects, objects, and prepositional phrases). 

 

Pete

[Boni]

You should also understand that the two have differing methodologies and goals.

 

HALOT is geared more towards classical philology and provides extensive info about cognate languages and etymology. HALOT will also make text-critical suggestions within an entry (e.g., if the editors accept an emendation from BHS they will provide a cross reference to the other entry).

 

DCH is interested in the semantic and syntactic contexts in which a word appears. It is so large because it gives an exhaustive listing of the other words with which the head of the entry combines (i.e., for a verb it lists the subjects, objects, and prepositional phrases). 

 

Pete

Hmm. That means, that one probably needs both... Who can afford this? Or maybe I should stick to my old Gesenius.

[Emanuel Cardona]

Hmm. That means, that one probably needs both... Who can afford this? Or maybe I should stick to my old Gesenius.

What I did was get the standard HALOT, and CDCH (until I was able to get DCH). Later on, Accordance helped me get DCH on a payment plan.

[Nick Laurence]

I don't know if Aramaic is a consideration for you; if not then ignore this post.

The important thing to note is DCH, whilst brilliant on extra-biblical, Hebrew documents, has nothing, zilch, nada, rien on Aramaic (which is indicated in the title - Dictionary of Classical Hebrew). HALOT is not brilliant on Aramaic, but it does cover the basic biblical Aramaic vocabulary; if you step outside of Daniel/Ezra in Aramaic you'll need something else entirely.

[Boni]

I don't know if Aramaic is a consideration for you; if not then ignore this post.

 

The important thing to note is DCH, whilst brilliant on extra-biblical, Hebrew documents, has nothing, zilch, nada, rien on Aramaic (which is indicated in the title - Dictionary of Classical Hebrew). HALOT is not brilliant on Aramaic, but it does cover the basic biblical Aramaic vocabulary; if you step outside of Daniel/Ezra in Aramaic you'll need something else entirely.

That makes my life not easier. Of course, I need Aramaic. I am really glad, that you pointed out, that I have to be aware of this.

 

I hope, that I won't that complicated when I turn to the Greek dictionary. But there it seems to be obvious, that I should get LSJ, as I have got LEH already.

[Ken Simpson]

That makes my life not easier. Of course, I need Aramaic. I am really glad, that you pointed out, that I have to be aware of this.

 

I hope, that I won't that complicated when I turn to the Greek dictionary. But there it seems to be obvious, that I should get LSJ, as I have got LEH already.

 

 

Well, again, that depends on what you want to do. Really for Christian era literature BDAG is the go to. LSJ has less scholarship on the Christian era Greek docs and much broader on the classical literature which BDAG does not cover. I am a great fan of LSJ, but for NT and peri-NT greek I constantly use BDAG.

 

PLUS we do a really good deal on the BDAG/HALOT bundle. That will save you very considerably on buying them individually.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Ken Simpson