Display BDB instead of KM when selecting a word in BHS

[jm_forum]

Hello,

 

I was wondering if there is a way on the iPad to have the BDB entry for a word displayed instead of the KM Hebrew dictionary when selecting a word in the BHS text (see attached screenshot)

 

Thank you for your advice!

 

Thank you,

 

Julius

 

[Mark Allison]

Sure! Put BDB at the top of your Hebrew Tools in your library.

[ukfraser]

Julius, i will defer to mark and if it works for you, great!

But I don’t find it works for me just setting a resource at the top (see my library set up and I have nidotte at the top and there is an entry but it’s not picked up). My work around is I usually end up hitting amplify at the bottom, selecting word, then highlighting the original language word and then hitting amplify in the black bar menu and then I see the definition in the lexicon at the top of my list.

 

I get the same results with nrsv (strongs) and niv ( k/m enhanced) and km/mounce and mounce expository seem to be better integrated. I go the same route in nt where I still get mounce first and have to use the amplify to get to my nidntte.

Edited February 22, 2018 by ukfraser

[Helen Brown]

Yes, ukfraser, the translations with key numbers are hard-coded to go to the related key dictionaries. The top lexicon on the list will work when amplifying from the original word itself, whether in the text or in the dictionary.

[ukfraser]

Thank you Helen.

I know we always want more but ios is very feature rich and that makes a lot of sense!!!!!!

;o)

 

I missed the screenshot was hebrew

 

;o(

Edited February 22, 2018 by ukfraser

[jm_forum]

Thank you Mark... and everyone else!

The BDB as the first entry of the Hebrew Tools list did the job.

 

This is great!

[jlbajema]

Speaking of Hebrew dictionaries, I have had a question for some time that I thought I would ask here. I have long assumed that the dictionary definitions for words in the HMT-W4 (Hebrew Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology) is largely based on the BDB tradition. Am I wrong in assuming this? Is this dependent on which dictionary is placed at the head of the list? The BDB does happen to be placed at the top in my library, so is it safe to assume that the definitions provided when doing a long left (regular) click are derived from the BDB? 

[Helen Brown]

We have had these glosses for many years and are not sure who originally compiled them, but we have also modified them many times, and they are definitely not derived directly from BDB.

[jlbajema]

We have had these glosses for many years and are not sure who originally compiled them, but we have also modified them many times, and they are definitely not derived directly from BDB.

Is there a way to unearth the sources primarily used and how? 

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi,

 

I've actually just completed a first draft of my own user lexicon. I was already familiar with BDB, which the DCH follows closely at times. Whenever I happened to notice an Acc gloss it seemed be in the HALOT tradition, including Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, and against the BDB/DCH tradition, but to my surprise Acc glosses also often agreed with the ones in the German Bible Society's Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament: Hebräisch/Aramäisch-Deutsch und Hebräisch/Aramäisch-Englisch, which also follows the HALOT tradition quite closely. 

 

So, HALOT, Holladay, and the Wörterbuch are good places to look and confirm.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

Edit: I think this is the best tradition to be in. But I think Acc should update their glosses with the Konzise und aktualisierte Ausgabe des Hebräischen und Aramäischen Lexikons zum Alten Testament, and some entries from the DCH.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Michel Gilbert

[Michel Gilbert]

I'm not saying that whoever did the glosses used HALOT, Holladay, and the Wörterbuch mostly or exclusively. Some of the glosses in the HALOT tradition may have entered (or suggested themselves) via English Bibles. A translator who based his translation on BHS would certainly have been familiar with the HALOT tradition, including the GBS's glosses in the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible, and the WIVU (now ETCBC) glosses in the same tradition.

[Michel Gilbert]

Another thing, the roots seem to follow HALOT against BDB, e.g., זרו in Isa 1,6, in Acc from זרר -1  to press, as in HALOT, while BDB has III. זוּר press down and out. I was once very interested in this whole question. It is one reason I made my own lexicon, my own glosses for rapid reading. Then I could be sure of where they came from. I once suggested that Acc reverse how Instant Details now works - let us choose which lexicon to see with a mouse hover, and use Cmd-hover to see Accordance's glosses. Or, at least make it an option.

[Michel Gilbert]

 

Whenever I happened to notice an Acc gloss it seemed be in the HALOT tradition . . . and against the BDB tradition, but to my surprise Acc glosses also often agreed with the ones in the German Bible Society's Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament: Hebräisch/Aramäisch-Deutsch und Hebräisch/Aramäisch-Englisch, which also follows the HALOT tradition quite closely. 

 

 

Here is one of many examples: תשוקה , e.g., Gen 4,7, Acc glosses as desire, HALOT desire, longing, and Wörterbuch desire, whereas BDB has longing.

[Michel Gilbert]

There are also a lot of correlations with the Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the NAS Exhaustive Concordance, whose glosses seem to be more in line with HALOT than BDB.

There are many possibilities, but it seems likely that an exhaustive concordance with Strong's numbers was the building block, edited with HALOT numbered roots, which may have been updated along the way. But it does seem to follow HALOT in general over BDB, irrespective of the source(s).

I think I'll stop this now. It is just food for thought for jlbajema.