What do you think?
Rate this book
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament
Excerpt from A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament
The Translator has added nothing of his own except an occasional remark or reference, always with his signature. Nothing more seemed to be necessary since the work is purely philological, and rarely pre sents an allusion to theological views.
The Translator has added nothing of his own except an occasional remark or reference, always with his signature. Nothing more seemed to be necessary since the work is purely philological, and rarely pre sents an allusion to theological views.
- GenresReference
1174 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1952
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 22, 2018
What I like about this lexicon is the comparative information from other Semitic languages. In general it is useful and straightforward.
The groupings of definitions into senses is very well done in my opinion, as far as my knowledge of biblical Hebrew goes. I frequently find that it covers all extant senses of each word quite thoroughly.
It is always really strange, though, to realize that the creator firmly believed that Indo-European and Semitic languages were related. In the linguistics world that is an obvious mistake and one that causes semantic aberrations in many of the definitions. For instance, under the demonstrative pronoun זה (Strongs 2090), the Sanskrit, Latin and Greek pronouns are given for comparison, when there is no etymological relation between these words and the Hebrew words.
In comparison to other Semitic lexica, I like that, unlike Arabic lexica (Hans Wehr, etc.), this lexicon lists words by lexeme and not by root. The grouping of words by root is semantically misleading to the uninitiated (i.e. it leads to etymological fallacy) and makes finding words a challenging exercise for scholars doing comparative work without language-specific training (because they cannot always quickly identify citation forms).
The groupings of definitions into senses is very well done in my opinion, as far as my knowledge of biblical Hebrew goes. I frequently find that it covers all extant senses of each word quite thoroughly.
It is always really strange, though, to realize that the creator firmly believed that Indo-European and Semitic languages were related. In the linguistics world that is an obvious mistake and one that causes semantic aberrations in many of the definitions. For instance, under the demonstrative pronoun זה (Strongs 2090), the Sanskrit, Latin and Greek pronouns are given for comparison, when there is no etymological relation between these words and the Hebrew words.
In comparison to other Semitic lexica, I like that, unlike Arabic lexica (Hans Wehr, etc.), this lexicon lists words by lexeme and not by root. The grouping of words by root is semantically misleading to the uninitiated (i.e. it leads to etymological fallacy) and makes finding words a challenging exercise for scholars doing comparative work without language-specific training (because they cannot always quickly identify citation forms).
Displaying 1 of 1 review