Which Concordance?

[Gregory Matthews]

Which concordance should I use?

People here in CA often like, in discussing various topics cite one of the well known books that is known as a concordance.  In this thread, I intend to give come basic information on the available ones that are most commonly used.  As I am not going to give it all at once, I intend to lock the thread until I have finished with my basic information.  At that time, I will open it up for discussion and  comments.

It should be noted that every concordances is based upon a specific translation/version of the Bible.  In actual fact, one may be able to find such a concordance that is based upon their preferred translation/version of the Bible.

For example, one can easily find a concordance that is based on:  The NIV, the RSV, the NRSV and Catholic Bibles, among others.

However, the most common ones were written a long time ago and all were based upon the King James Bible.  It is those that I will reference in this thread and I will not get  into others that may be based upon another translation/version.

Generally one, with perhaps, a bit of effort can use a KJV concordance in study of another translation/version.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The primary, standard concordances, all based upon the KJV, which are most commonly used are the following three (3):

1)  Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Old & New Testaments, by Alexander Cruden. This one was first published in 1737.  Any edition that you might purchase today will have been edited and revised by other scholars.  Zondervan is one that publishes this book.  This concordance is probably most popular with lay Christians.  It is the one that I have used most often in my study of the Bible.  The version that I have has slightly over 800 pages.  I consider it to be of value to the Bible student.  However, those with more of an interest in the Biblical languages generally go to one of the two others that I will list.

2) Young's Analytical Concordanace to the Bible, by Robert Young.  Like Cruden, this book was first published many years ago.  It differs a bit from the work of Strong in that it places a greater emphasis on the original Hebrew or Greek,    Further, Dr. Young believed that Strong has a bias, in his concordance, to reflect his own specific view of religious truth.  Dr. Young attempted not to  do this and to more accurately reflect the word as used by the Biblical writer.    This is the concordance that I prefer for in-depth study the includes the Biblical languages. The edition that I have consists of almost 1,000 very large pages and additional material of a couple of hundred pages.

3) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, by James Strong.  Like Young and Cruden, this concordance was first published many years ago.  The strength of this book lies in the attempt of Dr. Strong to list every word in the Bible.  So, it lists more than Young.  The  main body of the one that I have, consists of some 1,340 very large pages and additional material of about 300 pages.

All three of these books, in their current edition have been edited and revised by other scholars in attempts to make them more current.

Here you have in brief statements of the three that are most commonly used with their strengths.   Strong's strength lies in the attempt to include every Biblical word.   Young's strength lies in its background in the original Biblical languages.  Cruden is best for taking with you when you are away from your desk and is good for most every Christian.

All three are useful and of value.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There is one area in which I have a concern as to how people use a concordance.

A concordance is best used to tell us how a Biblical word has been translated, in the case of the three above, into the English language.

A concordance is never properly used as a dictionary, or as we might say a lexicon.

A concordance does not give meanings of a biblical word, beyond ones into which that word has been translated.  Yes, one might find some attempt to do so, but this attempt is not to describe the full meaning of  the Biblical word and as in the case of Strong, will likely reflect some bias.

Anyone who wants to study the actual meanings of the Biblical words, beyond how they may have been translated will need to go to a lexicon.  A lexicon will have a greater range of meanings and greater accuracy than any concordance.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg,

On 02/05/2017 at 8:42 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

2) Young's Analytical Concordanace to the Bible, by Robert Young.  Like Cruden, this book was first published many years ago.  It differs a bit from the work of Strong in that it places a greater emphasis on the original Hebrew or Greek,    Further, Dr. Young believed that Strong has a bias, in his concordance, to reflect his own specific view of religious truth.  Dr. Young attempted not to  do this and to more accurately reflect the word as used by the Biblical writer.    This is the concordance that I prefer for in-depth study the includes the Biblical languages. The edition that I have consists of almost 1,000 very large pages and additional material of a couple of hundred pages.

 Young's strength lies in its background in the original Biblical languages.

I appreciate the information on Young's Concordance. I like useful reference books and until now have only used Strongs, and mainly an electronic version. Your summary highlights the value of Youngs and I will look for it at our local bookshop. In the meantime I was able to download a scanned copy in pdf format.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gregory Matthews]

Thank you.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 5/1/2017 at 4:16 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Anyone who wants to study the actual meanings of the Biblical words, beyond how they may have been translated will need to go to a lexicon.  A lexicon will have a greater range of meanings and greater accuracy than any concordance.

I may be totally wrong, but my understanding of the difference between a lexicon and a dictionary is that a lexicon tells how words are used in a single work -- ie. an English translation of the Bible, while a dictionary is more likely to tell you the meanings that native speakers of Greek and Hebrew would use.   A concordance tells us where to find the words within a single work.

Although I often use the Strongs numbers to help me find where the Greek and Hebrew root words were used in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, I prefer to get the actual meanings from the way the Greek and Hebrew words were used in context within the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, and other literature written in the original language.  Because I don't know Greek or Hebrew well enough, I use the computer to do the searches and also to find various English translations from which I can get an idea of the general context.

I agree with Young that Strongs defiintions can be very biased by his theology.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In the English language, we have historical dictionaries that tell us how a specific word was defined in a specific time period, as definations of words change over time.   I have felt that such a historical dictionary may be of value in understanding what Ellen White actually meant at the time she wrote something.

I have in my library, a well known (Arndt & Gingrich) Greek lexicon of New Testament Greek.  As such, it attempts to define how that Greek word may be defined in the Greek MSS that comprise the New Testament text.  But, it does not stop at that point,  It continues on to give specific examples of how that Greek word is used in Greek literature during a stated time period.  Those examples are typically actual Greek quotes for the cited literature.

[Gregory Matthews]

In the above post, I am giving my understanding of the differences between a lexicon and a dictionary.    In actual fact, the Internet contains a number of description of the differences which may not coincide with what I have stated above and with each other. 

The following may be of some help:

Dictionary is now the usual term for a book which gives not only the words that belong to a language (or in an abridged dictionary, the most important and most common words of a language) but also their meanings, their accepted spelling or spellings, their pronunciation, etymology, and the like; as Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language. It is also the general term applied to a book that embodies an alphabetical list of names with explanatory information or that presents an alphabetical list of terms with their synonyms; as ... a dictionary of synonyms, also, though rarely, called a synonymicon. ... Lexicon, though often used interchangeably with dictionary, especially as a name for the type (as, "In the lexicon of youth ... there is no such word As—fail!"—Lytton), is especially applied to a dictionary of an ancient language such as Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, or the like, originally with definitions in Latin but now usually in the vernacular. Consequently, lexicon is often, but not invariably, the preferred designation of a dictionary that interprets words of one language in terms of another,; as, a Latin-English lexicon; an English-French lexicon.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I appreciate the post that Ron Amnsn has made and I have decided to respond in greater depth. To illustrate, let us look at the Greek work that is transliterated as "doulos."

Strong's Concordance tells us that the basic meaning of that word is that of a slave, bondman or servant.  It adds additional forms of the word which may be translated as female servant, handmaiden, to be in bondage, to be enslaved, to enslave, to make a servant. 

Young's concordance tells us that the above Greek work has been translated into English as "bond" six (6) times, as "bondman" one (1) time and as servant, 120 times.  It adds additional forms of the ward which are translated as to bring into bondage, to make a servant,  to become a servant, to be under bondage, to be given in bondage.

Arndt & Gingrich:  My copy is the  4th Edition.  There are probably newer editions that are now in print. It has 22 column inches of material on the meaning of the Greek word transliterated as "doulos" and its various forms.   It gives various meanings to include:

1)  To be a slave, or subjected to.

2) To perform the duties of a slave, serve, obey.

3) Female slave, handmaiden.

4) To serve God.

5) Loving service.

6) Slave to sin.

7) Slavish, Servile, subject to.

8) Contrast to the master, contrast to a free man, in contrast to the son, in contrast to a Christian brother.

9) The  relationship of an apostle to a Christian.

10) The relationship of humanity to God/Christ.

Yes, my copy of Arndt & Gingrich cite from the Bible, to include the LXX.  But it also  cites from ancient writings.  The  listings of the ancient writers that are cited extend to slightly over three (3) pages.  These writers include:  Aesop, Apollon, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Epicurus, Euripides, Hippocerates, Lucian, Philo, Plato, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Plutarch,  Xenophanes and  Zeno along with many others.

It also contains citations from the Apocrypha, Inscriptions, Papyri and modern authors and literature.

I trust that this will illustrate in a brief manner some of the differences between a lexicon and a concordance, as it is applied to Biblical writings.  Ron, I thank you for stimulating me to write further on this subject.

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is a brief example of a small few of what Arndt & Gingrich says on "doulos."

*  Slave is largely confined to Biblical translations and early American times.

*  Servant in normal usage at the present time the two words (slave & servant) are carefully distinguished.

*  In contrast to a free man, see Josephus writing in Ant. 16, 126. 

* Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs.

* A slave to righteousness, 4th Maccabees 3:2.

 

 

[Gerr]

I have found that my computer provides the best concordance.  It can do it for any translation, and I have over a dozen in my Logos software.

[Gregory Matthews]

For people who can afford the full versions of Logos software, which is NOT me, it provides excellent material that people can use to study, the Bible, doctrinal issue Christian  history and more.

By the way, Logos has a SDA version, as  it has a number of specialized versions.

Unfortunately, many people realistically can not afford their better versions of their software.