060
Did you ever find yourself wondering (perhaps during a late-night movie rerun on TV) where Ben Hur is mentioned in the Bible, or where King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria appears? Maybe you want to know how closely Martin Luther’s famous assertion that humans are acceptable in God’s sight “by faith alone” echoes the words of scripture? Or whether the word(s) for “man” in the Bible have the same twofold usage that they have in English: mankind (human being) and male? Or whether a given Hebrew or Greek word is rendered in the same way throughout an English Bible translation?
For the answer to these and other exciting questions, the item of choice is a concordance. In its simplest form, this research tool lists almost every word in the Bible in alphabetic order. Then, under each word, all its occurrences are listed by chapter and verse, in the order of Biblical books. Usually, the entire context of each occurrence is quoted. The following is an illustration of the basic sequential format, based upon Nelson’s Complete Concordance to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1957; rev. ed., 1972):
TIGHT
web and make it tight with the pin
Judges 16:13
and she made them tight with the pin
Judges 16:14TIGLATH-PILESER
king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria
2 Kings 15:29
messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria
2 Kings 16:7
Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria
2 Kings 16:10TIGRIS
the great river, that is, the Tigris
Daniel 10:4
061
Very quickly you can determine whether a given word occurs in the Bible, how many times and where, and the contexts in which it is used. Thus you would find that Ben Hur is not a Biblical personage but that Tiglath-pileser is mentioned three times, and you would find out where. To be sure, you could have solved the problem of the occurrence of individual words with a Bible dictionary, but not the problem of the occurrence of a phrase. (At least not without going from the dictionary citation back to the Bible.) A concordance will enable you to determine if any two, or more, words occur together in the same phrase (such as “faith alone”), whereas a dictionary will not.
While concordances to the English Bible appeared at least as early as Marbeck’s concordance in 1550, the one destined to become most popular was written by Alexander Cruden in 1737 and titled A Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Because of its useful size (smaller than many previous ones), its aids, and perhaps the piety of the editor as evident in the preface, it has gone through dozens of editions to the present day.
It is important to realize that each concordance is based upon a particular version of the Bible. For example, in addition to the Nelson concordance based on the Revised Standard Version, the widely used concordances by Strong and by Young, which will be discussed below, are based upon the King James Version. Failure to realize this can lead to considerable frustration. Suppose, in search of a Biblical source for Luther’s famous statement, you decide to see if the combination “faith” and “alone” occurs in the Bible. Using Nelson’s Complete Concordance to the Revised Standard Version, under either word, you will eventually find one text with both, namely James 2:24. The entry reads “not by faith alone.” (The entire Bible verse reads, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” [italics added]. This raises questions for Luther, but that is not our problem here!) However, had you chosen to look under “faith” or “alone” in a concordance to the King James Version (KJV), such as Young’s or Strong’s, your chances of success would have been only 50–50. Had you looked under “alone,” you would not have succeeded because the KJV reading is “faith only.”
A complete concordance will be far longer than the Bible itself. A “concise” concordance (which may be small enough to be printed in the same volume with the Biblical text) is of much less value. Space considerations may force such an abbreviated concordance to list only major persons, places, and selected topics, or to cite only a few of the relevant locations, or not to quote the entry words in context. Usually, it will suffer from all these kinds of limitations.
But even the largest concordance, published separately from a Bible, will not list every word alphabetically and give each instance in context. Words such as “a,” “the” and “to” are not usually significant and will be omitted. Thus Nelson’s lists approximately 130 words in the category of omitted words, noting that “they account for approximately 58 percent of the text of the Bible. To have included them would have increased the size of this work to two and a half times its present size.” Once we note that its present size is 2,157 pages, we may understand the utility of this editorial decision! Occasionally, a concordance will bill itself as “exhaustive,” but this is true only in a modified sense. Strong’s exempts 47 words from full coverage. However, these words are treated in an appendix that gives chapter and verse for each occurrence but does not quote them in context. A new edition of Strong’s, published by Nelson in October 1984, features a new page format designed to make the entries more legible.
If you want to know whether a certain phrase occurs, or where a given, well-known phrase is found, you may look up any one of the phrase’s words (provided it is not one of the aforementioned exemptions, such as “the”). Choosing the least common word will be more efficient, provided that one can guess what that word might be. For example, suppose we want to know the location of the statement, “God loves a cheerful giver.” If you begin by looking under “God,” you will be discouraged at finding hundreds of entries. Determination would pay off, however, when 2 Corinthians 9:7 finally comes into view in the long list of citations. A better place to begin the search would be at “loves,” since the number of entries is reduced to about 65 (in Nelson’s). If “cheerful” is chosen, the number of entries is reduced to a mere seven. Happy is the searcher who turns first to the entry “giver,” for there is but a single instance of this word in the Bible—at least in the RSV—at 2 Corinthians 9:7. However, had we used Nelson’s Complete New American Bible Concordance (Nashville: Nelson, 1977) we would have found two entries, because that version of the Bible includes the Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books, among which the word “giver” is found in the Wisdom of Ben Sirach.
Simple location problems (be it Tiglath-pileser or “faith alone”) can be solved with the aid of a non-analytical concordance. Such concordances are available for all major English versions of the Bible. Selected non-analytical concordances are listed in the charts accompanying this article. However, solutions to the two remaining problems cited in the initial paragraph of this article—the use of the word “man” and whether a given Greek or Hebrew word is always rendered by the same English word—demand additional data that only an “analytical” concordance supplies. Such a tool analyzes the English vocabulary of the Bible in terms of the Greek and Hebrew originals. Two are in common usage, and both are based upon the King James Version: Strong’s and Young’s.
Young’s, although not entitled “exhaustive” as is Strong’s, nonetheless contains the following statement in the prefatory note to the first edition “Every word in the English Bible is cast into proper alphabetical order.” This is not quite accurate, since definite and indefinite articles are not treated. The various instances of “the Lord” are not quoted in context, since, “It occurs no less than 5,000 times, and, if printed in full, would alone have occupied above fifteen pages of this concordance. The passages where it occurs are listed, however.”
When concordances are reprinted, they are not merely “corrected” but often supplemented with other aids to increase their usefulness and to make them more saleable. Thus Strong’s, in its Abingdon Press edition, has an “Exclusive Key-Word Comparison” that covers 227 pages. At editorially selected points, it allows the reader to compare the KJV wording with that of five other (later and popular) translations: Revised Standard Version (RSV), New English Bible (NEB), Jerusalem Bible (JB), New American Standard Bible (NAS) and New International Version (NIV). This is convenient even for readers who may own copies of those translations. The value of the key-word comparison depends, in part, upon how well chosen the specific texts are. A quick survey has led me to the conclusion that many are well-chosen, some are trivial, and some crucial texts are not included. For example, Isaiah 7:14 (“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”) is certainly a well-chosen text, since it is so passionately debated within the church. It is important to realize that in this verse, in addition to “virgin” (NAS, NIV), some translations have “young woman” (RSV, NEB) or “maiden” (JB). Trivial, however, is the recording of variations in Genesis 1:2 (“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was 062upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”), where we are told that “deep” occurs in RSV, JB, NAS and NIV, but “abyss” in NEB. Few texts are more crucial to Israel’s self-understanding than Genesis 12:3, describing one of God’s promises to Abraham (frequently translated “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”)—and it is not compared at all. In fact, some translations have “will bless themselves” (RSV) while others have “pray to be blessed” (NEB) or “shall find blessing” (New American Bible [NAB]).
The new Nelson edition of Strong’s (published in October 1984) has changed the traditional format such that it is now much less tiring on the eyes and is easier to use. More space has been inserted per page in order to “open it up,” a new typeface has been used, boldface subject headings have been enlarged, and those proper nouns that refer to more than one person (or place, or thing) have been distinguished and defined. Thus, the name Iddo, which refers to seven separate individuals, now has seven sub-headings whereas the older format ran them together with no distinctions.
Rather than a “key-word comparison” (as in the Abingdon edition), the Nelson edition has a “key-verse comparison” chart. This reduces the number of entries by approximately one-half, but it has the advantage of presenting the entirety of “the most popular and theologically significant verses” rather than words in isolation from their context. It is a commendable idea, and helpful at points, but unfortunately flawed in two ways:
Whereas the earlier Strong’s (Abingdon edition) struck a balance between relatively literal versions (KJV, RSV, NAS) and idiomatic versions (NEB, JB, NIV) in its comparisons, the new edition concentrates much more on the literal (word-for-word) type (KJV, NKJV, NAS, RSV). Idiomatic (idea-for-idea) types include only NIV and Today’s English Version (TEV). While this choice may have reflected the most “popular” versions, it reduces the value of the volume for legions of users of NEB and JB, and even NAB and the New Jewish Publication Society version (NJPS) sell very well. More serious is the fact that it wastes an enormous amount of space, since KJV, NKJV, NAS and RSV are all within a single translation-family: they are versions of a single translation, rather than new translations. At most places 063they are so nearly identical, and sometimes exactly so, that there is nothing to be compared. Especially unjustified is the inclusion of both KJV and NKJV. What purpose is served by listing “popular” and “theologically significant” verses, when one version will serve as well as another? Three of the six columns could usually have been deleted and 50 percent of the space saved.
Another flaw in the “key-verse comparison” chart concerns the comparisons that continue to be made where there is little doubt as to meaning and where there is little at stake theologically. The section does not live up to its billing as a list of “theologically significant” verses. For example, from Genesis 1–8, 13 verses were chosen for comparison. No more than 7 of them have any significant difference in wording (1:1, 1:26, 1:27, 2:8, 2:14, 2:15, and 6:3). Some of them have no discernible theological significance, as far as I can see (2:1, 6:3). In most cases, it is TEV alone that introduces a variation worthy of pondering. Thus, we have a waste of space, in terms of verses selected, that approaches 50 percent, and when coupled with irrelevant, repetitive columns for versions, the total waste approaches 75 percent. The reverse problem is also in evidence vexing little problems and even major issues are passed over with no comparison. Here is an example from Genesis 2:4, in KJV: “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Wait a minute! Didn’t Genesis 1 just say that it took six days? Contrast Genesis 2:4 in TEV, “When the Lord God made the universe.”
Despite the fact that a splendid opportunity to do something significant in the “comparison” section has been lost, most people will want to buy a concordance for the helpfulness of the concordance section proper, and all in all, Nelson’s is a welcome improvement.
Young’s, in its Eerdmans edition, has a supplement entitled “The Canon of Scripture.” This article discusses origins and development of both testaments, the Apocrypha, the Council of Jamnia, and so on. While it is useful as a summary, it is spoiled, at one point, by an outrageously false statement: “For liberal scholars the formation of the scriptural corpus was nothing more than a type of human activity in which certain books were regarded as canonical because they had demonstrated their pragmatic value in religious usage” (p. 11). In my opinion, misrepresentations and partisan polemics are out of place in such an article.
The 1982 (Thomas Nelson Publishers) edition of Young’s has the following new 064features: an extensive “how to use” section of 14 pages, illustrations of Biblical idioms, and a topical index entitled “Universal Subject Guide” containing 219 pages.
The formats of Young’s and Strong’s differ substantially. Suppose that we want to solve the problem about the word “man” posed in the first paragraph of this article. When this word occurs in the English Bible, does it always indicate a male, as it does in 2 Samuel 12:7, where Nathan announces to David, “You are the man”? Or does it sometimes indicate both male and female? For example, in Psalms 32:2 and 65:4, does God bless both males and females, or only males (“Blessed is the man … ”)?
In Strong’s, an answer may be derived in the following fashion: (1) Remember that the base text is KJV, so consult KJV in order to be sure that the word “man” is used in the passages being examined. (2) Consult the “main concordance” under the heading “man,” where all the occurrences are arranged in Biblical book order. Most occurrences are followed by numbers that correspond to numbered entries in the “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary” at the back of the volume. For 2 Samuel 12:7, that number is 376; for Psalm 32:2 it is 120; but for Psalm 65:4 there is no such number. This means that, for each of these three texts, a different Hebrew word has been rendered as “man” in KJV! (3) If you now desire to know what those Hebrew words are, you turn to the dictionary section where in each case you are given a word in Hebrew script, in transliteration, and with a suggested English pronunciation. At number 376 you will find ’iysh (pronounced “eesh”); at number 120 you will find ’âdâm. Psalm 65:4 gives no number reference to the dictionary section; you must consult the preface to learn that this indicates an instance where the English word has no antecedent in the Hebrew (or Greek) text but has been added by the translators for the sake of clarity. So you can now understand that the Hebrew text here reads only, “Blessed (is the one whom) you choose,” and the KJV (and most other translators) have supplemented the parenthetical expression with the masculine gender, “Blessed is the man whom thou choosest.”
To understand the derivation of the English word “man” using Young’s, the following procedure is recommended: (1) Remember that this volume is based upon the KJV text. (2) Consult the “analytical concordance” section under the entry “man.” There will be several numbered headings corresponding to the entries in the accompanying Hebrew/Greek dictionary of the various words that have been translated as “man” (see illustration, below). Among the Hebrew headings are: 1. A man, human being: adam; 2. A man, husband, individual: ish [you may guess that this is the same as Strong’s ’iysh]; 3. A man, a mortal: enosh; 10. A (mighty) man: geber. (3) Look under each of these headings where the texts in which this word occurs are listed in Biblical order. Find the headings that include these texts: 2 Samuel 12:7, Psalm 32:2 and Psalm 65:4. The result will be that 2 Samuel 12:7 is under ish, and Psalm 32:2 is under adam. Psalm 65:4 is not listed anywhere, and you must conclude, although you are not told it, that in the Hebrew original of Psalm 65:4 there is no equivalent for the word “man.” Even without a concordance, proper use of the KJV itself would have revealed this information. The KJV reads: “Blessed is the man whom thou choosest” (the italics in the KJV indicate that the italicized words are an addition by the translator). The RSV is less helpful, since it reads: “Blessed is he whom thou dost choose,” inserting the pronoun “he” instead of the noun “man” with no italics to indicate the word that has been added. Today’s English Version Bible translates the sentence “Happy are those whom you choose,” and it is therefore a more accurate translation of the Hebrew text. (A later edition of the RSV will remove such translator-inserted masculine pronouns.)
The end result is the same whether you use Strong’s concordance or Young’s. The former enables you to find the texts more quickly, since there is but one list of all the occurrences of “man,” in Biblical order. In Young’s you will have to glance through 14 shorter lists, each in Biblical order, since 14 different Hebrew words are rendered as “man” at one place or another. If you want to know how many different words are rendered “man,” Young’s gives you the answer immediately. In Strong’s you must go through the entire large list, jotting down each different reference number in order to learn all the Hebrew words translated as 065“man.” After pages of such scanning, you should find 14. To learn these Hebrew words (in transliteration), you must then look up the reference numbers individually in the dictionary section.
One last sample problem now remains from the initial paragraph of this article. How many different ways has a single Biblical word (Hebrew or Greek) been rendered into English in a given version? (This is just the reverse of the previous problem.) Specifically, suppose you want to know how the Hebrew words ish (’iysh) and adam differ from each other. The former seems to denote a male (say, at 2 Samuel 12:7), but what about the latter at Psalm 32:2? You now need to know the word’s range of meaning, know the various ways that it has been translated, and perhaps even to list all the passages in which it occurs and study them in context.
In Strong’s, the following information can be derived: (1) You already know, from your previous inquiry, that adam is number 120 in the dictionary section. (2) You are told in the dictionary section that adam is derived from a verb (entry number 119) that means “to be red (ruddy).” The reference states that adam is translated into English as “a human being” and is also rendered in the KJV as: “another,” “hypocrite,” “common sort” and “low” (mean). The most common translation (in addition to “man” in the generic sense) is “person.” That is, it is not a word that refers basically to gender (“male”). Strong’s also tells you, helpfully, that this is the same word that is sometimes rendered as a personal or place name (number 121, Adam). (3) To learn where each of these different translations of adam appears in the Bible, you can read their alphabetical entries in the main concordance section. For example, you will find, under “person,” that this can be the translation of several different Hebrew or Greek words … but you will want to copy only those entries where you find the number 120 (person=adam). Now you can search for the meaning of “person”=adam by studying the word in its context in the Bible.
In Young’s, you can learn the following: (1) The “Index-Lexicon” section is arranged alphabetically, so you can turn directly to the entry ADAM. You will find two such entries, one the verb [Strong’s number 119] and the other the noun [Strong’s number 120]. You are interested only in the latter at the moment, although the two are related. (2) You are now given the various ways that the noun adam is rendered into English in KJV, followed by the number of occurrences of each: “another,” 1; “low,” 1; “man,” frequently; “man of low degree,” 1; “mean man,” 3; “person,” 8; and “hypocrite” (when used with another word) 1. (An essential footnote, not found in Strong’s, tells you to see the entries ben and rob, which are sometimes combined with adam.) (3) You can now look up each of these translation words alphabetically in the analytical concordance section. For example, you will find, under “person,” that nine different Hebrew words are so translated. You will be interested only in the first such category, namely, where “person”=adam. You are also told that the basic meaning is “man” in the sense of “human being.” You can then copy down the chapter and verse locations listed under this heading.
The end result is the same: Hebrew adam is not a gender-indicating term. Thus Psalm 32:2 could, and perhaps should be translated, “Blessed is the person (or one) … , ” contrary to KJV’s “Blessed is the man … ” One might also wonder if the adam (often treated as a proper name, Adam) in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2–3) was meant to be understood as fully male.
Of what value are these two “analytical” concordances to readers who may not use the KJV? Creation of such tools is so time-consuming and so expensive that they are not produced for every version that comes along! One does exist, however, for the RSV. Young’s or Strong’s may be used indirectly if one wants to study a given word in any other version. First, one checks a KJV text to see what the equivalent word is. For example, suppose the term “(living) creature” (NEB, Genesis 2:7) is to be investigated. In KJV, the equivalent term is “(living) soul.” Then, with the aid of either Strong’s or Young’s, you can determine that the Hebrew word behind KJV’s “soul” is nephesh, and that elsewhere in the KJV (nine times, among them Genesis 1:21, 24) nephesh is translated as “creature.”
066
You could observe, therefore, that NEB is more consistent in rendering the term nephesh into English, and you might question whether at Genesis 2:7 the idea of a “soul” may have been read into the text by the KJV translators.
In sum, an “analytical” concordance is a good investment for those who are serious students of the English Bible.
Quite a different format is evident in a Modern Concordance to the New Testament, which is based on The Jerusalem Bible. The overall principle of arrangement of entries is thematic rather than alphabetic. For example, suppose I want to study the word “donkey.” Will JB always use that word, or will it have variations such as “ass”? What about related terms, such as “foal”? I begin by looking up “donkey” in the English word index, which will refer me to the covering thematic heading ANIMALS, section 2.6. At that point, heading 2.6 will be “DONKEY, ASS,” which will then be divided into “donkey,” “ass,” “colt,” and “foal,” with the Greek original (in transliteration) for each such subhead. Then, under each, the passages will be quoted from JB.
The Concordance to the Good News Bible (Nelson, 1983) contains a separate thematic index following the main concordance. In the Guideposts Family Topical Concordance the topic listings are included in the main concordance.
Catholics, whose Bible will include the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha), as well as others, may wish to consult A Concordance to the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books of the Revised Standard Version. If an analytical edition is desired, there is Lester T. Whitlocke, An Analytical Concordance to the Books of the Apocrypha. The textual base is KJV, although the author does not so inform us. The Greek original behind each word is given, but there is no means whereby one can learn the various ways that a given Greek word has been rendered into English. (This is in contrast to works such as Young’s or Strong’s.)
Those who are able to read the Bible in the original languages will have little need for an English-based “analytical” concordance. Instead, they will prefer a “simple” concordance which is based upon Hebrew or Greek. A standard publication for the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is S. Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae (1896; 3rd edition, Jerusalem: Schocken, 1959). Less complete and of much less desirable format is G. Liskowsky, Konkordanz zum hebraïschen Alten Testament (2nd ed., Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1958). For the New Testament, a standard publication is W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament according to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers (1897; 5th edition, Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1978). A more comprehensive work is in process K. Aland, Vollständige Konkordanz zum grieschischen Neuen Testament (1975– ).
Readers with a smattering of Greek or Hebrew, who would like to get some idea of how words in the original languages are used in the Bible but who do not consider themselves adept at translation, may wish to turn to an “Englishman’s” Greek or Hebrew concordance. The entry words in these concordances are in Greek or Hebrew. Each entry word is transliterated and defined, then the scripture verses in which it appears (with context) are given in English.
067
A new format for Biblical language concordances, with helpful new features, is being provided by The Computer Bible (J. Arthur Baird and David Noel Freedman, eds.; Biblical Research Associates, 1971). The work is computer-generated and the format varies from volume to volume. It cannot be used for an entire testament, therefore, but only in connection with the study of an individual Biblical book.
Consider, for example, Volume XVIII (An Analytical Linguistic Key-Word-In-Context Concordance to the Book of Genesis, Yehuda T. Radday and Giora M. Leb, eds.; Haifa: Technion, 1979). Words are arranged alphabetically by their “basic form” (e.g., for nouns it is the singular absolute, then singular construct, and so on). There are no sub-headings or translations (in contrast to Mandelkern). Each individual instance is quoted in a much wider context than in other concordances: the six preceding and the six following words. This enables the word under consideration to “stand out” in a separate column in the center of the page, which is an improvement over the old format. Compact numerical coding, in the margin, provides information about each entry: part of speech, gender, number, pronominal suffixes, other proclitic and enclitic morphemes (e.g., prepositions), and number of syllables. A separate section of the concordance gives statistical data. There, for example, I can quickly learn the identification of the most common word in Genesis (’et, the sign of a verbal object) and that it occurs 883 times (p. 490), or that there are 867 words in Genesis that occur but once (p. 504).
For the Greek version (Septuagint) of the Hebrew Bible, the standard work has long been E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). It is an “analytical” concordance to the Hebrew original behind the Greek translation. A concise concordance to the Septuagint (Zondervan, 1976) is also available.
For the Latin version (Vulgate) the most recent publication is B. Fischer, Novae concordantiae bibliorum sacrorum iuxta Vulgatam versionem critice editam (5 vols.; Stuttgart: Frommann-Folzboog, 1977).
Did you ever find yourself wondering (perhaps during a late-night movie rerun on TV) where Ben Hur is mentioned in the Bible, or where King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria appears? Maybe you want to know how closely Martin Luther’s famous assertion that humans are acceptable in God’s sight “by faith alone” echoes the words of scripture? Or whether the word(s) for “man” in the Bible have the same twofold usage that they have in English: mankind (human being) and male? Or whether a given Hebrew or Greek word is rendered in the same way throughout an English Bible translation? For […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Already a library member? Log in here.
Institution user? Log in with your IP address or Username