Intro
I’ve encountered people many times (although mostly online) who use Strong’s concordance to help them understand what Biblical texts mean in their original languages. Some even try to translate whole lines and passages using this book. Most seem to feel that even though this isn’t the same as knowing ancient Greek and Hebrew, it’s much better than just reading a translation. Here I will say why the opposite is true.
Problem 1: Strong’s is not a lexicon
Lexicons are typically a type of dictionary that contain entries in one language (e.g., Greek) and definitions in another (such as English). Dr. Strong, and those whom he worked with, did not make one. They never intended to. What they produced after enormous time and energy at work which must have been incredibly monotonous is an index. They went through the KJV, and cross-referenced each and every word to what was in the original languages. They created an index of all the words in the KJV and what was used to translate them as well as where.
What they did not do was try to define any of the words. That wasn’t the goal, and others were doing it already, and had been for over 200 years before Dr. Strong was born.
If you compare entries between standard lexicons of ancient Greekand Hebrew, you’ll notice that Strong’s entries are much shorter. The reason is simple: as their index was for the KJV, they just used the words in it for entries.
Problem 2: Words, Meaning, and why no translation can be made into a lexicon
Part I: Words & Meanings
One might think that if the words word good enough for a translation, then it’s because that’s what the words in the original languages meant.
It’s easy to see why this isn’t so. Imagine you’re reading a book, and you come across a word you don’t know. You might look the word up in a dictionary, where you’d find a lot of words which are very similar in meaning to the word you looked up. So similar, you are able to understand the word.
Dictionaries, however, are more like guides for words than they are definitions. Often, the words people look up are technical, like lexicography or hermeneutics, and dictionaries aren’t very good when it comes to technical words. Even worse is when standard words, like “sign”, have a technical meaning (as “sign” does in semiotics). But worst of all is that, despite the way we often think about language (a view reinforced by dictionaries, actually), the real “units” of language are not words (they're constructions, but that's beyond the present scope), because language isn't a mental dictionary + grammar:
have a seat/I have to go/I have it!/I have more money than Bill Gates/I have what it takes/I have had enough/I have had it up to here!/there’s haves and have nots/I’ll have it to go
If you look up “have” in a dictionary, the definition will give you words that could serve as replacements in some of the above examples. However, it’s unlikely that the dictionary will use “take” to define “have”, yet “take a seat” is basically the same as “have a seat”. Likewise for “I’ll have/take it to go”. And as for “I have it!”, that’s basically the same as “I’ve got it!”.
Also, what about “I have had it up to here!”? That “up to here” is idiomatic, like the “haves and have nots”.
And there are plenty of “phrases” (prefabs) and idioms such as
pull strings/once upon a time/all of a sudden/drive crazy (or drive mad/insane/up the wall/bonkers/etc.)/in other words/for example/shoot the breeze/on the other hand/what’s up?/etc.
In reality, langauge doesn't divide into words and grammar, but rather both exist on a contiuum.
Part II: Translations
Translations are almost the opposite of dictionaries. A dictionary uses the semantic (meaning) range or ranges (the conceptual space that word occupies), and finds others which are in the same range/ranges. What translations do is take a word with a semantic range/ranges and extract only some of it. You can think of it as removing words in a dictionary entry used to define a particular word. Another way is to think of it as taking the full conceptual space(s) a word occupies and shrinking it.
I noted that some examples I gave of "have" would be best replaced by a word that one wouldn’t think could do so, such as "take". Translations are trying to do that (replace “units” of language with other units), but they don’t get to use the same language. They have to deal with the full range of meanings and the context (the conceptual space) of the unit, and try to see what unit in another language with its own conceptual space overlaps the most.
Problem 3: Misleading the Consumer
Strong’s is marketed (and I’m including word of mouth and other non-corporate marketing) as a way to get closer to the original languages if you don’t know them. Those who use it typically believe that by seeing what the Hebrew or Greek word “means” in Strong’s, they’ve gotten a better understanding than they would have if they’d relied only on a translation.
I’ve already gone over the issue with thinking that Strong’s is like a real lexicon, or that it was constructed in order to give the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek words. However, that’s at best half the issue. As noted when I covered “meaning”, not only do all words have a range of meaning, many have several that are quite distinct. Nor are the different ranges equally central. The word “drive” usually is at least related to operating a vehicle, or as a noun means “ambition/focus/determination”, etc. It can also be used to signify a mental or emotional state (drive me crazy/mad/up the wall/etc.), but only in particular types of mental states and particular contexts. It’s also far less central than other uses.
All of this, from a more complete range of meanings that a typical lexicon would have to the complete lack of context which always affects semantics, is missing from Strong's. Every entry gives you a smaller range but doesn’t tell even tell you when a particular word in the entry is closer to the meaning, as that requires context.
Finally, I’ve said little about grammar, as in English for the most part it seems as if we have words, and the grammatical rules which tell you how they can be combined. This isn’t true even in English, but it is far less true in Hebrew and Greek. That’s because English tends to use words where both Hebrew and Greek use something else. In English, to indicate things like tense/time, we typically use additional words, such as will, have, had, going (“I’m going out later”, etc. In Greek, one reason a single verb can mean, "carry/yell/trim (e.g., a tree)/take/kill/ drop anchor/pray/disarm/ choose/ expel/ etc." is because Greek uses grammatical devices and context where English would tend to have more words.
Conclusion
Strong’s doesn’t help one get “closer” to the original languagges. It prevents this. A typical lexicon is still problematic (which is why we people study the languages), as no lexicon can substitute for a knowledge of the language. But the typical lexicons biblical scholars and students use have more than just words to help define. They include examples of the ways contexts and grammar (e.g,. tense, aspect, modality of verbs) affect the meanings. Strong’s has none of that.
Put simply, Strong’s tells you that “to have a seat” means “to own a seat”, that “to drive crazy” means “to operate a vehicle and go to the location crazy”, and that “put simply” means “position without difficulty”.
I’ve encountered people many times (although mostly online) who use Strong’s concordance to help them understand what Biblical texts mean in their original languages. Some even try to translate whole lines and passages using this book. Most seem to feel that even though this isn’t the same as knowing ancient Greek and Hebrew, it’s much better than just reading a translation. Here I will say why the opposite is true.
Problem 1: Strong’s is not a lexicon
Lexicons are typically a type of dictionary that contain entries in one language (e.g., Greek) and definitions in another (such as English). Dr. Strong, and those whom he worked with, did not make one. They never intended to. What they produced after enormous time and energy at work which must have been incredibly monotonous is an index. They went through the KJV, and cross-referenced each and every word to what was in the original languages. They created an index of all the words in the KJV and what was used to translate them as well as where.
What they did not do was try to define any of the words. That wasn’t the goal, and others were doing it already, and had been for over 200 years before Dr. Strong was born.
If you compare entries between standard lexicons of ancient Greekand Hebrew, you’ll notice that Strong’s entries are much shorter. The reason is simple: as their index was for the KJV, they just used the words in it for entries.
Problem 2: Words, Meaning, and why no translation can be made into a lexicon
Part I: Words & Meanings
One might think that if the words word good enough for a translation, then it’s because that’s what the words in the original languages meant.
It’s easy to see why this isn’t so. Imagine you’re reading a book, and you come across a word you don’t know. You might look the word up in a dictionary, where you’d find a lot of words which are very similar in meaning to the word you looked up. So similar, you are able to understand the word.
Dictionaries, however, are more like guides for words than they are definitions. Often, the words people look up are technical, like lexicography or hermeneutics, and dictionaries aren’t very good when it comes to technical words. Even worse is when standard words, like “sign”, have a technical meaning (as “sign” does in semiotics). But worst of all is that, despite the way we often think about language (a view reinforced by dictionaries, actually), the real “units” of language are not words (they're constructions, but that's beyond the present scope), because language isn't a mental dictionary + grammar:
have a seat/I have to go/I have it!/I have more money than Bill Gates/I have what it takes/I have had enough/I have had it up to here!/there’s haves and have nots/I’ll have it to go
If you look up “have” in a dictionary, the definition will give you words that could serve as replacements in some of the above examples. However, it’s unlikely that the dictionary will use “take” to define “have”, yet “take a seat” is basically the same as “have a seat”. Likewise for “I’ll have/take it to go”. And as for “I have it!”, that’s basically the same as “I’ve got it!”.
Also, what about “I have had it up to here!”? That “up to here” is idiomatic, like the “haves and have nots”.
And there are plenty of “phrases” (prefabs) and idioms such as
pull strings/once upon a time/all of a sudden/drive crazy (or drive mad/insane/up the wall/bonkers/etc.)/in other words/for example/shoot the breeze/on the other hand/what’s up?/etc.
In reality, langauge doesn't divide into words and grammar, but rather both exist on a contiuum.
Part II: Translations
Translations are almost the opposite of dictionaries. A dictionary uses the semantic (meaning) range or ranges (the conceptual space that word occupies), and finds others which are in the same range/ranges. What translations do is take a word with a semantic range/ranges and extract only some of it. You can think of it as removing words in a dictionary entry used to define a particular word. Another way is to think of it as taking the full conceptual space(s) a word occupies and shrinking it.
I noted that some examples I gave of "have" would be best replaced by a word that one wouldn’t think could do so, such as "take". Translations are trying to do that (replace “units” of language with other units), but they don’t get to use the same language. They have to deal with the full range of meanings and the context (the conceptual space) of the unit, and try to see what unit in another language with its own conceptual space overlaps the most.
Problem 3: Misleading the Consumer
Strong’s is marketed (and I’m including word of mouth and other non-corporate marketing) as a way to get closer to the original languages if you don’t know them. Those who use it typically believe that by seeing what the Hebrew or Greek word “means” in Strong’s, they’ve gotten a better understanding than they would have if they’d relied only on a translation.
I’ve already gone over the issue with thinking that Strong’s is like a real lexicon, or that it was constructed in order to give the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek words. However, that’s at best half the issue. As noted when I covered “meaning”, not only do all words have a range of meaning, many have several that are quite distinct. Nor are the different ranges equally central. The word “drive” usually is at least related to operating a vehicle, or as a noun means “ambition/focus/determination”, etc. It can also be used to signify a mental or emotional state (drive me crazy/mad/up the wall/etc.), but only in particular types of mental states and particular contexts. It’s also far less central than other uses.
All of this, from a more complete range of meanings that a typical lexicon would have to the complete lack of context which always affects semantics, is missing from Strong's. Every entry gives you a smaller range but doesn’t tell even tell you when a particular word in the entry is closer to the meaning, as that requires context.
Finally, I’ve said little about grammar, as in English for the most part it seems as if we have words, and the grammatical rules which tell you how they can be combined. This isn’t true even in English, but it is far less true in Hebrew and Greek. That’s because English tends to use words where both Hebrew and Greek use something else. In English, to indicate things like tense/time, we typically use additional words, such as will, have, had, going (“I’m going out later”, etc. In Greek, one reason a single verb can mean, "carry/yell/trim (e.g., a tree)/take/kill/ drop anchor/pray/disarm/ choose/ expel/ etc." is because Greek uses grammatical devices and context where English would tend to have more words.
Conclusion
Strong’s doesn’t help one get “closer” to the original languagges. It prevents this. A typical lexicon is still problematic (which is why we people study the languages), as no lexicon can substitute for a knowledge of the language. But the typical lexicons biblical scholars and students use have more than just words to help define. They include examples of the ways contexts and grammar (e.g,. tense, aspect, modality of verbs) affect the meanings. Strong’s has none of that.
Put simply, Strong’s tells you that “to have a seat” means “to own a seat”, that “to drive crazy” means “to operate a vehicle and go to the location crazy”, and that “put simply” means “position without difficulty”.
Last edited: