Intro

Ive encountered people many times (although mostly online) who use Strongs 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 isnt the same as knowing
ancient Greek and Hebrew, its much better than just reading a translation. Here I will say why the
opposite is true.

Problem 1: Strongs 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 wasnt the goal, and others were doing
it already. In fact, the main lexicon (in English) for the NT is generally called the BDAG. The name
comes from some of the main people recently involved. Walter Bauer, the B in BDAG actually
received an unfinished work of another who died in 1920. Yet even that work is far from the first when
it comes to this lexicon. That honor goes to Georg Pasor, who wrote the Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in
Novum Testamentum in 1619. In the 300 years before Bauer received the unfinished lexicon due to its
authors untimely death, an enormous amount of work by many, many, many people was very much a
part of Bauers original work, and which was revised and translated by Arndt & Gingrich, and a second
edition added Dankers name to the list in 1958 and again for the 3rd. And thats just the main lexicon
for NT Greek, which shares a tradition of the much more comprehensive and more widely used (but far
less specific for the Greek of the NT) is the lSJ.

If you compare entries between these and other lexicons of ancient or NT Greek, youll notice that
Strongs entries are much shorter. The reason is simple: neither Dr. Strong nor his collaborators tried to
make a dictionary or lexicon, because they never tried to define the words. 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 its because thats what the
words in the original languages meant.

Its easy to see why this isnt so. Imagine youre reading a book, and you come across a word you dont
know. You might look the word up in a dictionary, where youd 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 arent 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 often not words.
And when they are, they have a range a dictionary cant address. For example:

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!/theres haves and have nots/Ill have it to go

If you look up have in a dictionary, some of the words used to define have will fit. However, its
unlikely that the dictionary will use take to define have, yet take a seat is basically the same as
have a seat. Likewise for Ill have/take it to go. And as for I have it!, thats basically the same
as Ive got it!.

Also, what about I have had it up to here!? That up to here is idiomatic, like the haves and have
nots.

Nor did I cherry-pick a word:

Hang your coat up/hang it all, Im already late/Hell hang for this/Can you hang around for a while
while I check on some things?/hang in there/hang on tight!/hang a left up ahead

And there are plenty of phrases (called prefabs or prefabrications) 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/whats up?/etc.

Finally, we have collocations, highly schematic constructions, and other ways in which language
doesnt fit into dictionary entries and grammar. Basically, dictionary entries will always miss some
meanings/usages, and with some words will miss most.

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.

With the different uses of have I listed, I noted that some would be best replaced by a word that one
wouldnt think could replace have because the replacement word means something so different.
Translations are trying to do that (replace units of language with other units), but they dont 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

Strongs is marketed (and Im including word of mouth and other non-corporate marketing) as a way to
get closer to the original languages if you dont know them. Those who use it typically believe that by
see what the Hebrew or Greek word means in Strongs, theyve gotten a better understanding than
they would have if theyd relied only on a translation.

Ive already gone over the issue with thinking that Strongs is like a real lexicon, or that it was
constructed in order to give the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek words. However, thats 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. Its 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. Every entry gives you a smaller range but doesnt tell
even tell you when a particular word in the entry is closer to the meaning, as that requires context.

Finally, Ive 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 isnt true even in English, but it
is far less true in Hebrew and Greek. Thats 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 (Im going out later), etc. In Greek, one reason a 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

Strongs doesnt 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. Strongs has none of that.

Put simply, Strongs 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.