Hi all,
I'm considering investing in a multi-volume, academic-grade Bible dictionary (set).
May I have your comments or feedback on the following three choices?
1) IVP Bible Dictionary Series (8 vols) - https://www.logos.com/product/37742/the-ivp-bible-dictionary-series
2) Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (6 vols) - https://www.logos.com/product/1660/anchor-yale-bible-dictionary
3) New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) - https://www.logos.com/product/8801/new-interpreters-dictionary-of-the-bible
Thanks!
Peter
I have both #1 and #2 and they are both excellent. I tend to use #1 more often.
These are the more recent and most comprehensive Bible Dictionaries I use in the order i make use of them:
IVP 8 volumesAnchor BibleISBE revisedBaker Encyclopedia of the Bible
I personally use all three, but I would pick 1 and 2 over 3. Between 1 and 2, 1 is more "conservative" and 2 is more "critical." I don't mean those as negatives, but those are the labels generally applied to them. The IVP dictionaries are more up to date, but the Anchor Bible dictionaries seem to go more in depth into Ancient Near Eastern background and comparative literature. That would be my quick assessment. I would probably pick them in the order you numbered them, but I would struggle a little between 1 and 2.
Academically, Anchor hands-down. Too many articles point to Anchor.
But I also enjoy the IVP specialty dictionaries, and the Hastings group (older but have interesting areas of depth).
I liked Interpreters, but Logos took too long to produce ... Dan would have to comment Anchor vs Interpreters.
Academically, Anchor hands-down. Too many articles point to Anchor. But I also enjoy the IVP specialty dictionaries, and the Hastings group (older but have interesting areas of depth). I liked Interpreters, but Logos took too long to produce ... Dan would have to comment Anchor vs Interpreters.
I know its all about personal preference but I do agree with Denise on this. Both are good but for me I use them for different things. AYB was my first "proper" dictionary and I do still love it but the IVP does go into some great detail but what seems to be on less topics
Thanks for this post and Timely for me as I too had this question..
I do like the NIDB, what it has going for it is it is newer has a few more recent theological topics in it... That said ABD is more in depth and a more valuable to have. I do tend to go to NIDB first and only then move on to ADB if i need more depth (on the rare occasion NIDB will actually offer the better article as far as comprehensiveness goes). I do have the IVP ones as well and they are very good but too limited in their scope to consider being a replacement for an encyclopedic dictionary (in my mind anyway). NIDB is a wonderful supplement to ABD but I still think of ABD as more important to own. I do know of some who prefer the NIDB for seemingly no other reason than it is a few decades newer. It is very true that archeology has progressed but generally I would argue we do not have a significantly greater knowledge in the field of Biblical studies now then when ABD was released. That is not to say that I in anyway do not appreciate the new insights and theological methods one will find in NIDB, just that I see ABD as a more in-depth base that I do not see as outdated. Indeed ISBE is 10 years older than ABD and still a very fine choice I would also not see as too outdated.
-Dan
I'm gonna be another vote for 1 or 2. I wouldn't like to pick out a preference between the two overall, but I'd probably choose Anchor first for it's breadth.
I really didn't get along with the NIDB when I owned it previously, but I probably read less than 100 pages of it in total before getting rid of it out of frustration, so I'm not fit to comment.
I agree with Denise. Though Hastings is over 100 yrs old and thus needs much correction, it has signed articles by many of the luminaries of that age.
The ISBE revised is my personal favorite and certainly academic-grade. The IVP dictionaries are great as well. The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible is also very good.
I agree with most of the comments above. Really depends on your orientation and needs. I use both #1 and 2. ABD is more academic, IVP is more up-to-date and Protestant-oriented. I tend to use both in tandem. No experience with #3.
Thank you very much for all of your input!
Quite a helpful thread.
Thanks.
Likewise. The only thing I'd add is that ISBE Revised is likely to appeal more to evangelical readers than ABD. I do use both, but have now prioritised ISBE above ABD. They each have their own uses. My priority settings are:
1. IVP New Bible Dictionary (I set this as the top one as the articles are briefer, so for a quick lookup it's often the most helpful).
2. Lexham Bible Dictionary. Didn't used to use this much, but it is becoming more useful as time goes by and it gets expanded.
3. IVP black dictionaries.
3. ISBE Revised
4. Anchor Bible Dictionary - I tend to use this for academic work or more heavy-duty study, but not too much for day-to-day work.
5. IVP Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. I've had this for a long time, and basically ignored it but found a number of helpful insights from it lately.
I would duplicate Greg's post above.
I sold my AYBD and settled for the IVP Dictionaries along with the ISBE older and "Newer" editions and other dictionaries. I find them more suited for pastoral work. AYBD is more for academic but if I ever need someday I might just buy it again.
DAL
You've gotten a bunch of good input already, as to where these references land. Good scholars here.
I've used the IVP a fair amount, and find it excellent. When I was in Seminary, it was only partially completed, and so I used the Anchor some, as well as the New Interpreter's. I agree with all that was said about them, good resources, helpful, Anchor is probably the most scholarly, etc. However, I never found them as quickly, directly, and clearly useful as I find the IVP series in it's current form. Might just be individual preference for how it is written, not sure.
At this point, I mostly use the IVP, and the ISBE (Bromiley) (and occasionally supplement with Google) unless I'm digging pretty deeply into a topic, in which case I tend to use fuller resources.
