Strong's Lexicon...or Concordance?

David Paul

Something occurred to me some time back, but I'm just getting around to writing a post about it.

Is Strong's Concordance the same thing as Strong's Lexicon? I have a comprehensive Strong's Concordance in hardback (in storage) that I haven't looked at in over a decade. I don't recall it having a lexicon in it...just a breakdown of word usage--in context--by frequency of occurance.

Reason I ask is that I've noticed that every time I copy from Strong's Lexicon (ESL) the footnote that is created (an absurdly long footnote) insists that I have just culled from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Is this the flagrant error that I think it is? If so, how has this gone unnoticed and uncorrected for so long...as in 15 years or more? Has no one else ever noticed this?

Of course, maybe I just never took notice of the lexicon before...since I wasn't fluent enough in Hebrew or Greek back then to be benefitted by it. If they are one and the same, then why call it ESL instead of SEC? Just wondering.

George Somsel

David Paul said:

Something occurred to me some time back, but I'm just getting around to writing a post about it.

Is Strong's Concordance the same thing as Strong's Lexicon? I have a comprehensive Strong's Concordance in hardback (in storage) that I haven't looked at in over a decade. I don't recall it having a lexicon in it...just a breakdown of word usage--in context--by frequency of occurance.

Reason I ask is that I've noticed that every time I copy from Strong's Lexicon (ESL) the footnote that is created (an absurdly long footnote) insists that I have just culled from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Is this the flagrant error that I think it is? If so, how has this gone unnoticed and uncorrected for so long...as in 15 years or more? Has no one else ever noticed this?

Of course, maybe I just never took notice of the lexicon before...since I wasn't fluent enough in Hebrew or Greek back then to be benefitted by it. If they are one and the same, then why call it ESL instead of SEC? Just wondering.

You wouldn't catch me anywhere within the vicinity of Strong's, but I believe the title of the print edition (which should also be the title of the Logos resource) indicates that it is a concordance.

Todd Phillips

David Paul said:

Something occurred to me some time back, but I'm just getting around to writing a post about it.

Is Strong's Concordance the same thing as Strong's Lexicon? I have a comprehensive Strong's Concordance in hardback (in storage) that I haven't looked at in over a decade. I don't recall it having a lexicon in it...just a breakdown of word usage--in context--by frequency of occurance.

Reason I ask is that I've noticed that every time I copy from Strong's Lexicon (ESL) the footnote that is created (an absurdly long footnote) insists that I have just culled from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Is this the flagrant error that I think it is? If so, how has this gone unnoticed and uncorrected for so long...as in 15 years or more? Has no one else ever noticed this?

Of course, maybe I just never took notice of the lexicon before...since I wasn't fluent enough in Hebrew or Greek back then to be benefitted by it. If they are one and the same, then why call it ESL instead of SEC? Just wondering.

Strong's Lexicon was originally part of a larger work known as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. But since we don't need really concordances in bible software (replaced by search), only the Lexicon portion is reproduced.  See wikipedia for it's history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance