AYBD is the most usable resource among dictionaries. All other ones I have are far below of AYBD. Any other dictionaries which would be so much in depth as AYBD?
The black IVP dictionaries are probably in greater depth than AYBD, but on fewer, more focussed topics.http://www.logos.com/product/8588/the-essential-ivp-reference-collection-version-3http://www.logos.com/product/4714/ivp-dictionary-of-the-old-testament-bundle
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible is even more so:http://www.logos.com/product/4236/dictionary-of-deities-and-demons-in-the-bible
The black IVP dictionaries are probably in greater depth than AYBD, but on fewer, more focussed topics.http://www.logos.com/product/8588/the-essential-ivp-reference-collection-version-3http://www.logos.com/product/4714/ivp-dictionary-of-the-old-testament-bundle The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible is even more so:http://www.logos.com/product/4236/dictionary-of-deities-and-demons-in-the-bible
I was about to suggest the same thing, but Mark beat me to it [;)]
I own AYBD and find it impressive and incredibly helpful. In my view, the black IVP dictionaries really complements AYBD. In addition to its narrower and more detailed focus, the IVP dictionaries tend towards a more conservative stance. I find this really adds balance to the AYBD.
I am really glad that I have access to both.
I agree with both Mark and Andy
i agree with Ted, who agrees with Mark and Andy.
the only other suggestion is perhaps the "Encyclopedia of Christianity" (packaged as volumes 1-3, 4, and 5). It deals with a variety of topics from Aristotelianism and Apophatic Theology to the Three-self movement, Typology, and Zen. It is of German origin. An example of the article on "Hermeneutics" below:
Hermeneutics 1. OT 1.1. Significance 1.2. Approach 1.3. Task 2. NT 2.1. Concept and Task 2.2. History 2.3. Modern Problems 3. Philosophy and Theology 3.1. Concept and Task 3.2. Hermeneutical Philosophy 3.3. Hermeneutical Theology 3.4. Results and CriticismThe original meaning of “hermeneutics” is “translation” in the broadest sense: the authoritative → communication of a message (e.g., from God) that needs a mediator, the rendering of a text from one language into another, and the exposition of something said or written with a view to bringing out its → meaning. The term is derived from the Greek hermēneuō, “interpret, explain, translate.” The root derives from the name of the Greek god Hermes, the mediator of meaning between the realm of gods and that of human beings. In the NT the term (including its use with the prefixes dia. and meta-) is translated “interpret” (Luke 24:27; see also 1 Cor. 12:10), “explain” (Luke 24:27 NEB), “translate” (John 1:38, 42), and “mean” (Heb. 7:2). In Acts 14:12 Paul, taken to be a god in human form, is “called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.” 1. OT 1.1. SignificanceThe Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, has status as Holy Scripture for both → Judaism and Christianity and is also important to the Koran of → Islam as a source of information and tradition for that faith. Its vitality to Judaism began early in the formation of the community of → Israel (§1), when parts of its present form were considered authoritative for faith and practice, such as core statutes and summaries of law, ritual prescriptions, poetic outcries of both pain and celebration, and collections of sayings of prophets and wise thinkers.Its vitality to Christian faith began with the use of parts of it by → Jesus, → Paul, the gospel authors, and writers of other NT books. The argument over its necessity for Christian guidance, raised by Marcion (d. ca. 160), was answered by the church with a decisive Yes in its march toward establishing a → canon of Scripture.Its importance to Islam is seen both in the Koran’s dependence on various narratives, characters, and events (e.g., Hagar’s exile [Genesis 16; 21:8–21; cf. Koran 14:35–39]) and in the prominence of some ideas in Islamic theology, such as the apocalyptic vision of the end times and the judgment of the human race (Dan. 11:40–12:13; cf. Koran 12; 81; 82). 1.2. ApproachEven with the development of various aspects of biblical research (from earliest scribal corrections to canonical criticism) over 3,000 years, each of which contributes its part to the total understanding and → interpretation of the OT, still the most basic hermeneutical encounter is with an individual textual unit, or pericope. In seeking to interpret a given story, song, law, poem, or other segment of the material now enclosed in the OT, a sound hermeneutical approach includes the elements and perspectives outlined in the following paragraphs. The overall approach applies for any version of the OT, → Apocrypha and → pseudepigrapha included.The first task is to ascertain the state of the text itself. Are all the words clear? Are there different readings or different witnesses to what the text says? Use of the various language options, the textual variants, the changes in vocabulary, and all related materials are basic to ascertaining just what sentences have been produced in the unit under consideration.The second step is to discern the form of the unit. Is it poetry of a particular sort, a special type of prophetic speech, a conditional or absolute law, a new or unique form of expression without parallel elsewhere in Scripture? The form itself sometimes has a certain meaning, including its use in a given context, with implications for the overall application of the pericope.Once the text and form are clear, one should look for any pre- or extrabiblical use of such a unit in other ancient Near Eastern texts. Israel borrowed materials from Canaan as well as other surrounding countries. Light from such sources can occasionally illuminate what biblical writers had in mind by using material that reflected the “common knowledge” of the times. The prohibition against cooking a kid in its mother’s milk (Exod. 23:19; 34:26), for example, makes more sense when it is seen as proscribing Israel’s participation in a common Canaanite ritual (see J. C. Rylaarsdam, “Exodus: Text, Exegesis,” IB 1.1013–14).Given the centuries-old enterprise of examining physical remains for evidence of the biblical people and the events they report, one should ask whether there are → archaeological data that shed light on the unit, and if so, what they suggest. Arguments persist about the value of such connections. To see the actual size of ancient defensive and other walls, however, and to know the location of old travel routes can enable one to gain new insight into “the shade of a great rock” (Isa. 32:2), both as refuge from the midday heat and as a dangerous place where robbers or others of ill will might be hiding, or even a place from which to spring a military ambush (Josh. 8:1–23). References to water jars, broken pots, and the hazards of cisterns all beg for the light of archaeology to be shed on them. Jeremiah’s teaching about how the Lord would break rebellious Judah “as one breaks a potter’s vessel” by smashing it on the ground (Jer. 19:11) reflected a real slice of everyday life then, just as it remains vivid to this day.At this point one may ask about the first OT use of the unit and what its meaning or meanings may have been in that literary setting. Given the long period of oral transmission of most units before they were put into writing, however, it is sometimes impossible to trace back the original meanings to the community out of whose travels and experiences, faith and practices, the utterance was first coined. To begin with, the best we can do is to approximate its apparent use and meaning in its present context, unless there are clear extrabiblical evidences of its earlier functions.It is appropriate to ask, beyond the immediate impressions the unit gives, whether it appears in later OT contexts, how it may have been revised, and what use and meaning(s) each revision suggests. That is, the OT itself is the first “hermeneutical workshop” for OT texts. This feature is apparent in the → Pentateuch, for examination of the stories of Israel’s beginnings shows that the earliest ones were first systematically collected and edited about 950 B.C. (commonly referred to as the J source, for its association with Judah and its use of YHWH [Yahweh, Ger. Jahwe] for God’s name). A century later the earliest texts were reexamined, sometimes revised, supplemented with new material, and sometimes rearranged (by the so-called E source, for its northern association [tribe of Ephraim] and its use of Elohim for the name of God). Then in the eighth century Deuteronomic reformers produced another revision (the D source, for the new material in Deuteronomy), and later again, between the sixth and fourth centuries, by scribes with priestly and ritual interests (P source, mainly in Leviticus) trying to reconstitute a pure Israelite community in place of the one destroyed by Assyrian and → Babylonian aggression (ca. 721 and 597–586 B.C.). In each stage, new circumstances saw new meanings and new emphases take shape in the treatment of the stories. Just as in our own time, the meaning was searched for its relevance to the new situations encountered in life, and the interpretive process was continued for each successive audience. The same process occurred when early Christian writers took basic prophetic texts and reapplied them to their understandings in the wake of Jesus’ life among them.It is also vital to examine the various OT literary settings in which the unit may appear. Events are sometimes celebrated poetically as well as reported in a prose form. Major examples here are the celebration of Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian slavery to freedom as a people. The story and event described in Exodus 12–14 are also celebrated and interpreted poetically in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and the Song of Miriam (vv. 20–21). Similarly, the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) puts the memories of the slaying of the Canaanite commander Sisera (Judges 4) in a different literary form. The aids to remembering, such as summaries of law as ten commandments (e.g., in Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21; lit. “the Ten Words,” Exod. 34:28 NEB), or repetitive phrases citing the same idea in a prophet’s speech (Jer. 25:30) or a psalm (Ps. 92:12), reflect what it was like to keep important things in mind while living without available written records, or without libraries for storing important materials for managing life. The literary forms of a curse, of a lament over loss at death, or of an obligation conditional on some combination of circumstances all speak of regular patterns of utterance used and considered transportable for use in various times and places judged appropriate. They help us understand the life situation in which a form took shape, to which it was intended to speak with particular power.It is now possible to ask what role or meaning the unit has for Israel’s theology, that is, Israel’s sense of God, God’s presence, God’s character, God’s will. Israel’s pilgrimage worked its way theologically from multiple gods in the religions of its neighboring cultures to hints of multiple gods worshiped and served by its ancestors (e.g., “the gods [that] your ancestors served,” Josh. 24:14–15). First clearly cited by the prophet of the exile commonly called Second Isaiah, Israel’s belief that besides YHWH “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5–6) became normative in the exilic period as the → monotheism that characterizes Judaic, Christian, and Islamic theology to this day. While some changes in the characterization of God occur, each biblical unit reflects its place in the process of theological formation occurring throughout the OT. Variations in theological aspects of the meaning of a pericope will occur within each of the religious communities devoted to these texts, as well as from one community to the others. Serious effort to find what the text may mean in today’s life requires that we determine, if possible, what role it has played in the growing awarenesses of God, both God’s character and will.At this stage one should ascertain, as relevant, the first use in the NT. Writers of the NT use OT passages in a variety of ways. Both the criteria of selection and the specific application to the “new” situation will shed light especially on what meaning the NT writer intended to convey. One of many illustrations of this point appears in Joel Marcus’s discussion of uses made of OT material by the author of the Gospel of Mark in the very first verses of the gospel. Here the writer conflates OT material and applies it in the context of “proclamation” to a Christian community under stress in the agitation of the Jewish revolt against Rome in A.D. 66–70 (J. Marcus, Mark 1–8 [New York, 2000] Introduction and 141–49). As the “beginning of the good news,” it is intended to interpret Jesus and his proclamations in a context of stress and suffering, giving aid and hope to the audience the writer addressed in the mid-first century. That setting suggests clues to its possible meaning for modern people, also suffering stress, if not political persecution or the devastations of war.As with the OT, so also with the NT, units are sometimes used in more than one place or by more than one author; in the process, the use and meaning may change. Thus it is incumbent to search for other NT uses of the unit. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew clearly intends to employ as many OT references as possible to support his claim that Jesus fulfilled OT expectations in all aspects of his life and death (e.g., Matt. 1:22; 2:5, 17; 3:3, etc.). OT apocalyptic expectations are “translated” in the speech attributed to Jesus in Matt. 24:3–8, as they are in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians (4:13–18), Mark’s chapter 13, and the bulk of the book of Revelation. Tracking a single unit or a pattern of ideas is important in determining the use and meaning the early Christians found in the OT material.In addition to insights gained from the NT canonical material, it is often helpful in understanding an OT pericope to examine its use by other groups. A first choice might be the → Gnostics, given the abundance of materials from → Nag Hammadi. Marcion and his arguments could also be explored. Attention should also be paid to the differences between the emerging Christian churches and their Jewish neighbors. Christians borrowed heavily from Jewish hermeneutical methods (esp. in their attention to texts, translations, and methods of historical and allegorical interpretation; → Bible Versions), and the emergence of a Christian theology that accommodated not only the God of the OT but the person of Jesus and the continuing felt presence of God’s activities in their communal life was itself a process that continues into modern life.It is also important to examine the place of a pericope in the history of doctrine and the life of the church—liturgical, devotional, and even organizational. Some units have become firmly planted in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic thought. Deut. 6:4, for example, claiming that God is one, is an example of a biblical text that has become central to all three bodies of believers. An implication of this belief is that all activity involving human devotion to, worship of, or obedience to any other power, reality, or ideal is what defines idolatry, unfaithfulness, misguided behavior, and mistaken thinking. Islam goes so far as to cite forgetfulness of God as the primary sin of humans (hence the requirement to pray five times every day). Ritual life in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (→ Rite) reflects in common the obligation to remember God’s gracious acts, thus keeping life focused where its center belongs.The purpose of all these explorations is to interpret the biblical text for modern human life. What are the contemporary applications of this pericope in daily life? For some units there may not be any clearly in view. Conditions change, and some admonitions no longer apply in today’s largely urban setting (→ City). Furthermore, with the changing conditions of life in the digital age, only extrapolated or analogous applications may be possible. Yet basic human questions about what life is, what it can become, how the self may interact in various social formats from family to the global village, and related questions of how to treat one’s fellow humans in all their conditions and locations are always relevant. The limitation of → death still needs to be understood and interpreted within the theology given in biblical forms. Theological, intellectual, ritual, social, and global concerns call for translating biblical insights into the stuff of daily life for ordinary people. Such translation is the primary task of → preaching as biblical → proclamation. Patterns of organization to allow it must be explored in the ever-changing social scene, and the fellowship of believers must be nourished by the best proclamatory and educational insights believers can muster.Third World perspectives need to be explored for the riches they can provide and for the insights that Western intellectual history may have missed in its affluence, power, and gross self-absorption. Westerners need to listen to their brothers and sisters in other cultures. The relative lack of sophisticated technological distractions in the → Third World (however short-lived such lack may be) may allow a different focus and sensitivity and, most important, a differently stirred imagination by which to hear and speak the will of God conveyed through Scripture.Interest in unfolding biblical insights continues to draw new voices into the discussion. We have had about 30 years of genuine help from women’s work on interpreting biblical texts (→ Feminist Theology). Voices added from Latin American perspectives (→ Liberation Theology), as well as from African and African American participants (→ African Theology), complement the evolution of subspecialties such as rhetorical criticism, linguistic analysis (→ Linguistics), storytelling, and many others that explore the pericopes from new angles and perspectives. 1.3. TaskIf the center of the OT is the interaction of → Yahweh with the people of Israel, its goal is surely the creation and support of human life at its maximum potential for mutual support and excellence in achievements—from → healing the sick to all forms of nourishing wholeness and richness of human expression.The hermeneutical task is to proclaim the biblical content in the face of all misguided human standards and endeavors. Then can begin a creation of new life that not only well serves the human communities but endures far beyond the span of any given society or time. Such is God’s gift of life in a universe in which, viewed both temporally and spatially, the natural condition is death. Such is the biblical message of → grace, which comes from God alone.→ Exegesis, BiblicalBibliography: J. BARTON, Reading the OT: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville, Ky., 1996); idem, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge, 1998) ∙ A. BRENNER et al., eds., A Feminine Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods, and Strategies (Sheffield, 1997) ∙ W. BRUEGGEMANN, Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living (Minneapolis, 1991) ∙ R. CARROLL and M. DANIEL, Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective (Sheffield, 1992) ∙ M. FISHBANE, The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington, Ind., 1989) ∙ F. C. HOLMGREN, The OT and the Significance of Jesus: Embracing Change-Maintaining Christian Identity. The Emerging Center in Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, 1999) ∙ J. KALTNER, The Use of Arabic in Biblical Hebrew Lexicography (Washington, D.C., 1996) ∙ A. LACOCQUE and P. RICOEUR, Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies (Chicago, 1998) ∙ J. D. LEVENSON, The Hebrew Bible, the OT, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, Ky., 1993) ∙ S. SEKINE, Transcendency and Symbols in the OT: A Genealogy of Hermeneutical Experiences (Berlin, 1999) ∙ R. S. SUQIRTHARAJAH, Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (Maryknoll, N.Y., 1991).ROGER S. BORAAS 2. NT 2.1. Concept and TaskThe task of biblical hermeneutics to make the Bible, as the canon of the church, intelligible so that the church is equipped to make an “accounting [apologia]” (1 Pet. 3:15) for faith in → Jesus Christ and its proclamation (→ Canon). The NT itself offers clear standards for this process. The object of interpretation is the biblical witness to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.The center of Christian theology is the Christ-event (→ Christology). This event can be understood only within the totality of the OT and the NT (1 Cor. 15:3–5; 2 Cor. 1:20; Luke 24:25–27; John 5:39). The → gospel of Jesus Christ is a divine gift demanding obedient reflection and response (1 Cor. 1:30; 2:6–16; 2 Cor. 4:5–6). Exposition, therefore, must orient itself to the tradition of the apostolic faith (1 Cor. 15:1–11; Rom. 6:17; 2 Tim. 3:14–17; 2 Pet. 1:20–21; → Exegesis, Biblical). These criteria place biblical hermeneutics in fruitful tension with any exposition that would set up its own criteria apart from them. 2.2. HistoryThe Christian exposition of the NT (and OT) arose in the second century in opposition to → Gnostic theosophy,Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 2, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 531-35.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) is slightly less in-depth than AYBD, but way more in-depth than any of the one-volume Bible dictionaries. In print it comes in 4 volumes, vs AYBD's 6. It is also from a more conservative evangelical perspective than AYBD, in case that matters to you. Some articles in ISBE actually have more depth than AYBD. AYBD is somewhat more up-to-date (1996 vs. 1988). Both of them have the occasional picture, map, or diagram, but ISBE has more of these, including photographs.
Here's an example comparing ZION in the two of them:
From AYBD:
ZION (PLACE) [Heb ṣiyyôn (צִיֹּון)]. An ancient name for various parts of Jerusalem, of Judah and all the land, and also a metaphor for the people of God, at various periods, from biblical times to the modern period. See ZION TRADITIONS.
A. Origin and Meaning of the Name
The exact meaning of the name is uncertain. Various proposals as to etymon of the word include: (1) the Heb ṣāwāh, “to erect” (i.e., a structure), or ṣāyāh, “to be dry” (because of the dryness of Jerusalem; cf. Isa 41:18, “parched ground”); (2) the Hurrian seya, “brook,” “river,” suggesting the Gihon spring just below the City of David; (3) the Arabic ṣahweh, “hillcrest,” “ridge,” i.e., the location of the city; Ṣahyūn (= “Zion” and the comparable Syr root Ṣĕhyûn, from which the Ar form may have developed); or possibly, the most plausible, ṣâna, “protect,” from a hypothetical etymon *ṣiyan, “fortress.” This etymon is related to the Heb root ṣnn found in the derived form ṣinnâ, “ (large) shield.” These Arabic etyma would suggest that Zion was a fortress located on a ridge.
Among the many references to Zion are (1) “the sons of Zion” (once, Lam 4:2); (2) the “Daughters of Zion” (one time, Cant 3:11); (3) “the Daughter of Zion” (many times in the OT and twice in the NT); (4) “the Virgin Daughter of Zion” (three times, 2 Kgs 19:21; Isa 37:22; Lam 2:13); (5) Mt. Zion (a number of times); (6) Zion (many times) or O Zion (six times). Although not used as frequently as the name Jerusalem (760 times), Zion is a very common appellative for Jerusalem and God’s people. Zion sometimes is used metaphorically, such as the spiritual “Mount Zion … the Heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God” (Heb 12:22).
B. Zion in the Bible
Most often Zion refers to parts of the city of Jerusalem and its environs or the country of which the city is the capital. Frequently, Zion even represents the inhabitants of Jerusalem or the whole country. Sometimes physical features connected with Zion are stressed. The praise of God is to be made in the “gates” of the Daughter of Zion (Ps 9:14), that “stronghold” which has “watchtowers” (Mic 4:8) and whose “wall” the Lord determined to destroy (Lam 2:8). Mt. Zion experiences “dew” falling on it as the dew falls on Mt. Hermon (Ps 133:3). See Smith 1907: 134–69; Simons 1952: 60–64; Kenyon 1967: 187–93; Finegan 1969: 147–52.
When David captured Jerusalem at the beginning of the Monarchy, the city was called “the fortress of Zion,” “the City of David” (2 Sam 5:7; 1 Chr 11:5). At that time, it was only a small fortified city on the SE ridge S of what would subsequently become the Temple Mount. 1 Kgs 8:1 (= 2 Chr 5:2) relates how Solomon subsequently brought up from Zion, the City of David, the ark of the covenant to the new Zion, the Temple Mount.
The temple is therefore also called Zion, Mt. Zion, or the holy hill of Zion. The divine King of Israel is frequently spoken of as dwelling there. God, the Lord, is said to be enthroned in Zion (Ps 9:11); it (the temple) is his dwelling place (Ps 76:2), his holy hill (Joel 4:17, cf. the glory of God on the tabernacle, Exod 40:34). The Lord Almighty, is dwelling on Mt. Zion (Isa 8:18). God shines forth from Zion (Ps 50:2), the place where his Name dwells (Isa 18:7). It is from Zion that a deliverer/redeemer will come forth (Rom 11:26a [= Isa 59:20a]). This deliverer is the Son of whom God speaks, “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill” (Ps 2:6). He is that one whom God has laid as the cornerstone in Zion (Isa 28:16 [= Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6]). In the future, it is from Mt. Zion that the Lord will rule over men forever (Mic 4:7); the Lord Almighty will reign on Mt. Zion, even in Jerusalem (Isa 24:23). Furthermore, it is at the temple of the divine king that aliens such as Moab are instructed to bring lambs as tribute to the mount (the temple) of the Daughter of Zion (Isa 16:1). Also, when the Assyrian army advances against Jerusalem, Isaiah describes how that the enemy will defy the mount (the temple hill, or Jerusalem including the temple hill) of the Daughter of Zion (Isa 10:32).
Frequently the term “Zion” is used for Jerusalem, the city, or the people who inhabit it. The good news of the gospel is to be proclaimed to Zion, the people of Jerusalem (Isa 40:9; 52:7). Later this is expanded in Rom 10:15 to include the whole world. Making Zion prosper is equated with building up the walls of Jerusalem (Ps 51:18); furthermore, bringing judgment against Zion is also bringing judgment against Jerusalem (Isa 10:12). The Lord’s roaring from Zion is the same as his thundering from Jerusalem (Joel 4:16). The bloodshed practiced in Zion is explained as an illustration of wickedness of Jerusalem (Mic 3:10); the result of this wickedness will be that “Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble” (Mic 3:12).
Often the term “Daughter of Zion” describes the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Only once is the plural Daughters of Zion used (Cant 3:11). On occasion these inhabitants are called the Virgin Daughter of Zion, indicating their presumed chaste nature as children of God. The Virgin Daughter of Zion, the Daughter of Jerusalem, will mock Sennacherib, king of Assyria, as he approaches with his army (2 Kgs 19:21 [= Isa 37:22]). Although condemning Jerusalem for her sin, the Lord still reminds her that she is the Virgin Daughter of Zion (Lam 2:13). The Lord provides the blessing of his salvation to the daughter of Zion by sending to Jerusalem his king (Zech 9:9 [= Matt 21:5; John 12:15; cf. Isa 62:11]). In the NT, the fulfillment of this blessing is seen in Jesus as he rides among the crowds into Jerusalem on a donkey (cf. Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:10). Zion, the holy city of Jerusalem, which was viewed as the captive Daughter of Zion (Isa 52:1–2), is called upon to awake. But the Lord’s punishment for sin is the lot of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Daughter of Zion (Lam 2:8). In her rebellion, “the Daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard” (Isa 1:8); and because of her sin, the splendor has departed from her (Lam 1:6). The Lord has covered her with his anger (Lam 2:1) and poured out his wrath on her (Lam 2:4). Writhing like a woman in labor, the Daughter of Zion will go to Babylon into Exile (Mic 4:10). For further discussion, see ZION, DAUGHTER OF.
Sometimes Zion refers to the tribe or land of Judah, or to the whole of Israel. In his electing process, God chose the tribe of Judah, Mt. Zion, whom he loved (Ps 78:68). They, Mt. Zion, are the tribe of God’s inheritance (Ps 74:2); Mt. Zion, including the villages of Judah, rejoices because of God’s righteous acts (Ps 48:11). On occasion, Zion includes all the land of Israel. Captive Israel is brought back to (the land of) Zion (Ps 126:1); after the Babylonian Captivity, the people of Israel will turn their faces toward Zion (Jer 50:5).
Sometimes the metaphorical dimension of Zion is stressed. “Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion” (Ps 125:1). Believers are told that they have come to Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God (Heb 12:22). Prophetically, the Lord has sent his king to Zion, his holy hill (Zech 9:9 [= Matt 21:5; John 12:15]) and there placed him on the throne (Ps 2:6). He has laid his cornerstone in Zion (Isa 28:16 [= Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6]), and, in the future, the Lamb will stand on Mt. Zion with the 144,000 (Rev 14:1).
C. Zion in the Byzantine and Early Church Age
By the 4th century A.D., the name “Zion” had been transferred in Christian usage from Jerusalem’s SE ridge to its SW ridge. This is an understandable change for two reasons. First, this part of the city was the least destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70. Second, even after Hadrian’s suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132–35), it provided the Christians a place to worship not far from the crucifixion site. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) definitely calls the W hill Sion (CChr Series Latina CLXXV, 16) and Epiphanius (d. A.D. 392) also makes that identification. He makes reference to the existence of a small church there in Hadrian’s time that commemorates the place where the disciples had gathered on the day of Pentecost. This same place also came to be identified as the place of the Lord’s Supper. This church eventually was replaced by a large basilica named, Holy Mount Zion, the Mother of All Churches (which is pictured in the Madeba Mosaic map, ca. A.D. 575). Later, the SW ridge became the location for the tomb of David (Mare 1987: 224–25, 233–36) as well as the Cenacle (the place of the Lord’s Supper). Thus there continued until modern times a confusion between the Davidic Zion, located both on the SE hill and the Temple Mount, and the Christian Mt. Zion on the SW hill. Even today the SW hill is called Mt. Zion and the gate of the S side of the wall, the Zion Gate.
Bibliography
Finegan, J. 1969. The Archeology of the New Testament. Princeton, NJ.
Kenyon, K. 1967. Jerusalem. New York.
Mare, W. H. 1987. The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area. Grand Rapids.
Simons, J. 1952. Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Leiden.
Smith, G. A. 1907. Jerusalem. Vol 1. London.
W. HAROLD MARE
W. Harold Mare, "Zion (Place)" In , in , vol. 6, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 1096-97.
From ISBE:
ZION zīʹən [Heb ṣîyôn; Gk Siōn]; AV also SION. An ancient name attached to different sites within JERUSALEM in various periods of the city’s history.
I. ORIGIN
II. SEMANTIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE OT
A. GEOGRAPHICAL DESIGNATION
I. JEBUSITE FORTRESS
II. TEMPLE MOUNT
III. JERUSALEM
B. SOTERIOLOGICAL APPLICATION
III. SEMANTIC DEVELOPMENT IN GRECO-ROMAN AND BYZANTINE TIMES
A. INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD
I. TEMPLE MOUNT
II. “CITADEL”
B. FIRST CENTURY A.D.
C. LATER DEVELOPMENTS
IV. MODERN RESEARCH
I. Origin
The etymology of the ancient Hebrew term is uncertain, but among the several proposals two are particularly attractive. J. Wetzstein derived it from the Semitic root preserved in Arabic as ṣâna, “protect” — i.e., from a hypothetical *ṣîyân, “fortress,” or the like (see F. Delitzsch, Genesis [4th ed 1872], p. 578). G. A. Smith took as his starting point the Arabic name for Mt. Zion, Jebel Ṣahyûn. He did not mention Syr Ṣehyôn, which probably gave rise to the Arabic form; but he cited Arab ṣahweh, “tower on top of a mountain,” and noted the well-fortified site on the edge of a hill in Lebanon called Ṣehyûn. The following derivation might thus be posited: Heb *ṣiyôn (“fortified tower”) < *ṣiyân < *ṣihyân.
II. Semantic Development in the OT
A. Geographical Designation Whatever its etymology, “Zion” was primarily a topographical designation.
1. Jebusite Fortress It was David who conquered the “stronghold of Zion” (Heb meṣûḏaṯ ṣîyôn) and there established his own royal residence, calling it “the city of David” (2 S. 5:7, 9 par 1 Ch. 11:5, 7). This stronghold was lower than the temple and palace complex built by Solomon, since it was necessary to “bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion” (1 K. 8:1 par 2 Ch. 5:2). Pharaoh’s daughter also “went up from the city of David to her own house which Solomon had built for her” (1 K. 9:24; cf. 2 Ch. 8:11, which alludes to the ark’s former presence in the city of David). Furthermore, the “city of David” must have been above the Gihon spring; i.e., it was apparently identical with the Ophel (Heb ˓ōp̱el), the ridge extending S from the temple mount (2 Ch. 33:14).
See Vol. I, Map XXIV.
2. Temple Mount With the establishment of the ark first in the Jebusite fortress and then in the newly built temple, Zion became known as the sacred dwelling place of Israel’s Lord, the One “who dwells in Zion” (Ps. 9:11 [MT 12]). The divine oath to establish the Davidic dynasty is linked with His choice of Zion as His abode (Ps. 132, esp vv 13f); and though these oracular pronouncements originally referred to Salem, the pre-Israelite city (cf. Gen. 14:18), as Yahweh’s residence (Ps. 76:2 [MT 3]), the emphasis soon changed to “Zion, my holy hill” (Ps. 2:6). The Lord of Hosts dwells at Mt. Zion (Ps. 74:2; Isa. 8:18; 18:7) and reigns from there (Mic. 4:7b). Mt. Zion and Jerusalem are sometimes named together (Isa. 10:12; 24:23; Joel 2:32 [MT 3:5]; Zec. 1:14), but whether the terms are synonymous or refer to separate entities is hard to decide. Zion is called “the city of our appointed feasts” (Isa. 33:20); the capital, Jerusalem, is evidently meant here, since it was the focal point for the three great annual pilgrimages. Nevertheless, in the postexilic era the City of David was limited to that lower part of the ridge on the south (Neh. 3:15f).
See Vol. I, Map XXV.
3. Jerusalem Eventually the term “Zion” was extended to include the entire city, but this synecdoche usually occurs in poetic passages. “Zion” can stand in juxtaposition to the “cities of Judah” (Ps. 69:35 [MT 36]), or it can occur in parallelism with “Jerusalem” (Isa. 4:3f; 52:1f), most notably in Ps. 48, where “the city of our God, his holy mountain” is “Mount Zion, … the city of the great King” (vv 1f [MT 2f]). Mt. Zion is even exalted to the status of the mysterious yarkeṯê ṣāp̱ôn, literally, “the remotenesses of the North” (v 2 [MT 3]) — a figurative allusion to the old West Semitic abode of Baal in the recesses of Mt. Zaphon, attested in Ugaritic literature of the 14th cent B.C. (ṣrrt ṣpn or mrym ṣpn).
More frequently, however, the city itself is called the “daughter of Zion” as distinct from the actual “mount.” For example, the approaching foe will “shake his fist at the mount of the daughter [MT K and versions] of Zion, the hill [LXX “hills”!] of Jerusalem” (Isa. 10:32; see also 16:1).
Besides “daughter of Zion” (Isa. 1:8; 52:2; 62:11; Jer. 4:31; 6:2, 23; Mic. 1:13; 4:10, 13; etc.), the city is known as “the virgin daughter of Zion” (2 K. 19:21; Isa. 37:22; Lam. 2:13) and “inhabitant of Zion” (yôšeḇeṯ ṣîyôn, Isa. 12:6; Jer. 51:35). The Lord calls the citizenry of Jerusalem “sons of Zion” (Lam. 4:2; Joel 2:23; Zec. 9:13) and “daughters of Zion” (Isa. 3:16f; 4:4). The senior members of the society are called “the elders of the daughter of Zion” (Lam. 2:10).
That the “daughter of Zion” means the city of Jerusalem is clear from allusions to her wall (Lam. 2:8) and gates (Ps. 9:14 [MT 15]). Zion itself is sometimes characterized as a fortified city with gates (Ps. 87:2), towers, ramparts, and citadels (Ps. 48:12f [MT 13f]). These latter expressions are somewhat uncertain, however, since the palace-temple complex that Solomon built within the city itself was also a fortified citadel with the same architectural elements.
B. Soteriological Application The sociological application of the term “Zion” to the population of Jerusalem is naturally extended to denote the people of God. The basis for this development is Zion’s position as the focal point of God’s soteriological activity, His deliverance of His holy abode from many adversaries (Isa. 33:5; 34:8; 52:8). Development of this usage received special impetus from the Exile, particularly since it was the captive population of Jerusalem (and Judah) that produced the prophetic and literary spokesmen who used the term (cf. Ps. 126:1; 129:5).
III. Semantic Development in Greco-Roman and Byzantine Times
A. Intertestamental Period
1. Temple Mount In this period “Zion” clearly designates the height occupied by the temple, which was cleansed by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc. 4:36–61, esp vv 37, 60; cf. also 5:54; 6:48, 62; 7:33; 10:11; 14:27; apparently also Jth. 9:13; Sir. 24:10). Undoubtedly only the eastern hill is meant, since the Seleucid enemy was holding a strong point on the western side of the Tyropoeon Valley, opposite the temple.
2. “Citadel.” In 167 B.C. the Seleucid army built a heavily fortified enclosure around what was now called the City of David; this fortress they called Acra (“citadel”; Gk ákra, 1 Macc. 1:33–36). The liberation of the temple mount by Judas leaves no doubt that the Acra was on the western hill; Judas had to employ some of his troops against the Seleucids in the citadel during the cleansing of the temple area (1 Macc. 4:41). Thus the city of David cannot have been in its former position on Ophel, for otherwise the Jewish forces could hardly have gained access to the temple.
The construction of a fortress on the western ridge may have coincided with the attempt to establish there a Hellenistic polis or city-state (2 Macc. 4:7–17). V. Tcherikover noted that the Jewish hellenizers’ request for Antiochian citizenship and the founding of Hellenic institutions such as the gymnasium point to the organization of such a municipal entity with all the civil and religious status that entailed; he was probably correct in assuming that the new polis was to be called “Antiochia in Jerusalem.” Only in 141 B.C. was the troublesome citadel conquered by Simon Maccabeus (1 Macc. 13:49–53). The surrender of the fortress gave the anti-Hellenist Jews access to the former polis on the western ridge, which by then was firmly established in local parlance as the City of David (1 Macc. 14:36). The dismantling of the Seleucid stronghold was evidently carried out by one of the later Hasmonean rulers (Josephus BJ v.4.1 [137-39]) and not by Simon himself (cf. BJ i.2.2 [50]; Ant. xiii.6.7 [215-17]). On the site of the Acra the Hasmoneans built their own palace which was later taken over by the Herodian dynasty (Ant. xx.8.11 [189f]). This must have been where Herod Antipas resided during the Passover season when Jesus was led before him (Lk. 23:6–12).
B. First Century A.D. Josephus placed the City of David, also known in his day as the Upper City, unequivocally on the western ridge. He asserted that here was the “fortress” (Gk phroúrion, his rendering for Heb meṣûḏâ) that David had occupied, but that his own contemporaries called the place “the upper market.” This “Davidic” fortress-market area he clearly distinguished from the promontory projecting E from the western ridge toward the temple mount, i.e., the Acra of the former Seleucid citadel (BJ v.4.1 [137-39]).
See Vol. I, Map XXVI.
The monumental “tomb of David” is usually (though not unanimously) presumed to have been on the western ridge, just as one of Herod’s mighty towers, named after his brother Phasael (BJ v.4.3 [166-69]), is still popularly known as “David’s Tower.” Josephus recorded that the impressive Tomb of David was deprived of its treasures by Hyrcanus (BJ i.2.5 [61]; Ant. vii.15.3 [392f]; xiii.8.4 [249]) and later by Herod (Ant. xvi.7.1 [179, 181, 188]). None of these passages (nor Acts 2:29) states that the tomb was actually on the western hill. On the contrary, a rabbinic testimony contends that the tombs of the prophetess Huldah and King David both had underground channels (Heb meḥillôṯ) that carried their uncleanness down to the Kidron (Rabbi Akiba in Tosefta Baba Bathra i.11f). Since Huldah’s tomb was presumably near the two gates on the temple enclosure’s south side (which are named after her, Mish Middoth i.3), the Davidic funerary monument thus should also be on the eastern ridge, S of the temple mount. Rabbi Akiba’s statement that both tombs were connected with the Kidron via subterranean channels strengthens the impression that the eastern location of David’s tomb was still recognized at the end of the 1st cent A.D.; i.e., the biblical tradition (Neh. 3:16) was still alive. The structure fell into ruin during the Bar Cochba revolt (A.D. 135), as reported by Dio Cassius (Hist lxix.14), and Christians long tended to place David’s burial site in Bethlehem.
Remarkably, Josephus did not use the term “Zion.” He may have been influenced by the sharp distinction between the temple mount (i.e., the eastern ridge) as Zion and the western ridge as the City of David — a distinction already in vogue during the Hasmonean period (see III.A above).
The NT writers usually referred to Zion only in quotations from the OT, e.g., Mt. 21:5 and Jn. 12:15 (= Zec. 9:9); Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6 (= Isa. 28:16; cf. 8:14f); Rom. 11:26 (= Isa. 59:20; note Heb leṣîyôn rendered by Gk ek Siōn, “from Zion,” perhaps reflecting an ancient prepositional usage). None of these passages implies a connection with any particular ridge or hill within Jerusalem. On the other hand, twice in the NT “Zion” has a spiritual meaning. In HE 12:22 it represents the Christian fold as the abode of the living God, i.e., the “heavenly Jerusalem,” and Rev. 14:1 makes Mt. Zion the focal point of the messianic reign. This latter concept is also expressed in contemporary Jewish apocalyptic (e.g., Jub 1:28), which considered Zion the navel of the earth (8:19).
C. Later Developments Origen continued to identify Zion with the temple mount (In Ioannem iv.19f), and Jerome may have done the same in one passage (In Esai xxii.1f). Eusebius stated merely that Siōn was “a mountain in Jerusalem” (Onom 162.12), but Jerome translated “the mountain of Jerusalem” (Onom 163.14); the Greek original may imply that Zion was considered separate from the temple hill, but the evidence is tenuous. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333) clearly called the western ridge Sion, referring to both the southern portion outside the city wall of his day and also the northern part inside the city. Epiphanius (d A.D. 392), reputedly basing his statement on Hegesippus (2nd cent A.D.; though perhaps a work by Aristo of Pella stands behind the tradition), claimed that when Hadrian came to Jerusalem (A.D. 130) he found the entire city, including the temple mount, in ruins, except for Zion. This testimony makes good sense, in view of Josephus’s statement that Titus had left only Herod’s three towers (beside the present-day Jaffa Gate) and part of the western wall (BJ vi.9.1 [413]; vii.1.1 [1-4]); the 10th Legion camped on the western ridge. Therefore both Epiphanius and the Bordeaux Pilgrim have transferred the name Zion to the western ridge. Epiphanius referred to the “little church of God” commemorating the site where the disciples had assembled after the Ascension; subsequent church writers were unanimous in this testimony.
Apparently several factors led to the transfer of the name “Zion” to the western hill. First, in Hasmonean times the “City of David” was located on the western hill in contradistinction to the temple mount, which remained Mt. Zion. Then the Romans destroyed the entire city on the eastern ridge, including the temple. The western ridge survived the disaster of A.D. 70 and after 135, when Hadrian expelled the Jews from the city and denied the temple mount with his pagan shrine, the Christians were left with the southern promontory of the western ridge as the focal point for their own worship; meanwhile they kept alive the tradition that the site of the crucifixion was N of the northern extremity of the same ridge. Their own apologetic needs led them to interpret various passages (e.g., Isa. 2:3 and 59:20 as reflected in Rom. 11:26) as proof that their community was the new Zion, the center of revelation and redemption for the world.
Since the 10th cent A.D. the tomb of David has also been located on the southwest spur of the western ridge. Moslem writers of the 10th and 11th cents alluded to Christian (and Jewish) traditions in this regard. In the 12th cent Benjamin of Tudela recorded the story of the tomb’s “discovery” during excavations for repairs on the church on that site. The present structure houses the Cenaculum or “upper room,” evidently the building shown on the Madeba Map as attached to the basilica of Mt. Zion. Archeological investigation has shown that the original structure was a late Roman synagogue that was subsequently converted into a mosque.
IV. Modern Research
After his second visit to Jerusalem, the nineteenth-century scholar E. Robinson asserted that the identification of Zion with the western ridge was unassailable (Later Biblical Researches, p. 206). Others were already beginning to question this point, however, and during the ensuing decades many scholars contributed to a lively debate on the subject. F. F. Birch (PEQ, 1878ff) published a series of articles in which he argued strongly for the location of the City of David and Zion on the Ophel, i.e., the eastern ridge. Many others followed suit, including C. Wilson and C. Warren, two leading investigators of Jerusalem’s topography. Significant among Catholic scholars was the definitive essay by M. J. Lagrange (RB, 1 [1892], 17–38), whose expert knowledge of the city and its historical sources was unimpeachable. He demonstrated the prior claims of the eastern ridge and explained the transfer of the name in early Christian times as a natural outgrowth of the contemporary physical situation in the new Aelia Capitolina and of the Church’s spiritual aspirations. Thus both the demands of historical topography and the respect for ecclesiastical tradition were satisfied.
From 1948 to 1967 the southern spur of the western ridge was the only part of Old Jerusalem occupied by the Israelis. Because the Israelis were denied access to their holy places in the Jewish quarter, the Tomb of David became the focal point for pilgrimage and prayer. Modern Jews, Christians, and Moslems still use the name “Mt. Zion” for this southwest spur, and the gate opening onto it is known as the “Zion Gate.” The associations of Zion with the northern continuation of the western ridge, so fundamental to E. Robinson and others in the 19th cent, are practically forgotten. Scholarly circles generally acknowledge the claims regarding the eastern ridge as reflected in the biblical sources. Though archeological excavations shed new light on problems of Jerusalem’s topography from year to year, the most significant point for the location of Zion on the Ophel is the conclusive evidence that the pre-Israelite city, i.e., the Jebusite citadel conquered by David, was on the eastern ridge.
<image here>
The southwestern hill of “Zion” showing the mosque built over the crusader church on the traditional site of David’s tomb and the Last Supper (W. S. LaSor)
Bibliography.—E. Robinson, Biblical Researches (1856), I, 229–231, 241–43, 263–65; Later Biblical Researches (1856) pp. 177–189, 199f, 206–211; M. J. Lagrange, RB, 1 (1892), 17–38; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (1908), I, 134–169; S. Yeivin, JNES, 7 (1948), 30–45; H. Z. Hirschberg, Eretz-Israel, 3 (1954), 213–220; M. Avi-Yonah, Madeba Mosaic Map (1954), pp. 55f; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Engtr 1959), pp. 161ff, 404–409; D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Jerusalem,” in AOTS, pp. 276–295; K. M. Kenyon, Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History (1967); B. Mazar, etal, “Jerusalem,” in EAEHL (1970) I, 211–241; M. Avi-Yonah, IEJ, 21 (1971), 168f; EAEHL, II, sv “Jerusalem” (O. Bar-Yoseph, etal).
A. F. RAINEY
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 1198-200.
Slava,
Frederick W. Danker (the D in the famous BDAG greek lexicon) wrote a book for grad students back in 1993 called Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. Although it is now somewhat out of date (I don't think the later revisions were done very well), here is what he said about multi-volume Bible Dictionaries.
"For those who read only English, and for all who wish a quick trip to knowledge in the fast-moving world of developments in biblical research, two works dominate the field. The first is The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), ed. David Noel Freedman, and associates Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, and John David Pleins, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992). The discussion, for example, of the census recorded in Luke 2, one of two under the general entry “Census,” is a model of fidelity to the state of knowledge and is quite representative of the responsible scholarship that floods this dictionary without sinking in bewildering verbiage the broader public that is purportedly envisaged by contributors to the Anchor Bible Series (AB).
Second, but not always in breadth of treatment, is The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (ISBE), rev. ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, with associates Everett F. Harrison, Roland K. Harrison, and William Sanford LaSor, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–88). This is a “fully revised” edition of what had long been a fixture in ministers’ studies. A random comparison of entries suggests the importance of making use of more than one dictionary. For example, ISBE not only contains specific entries on Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries but also lists outstanding commentaries at the end of each article on a biblical book, whereas ABD offers no such detailed information in these two categories. Although the number of volumes in ABD exceeds those in ISBE, the latter has eleven columns in the entry “Apostolic Council,” and ABD only three under “Jerusalem, Council of.” Moreover, it would be imprudent, as also the editors of ABD acknowledge, to ignore an earlier publication, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (IDB), 4 vols., edited by George Arthur Buttrick and respected associates (New York, Nashville: Abingdon, 1962). A supplement, ed. Keith Renn Crim (New York, 1976), preludes some of the topical interests that give a special stamp to ABD.
IDB is marked by such excellent scholarship that its entries remain sources of basic information, and its organization of data is in some respects preferable to that of ABD. For example, IDB contains an entire column (ISBE about a half column) on the use of the word “apple” in the English Bible (mainly RSV), whereas ABD directs its user—a la “find-the-treasure-in-the-dungeon computer game”—to “Flora, Biblical,” where one hunts under a sylvan subheading “Fruit Trees, Nut Trees, and Shrubs” and finds the word “Apple,” with a further direction to “see Apricot and Quince,” both of which mercifully follow without requiring much further search, but offer only a few pits of information; and for “Apple of the Eye” (absent in ABD) one must go to IDB, which offers more information than ISBE. In short, no ministerial library (whether private or church) should be lacking any of the three. In the last analysis, ABD, when compared with IDB and ISBE, marks the boundary between an older fact-gathering emphasis with stress on synthesis and a developing attention to epistemological concerns; or, as the editors express it, “How do we know what we know about this topic?”
Danker, F. W. (1993). Multipurpose tools for Bible study (Rev. and expanded ed.) (150–151). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
IBD is no longer available, but Logos has its successor (which I don't know much about) the NIBD in prepub at a very good price. Note that the IVP dictionaries were published after Danker's book--I think they are very good and a great value, but they are somewhat less academically critical than ABD.
As Dennis pointed out, the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible will probably be the rival to AYBD in Logos. I don't have the print version so cannot verify this, but the older IDB was of a quality similar to AYBD.
Vote for it to get produced here: http://www.logos.com/product/8801/new-interpreters-dictionary-of-the-bible It is a great deal at the pre-pub price of $139.95 even if it ends up falling below ISBE, Rev. in value (which I doubt it will).
While not yet complete in Logos, the IVP Old Testament Dictionaries are worth acquiring. Logos has the volumes on the Pentateuch and on the Historical Books available. Hopefully we'll see the volume on Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings soon, and the one on the Prophets once it is released (supposedly this year).
Let me also put a good word in for the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible. It's written at the level of ISBE, but with colour photos, and often more information, and its slightly more up-to-date. Personally I prefer it over the ISBE, and I'll normally consult it alongside AYBD.
Thanks to all for your input. My wish list grows bigger. How is The Essential IVP Reference Collection Version 3 for the New Testament. For the OT I will defenetly look in IVP Dictionary of OT, and other ones suggested above
How is The Essential IVP Reference Collection Version 3 for the New Testament.
It is excellent. Contains the dictionaries others have mentioned on the NT. I'd put obtaining that second behind AYBD. Shop around, there are some good prices for this collection.
I agree with Dan, who agrees with Ted, who agress with Mark and Andy.
i agree with Ted, who agrees with Mark and Andy. I agree with Dan, who agrees with Ted, who agress with Mark and Andy.
And I agree with Michael, who agrees with............who lives in the house that Jack built.
On my opinion AYBD is excellent. NIBD (now on prepub) is superb and all other complementing.
FWIW - I came into Logos 3 by way of The Essential IVP Reference Collection Version 3. I was so impressed by the way Logos worked and the size and excellence of the Collection - and the price. It was this introduction that caused me to finally take the leap and buy a base package. And I am so glad I did. that was in August of 2008, a time that I view as a turning point in my life / ministry. [And AYBD and ISBA,Revised are great resources. I will pick up the Zondervan work later this year, y'hi ratzon.]
The NIDB can be found here. A search of the website for 'NIDB' does not seem to produce any hits.
Oh Lord, help me overcome envy! [:(]
i did not know you had that preference, Mark. I do like the photos. I have liked the few articles that are more current. but I was pretty disappointed most of the articles were old Zondervan Pictorial articles, even older than ISBE revised and often less in depth and breadth.
Oh Lord, help me overcome envy!
That is what payment plans are for [:D]
All,
Dan Francis has posted an entry from the NIBD at http://community.logos.com/forums/p/44246/329273.aspx#329273
Jeffrey, David L. A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.
I had a soft spot for the old Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, too (which only predates ISBE by four years) [:)]
I had a soft spot for the old Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, too (which only predates ISBE by four years)
Admit it, Mark. You just don't like sentence books without pictures. [;)]
nice to see your tender side. [{] might it be similar to my wife's soft-spot for SPAM? (canned variety) [:P]
i did not know you had that preference, Mark. I do like the photos. I have liked the few articles that are more current. but I was pretty disappointed most of the articles were old Zondervan Pictorial articles, even older than ISBE revised and often less in depth and breadth. I had a soft spot for the old Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, too (which only predates ISBE by four years)
Me, too. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, then doesn't that mean I'm learning faster? And are those 1,000 words all ones I already know or am I increasing my vocabulary, too? The possibilities are endless....
I was just using the IVP "Black" NT Dictionaries and was really wishing they had the tagging the AYBD has...
We are addicts - give us a little and we want MORE!!!
Yes, please
