Just wondering what the consensus is of this resource on Logos. I am referring to content alone (contra formatting).
While I am not much on Bible dictionaries, this one seems to be held in high esteem by the academic community and I am wondering what sets it apart from other biblical dictionaries.
Is this a resource you go to often? If so, what is the value that you have noticed throughout the years?
Thank you in advance.
https://apostolicacademics.com/
I've been using it for some years now and I find it indispensable. It's never come up short on a Bible-related enquiry - sometimes overly detailed for a brief information search - but always academically sound without reverting to the Evangelical party line as the more conservative ISBE often does. It occupies a permanent window in all my Logos layout workspaces and it's permanently loaded on my mobile phone next to my preferred Bible translation.
Sam Henderson: I've been using it for some years now and I find it indispensable. It's never come up short on a Bible-related enquiry - sometimes overly detailed for a brief information search - but always academically sound without reverting to the Evangelical party line as the more conservative ISBE often does. It occupies a permanent window in all my Logos layout workspaces and it's permanently loaded on my mobile phone next to my preferred Bible translation.
Thank you Sam. I do like the idea that it doesn’t have a credal or denominal angle while simultaneously maintaining rigid academics. This is good info.👍.
It's one of my favorites. I go to it whenever I need in-depth information on any biblical subject. Regardless of your theological perspective, you will find much of value in it. Few others rival it in the level of detail it provides. It is very much worth acquiring, especially if you can find a discount for it (I picked mine up at a good rate a couple versions of Logos ago when I bought it along with a base package.)
It is also one of my favorites for the reasons stated already.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
There is a reason this item is found in most colleges, universities, Bible colleges, and seminaries of all types and persuasions. If such a diverse group of institutions have it in their holdings, it must be useful fora wide variety of folk. Check for AYB on WorldCat.org and you will see how widely it is found in libraries.
Shalom,
Joseph
Joseph F. Sollenberger, Jr.
It’s my go-to as well, for the depth, the breadth, and the non-denominational aspect. The one downside is, it’s about 30 years old at this point.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
There is so much knowledge packed in this resource... and it is still largely current despite its age. I've been contemplating reading it through (one article a day) as a fruitful exercise to increase one's biblical knowledge.
Puddin’:Is this a resource you go to often? If so, what is the value that you have noticed throughout the years?
It's not perfect, but it has useful basic information (usually correct) on a lot of stuff. I use it more frequently than any other Bible dictionary. Its scholarship is no longer the latest, but I'm unaware of anything newer that does what it does.
Pre-order A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament today!
Must have.
Thank you to every single post. Done deal. As stated, I personally shy away from Bible dictionaries and commentary’s unless they are exegetical in nature w. an emphasis on original languages. When I was younger I was a commentary-dictionary fiend! But, the older I have gotten the more interested I am in rigorous exegesis and the less interested I am in theology per se (though I realize we allll have theological commitments, whether we acknowledge it or not).
I also have the Oxford Bible Dictionary, Ancient Biblical Culture Dictionary, etc.—but from what little I have read so far, as stated, this is one in-depth dictionary. Simply, Wowsie!
As others have noted, one of my concerns was that it’s beginning to age fairly well. However, and I could be completely off base here, I assume (?) that updates are made periodically. Thank you again—very reason I switched over to Logos for serious academics.
A great resource. But it has an extended article on the History of the Rechabites while missing an article on Reconciliation. Still, it’s great.
I don't think reconcialition would be considered a must-have topic in Biblical Studies as it is in ministry or would be in theology.
Not to drag this thread out, but after seeing the other thread just started about the IVP Series (https://www.logos.com/product/37742/ivp-bible-dictionary-series-8-volumes) I was wondering what the difference is (?).
I have seen exegetes such as Porter, Evans, etc. in the IVP series—which really caught my attention.
Wondering what this series would add to the ABD, if anything.
Puddin’:Not to drag this thread out, but after seeing the other thread just started about the IVP Series (https://www.logos.com/product/37742/ivp-bible-dictionary-series-8-volumes) I was wondering what the difference is (?).
That's my other favorite. In my opinion (or, at least in terms of what I use it for) it dips a lot more into Biblical Theology than Anchor. The two really complement each other well. I use Anchor for biblical background and understanding and IVP more for sermon & lesson topical prep.
So yes, you want this set too. It comes on sale fairly frequently, too.
So, in turns of study, for depth my top two are Anchor and IVP. (My third most used Bible dictionary is probably the Lexham Bible Dictionary--surprised?)
Sean: Puddin’:Not to drag this thread out, but after seeing the other thread just started about the IVP Series (https://www.logos.com/product/37742/ivp-bible-dictionary-series-8-volumes) I was wondering what the difference is (?). That's my other favorite. In my opinion (or, at least in terms of what I use it for) it dips a lot more into Biblical Theology than Anchor. The two really complement each other well. I use Anchor for biblical background and understanding and IVP more for sermon & lesson topical prep. So yes, you want this set too. It comes on sale fairly frequently, too. So, in turns of study, for depth my top two are Anchor and IVP. (My third most used Bible dictionary is probably the Lexham Bible Dictionary--surprised?)
Ahhh, good points. Added the IVP series to my wish list.
Oh, and, so far, I am liking anything put out by Lexham (I know I’m reallyyyy late to the game in this way😏).
Thank you.
One of the best if not The Best dictionary! I would love to see a revised edition of the Anchor Dictionary updated with the latest research on all the topics!
DAL
I agree with the comments above--recognizing its point-of-view, ABD is an excellent dictionary. I would add though that if you own the Lexham Bible Dictionary, you already have a comparable resource.
ABD was published in 1992. LBD was first published in 2011, then last revised and expanded in 2016. ABD has 6,200 entries, while LBD has more than 7,000. The entry on "Aaron" in ABD has 5,917 words compared to 2,484 in LBD. "Apocrypha, Old Testament" has 1,662 words in ABD, while LBD has 3,481.
If you already have LBD, you don't have a gaping hole in your library. ABD frequently goes on sale. When it does, I would recommend buying it.
I have it, but the few times I've used it I've either not found what I'm looking for, or what it has suffers from a theological bent that masks itself as scholasticism (aka scholarly). I find there to be a vast divide between scholars who do believe in the possibility of miracles & prophecy of the far future, & those who don't. ABD & the AB itself (which I used to own in paper copy) both come from the group that does not believe in the possibility. I believe that to be a theological difference worth noting. It isn't that I won't use resources from the group that includes ABD, but I am on guard constantly in their theological interpretations or their reconstructions of Scripture based on their disbelief. To the extent I can find what I'm looking for in ABD & that it sticks to the historical facts (not its reconstructions of what the facts should've been), I find it useful.
To illustrate the difference, I find NICOT's 2-volume set by John Oswalt, though he obviously believes in the possibility of prophecy of the far future, to be every bit as scholarly as the scholarly works that don't (no quotes around the word scholarly deliberately, as they ARE scholarly... it's the theological stance that divides them, not their degree of scholasticism).
As always, YMMV (your mileage may vary)... that's just my $.02.
Grace & Peace,BillMSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050MaxiPhone 12 Pro Max 512GbFire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen
You're right BillS in that NICOT is a confessional resource whereas ABD is not. There are pros and cons to both (being confessional or non-confessional). Confessional resources are more faith-friendly but can be theologically biased to the detriment of the a more objective presentation of information. On the other hand, non-confessional often hardly means neutral and often adopts a skeptic stance. So the question is not whether the authors are more or less scholarly (or even the articles).
A steady diet of skeptic scholarship can take a toll over time as speculation and views are often stated as fact and the consensus view of scholars today. Confessional resources are good to explore other ways to approach the data as long as this is done credibly. On the other hand confessional resources can be confined to a conceptual world which constrains its analyses as well (especially where data seems to theaten cherished interpretations). So resources like ABD are also good to offer a less theologically slanted approach to the issues.