Theocratic Aid To Kingdom Publishers

Lesson 58

BIBLE DICTIONARIES AS STUDY AIDS

Sometime prior to A.D. 340 Eusebius Pamphili produced his Onomasticon, meaning the correct use of names, the name places of the Scriptures. It was about the first systematic effort toward a Bible dictionary. However, it was not until 1722 that a dictionary of the Bible was produced similar to those in use today. It was compiled by Augustin Calmet, a French monk. In 1769 John Brown published his dictionary of the Bible. In 1863 William Smith released his three-volume Bible dictionary. Many others followed after that, but, in the main, Smith's three-volume set provided the basis for them. Few, if any, have surpassed it. The following discussion shows some of the aids they offer to the Theocratic minister.

Many animals and plants are referred to in the Scriptures, yet information as to their habits or growth, destructiveness or usefulness, etc., is seldom presented in the Bible record. One's understanding of the parable of the trees (Judges chapter 9) is increased if he looks up in a Bible dictionary "cedars" or "Lebanon" or "bramble", and the other plants mentioned. The Song of Solomon speaks of the little foxes in the vineyards. All Bible dictionaries agree that the damage they do is extensive, and appreciation of this fact helps in understanding that their destruction is not a violation of the everlasting covenant concerning the sanctity of life.

Oftentimes in Bible usage clothing identifies in some specific sense the wearer. Take, for example, the case of Elijah and Elisha. Though their work was different they had one thing in common: a mantle. The mantle was a sleeveless robe or garment usually made of sheepskin, and tied around the loins so as to give freedom for movement of the arms. Smith's three-volume dictionary adds: "Since the time of Elijah this garb has become the recognized sign of a prophet of Jehovah."

The geographical setting of events is always interesting to know, and often necessary to a full appreciation of a prophetic drama. Mark 3:7, 8 reads: "Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him." The mere naming of these cities and towns means little, but if the names of these various places are looked up in a good Bible dictionary and the maps in its back pages consulted, and it is seen that in those days of slow travel the people came from an area of several thousand square miles, some traveling days to get to Jesus, one really appreciates that many of the common people were anxious to hear the Master.

Referring to the name "Rome" in the various dictionaries, it is interesting to note that certain dictionaries immediately connect the Papacy with that city of persecution of Christians, while others do not. For example, Smith's three-volume dictionary says: "The gardens of Nero in the Vatican, not far from the spot where St. Peter's now stands. Here Christians wrapped in the skins of beasts were torn to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable robes, were burnt to serve as torches during the midnight games. Others were crucified." From centuries back to the present time the site of the Vatican has been associated with persecutions and inquisitions. Under the heading "Rome" Brown's Bible dictionary reads: "There have been about two hundred and thirty bishops and popes at Rome. Among the first 65 I find nothing remarkably good. Of the last 165 I find not one giving any tolerable evidence of the grace of God in him; but all of them pretenders to the headship of the Christian church, and many of them noted for falsehood, perjury, murder, whoredom, magic, and almost everything horrid." Dictionaries of later date do not speak so plainly concerning Rome.

Sometimes words not appearing in the Bible itself but which are prominent in religion may be listed. "Apocrypha" is in point. Brown's Bible dictionary says: "Few of them [the Apocryphal books] were allowed to be canonical till in the ninth and tenth centuries when the ignorance of the people and the craft of the clergy were so great as to allow anything to pass for divine." Smith's write-up reads at one point: "It was reserved for the age of the Reformation to stamp the word Apocrypha with its present signification."

In using dictionaries one must know wherein they are reliable, and those portions that should be rejected. When they deal objectively with history, races, religious practices, animals, and dress, they are of use. Their geographical locations are not always accurate, neither are the meanings they assign to proper names, and all of them commit gross errors in chronology. The principal thing to guard against, however, is private interpretation and higher criticism. The preface of a dictionary will usually tell one what to expect in its pages. To illustrate, compare the following statements from the prefaces of two works, one much older than the other.

From Davis' Bible dictionary (1924): "The interpretation of Scripture which is frequently involved in the statement of facts will, it is believed, be found to be sober, fair, and just."

From Smith's three-volume set (1863): "It is a dictionary of the Bible, and not of theology. It is intended to elucidate the antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha; but not to explain systems of theology, or discuss points of controversial divinity." In the preface of Smith's one-volume work he says: "The simple explanation of this work, unlike the exposition of a commentary, admits no denominational or sectarian coloring, and it is therefore equally valuable to Bible readers of every diversity of belief."

Thus it is seen that the earlier works are usually of more value. Those of later date go astray in a maze of higher criticism, modernism, evolution, religious interpretation, and other like fields of worldly "wisdom" which is foolishness with Jehovah God and those having full faith in his inspired Word, the Bible. Drawing the good from the Bible dictionaries, however, and leaving the chaff behind, one does derive from them considerable knowledge of value.