Reviewed Book: Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987

Dahle, David W.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 15Issue 1 Mission of the Church Article 125-1-1989The Eerdmans Bible DictionaryDavid W. DahleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationDahle, David W. (1989) "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Consensus: Vol. 15 : Iss. 1 , Article 12.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol15/iss1/12Book Reviews 115Through the parable of the seeds Borsch takes another similarly thoughtprovoking direction by concluding that these parables might teach us “to becareless while caring”. There is much that happens in the growth of seedsthat must be left up to the invisible and uncontrollable powers of nature.Similarly, there are aspects of the life and witness of Christians that mustbe left up to the invisible forces. While we should pray and be concerned(care), we should also be “care less”, trusting in God’s grace and mercy.If there were anything of which Borsch would be guilty it would bestretching some of the limits of both the interpretation of certain parables,and the meaning of parable itself (after reading the epilogue one may wellask what is not a parable?). But this is a relatively minor offense given thescope of the work. In terms of a book which briefly surveys the approachesscholars have taken to the parables in general and on an individual basiswith some fresh and challenging insights, it is a book worth considering forinclusion in the parish or pastor’s library.Norman R. HennigSt. Matthew, Mildmay and St. Paul, Neustadt, OntarioThe Eerdmans Bible DictionaryAllen C. Myers, editorGrand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,19871116 pp., U.S. $29.95The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary is a translation and revision of the 1975edition of the Dutch Bijbelse Encyclopedie edited by W.H. Gispen. Accord-ing to the editors, the English edition contains 286 totally new entries andis about 40% larger than the 1975 edition.As a way to assess this Bible dictionary I shall compare its featureswith Harper’s Bible Dictionary^ the recent cooperative project of Harper k.Row and the Society for Biblical Literature. Harper’s was edited by PaulJ. Achtemeier and published in 1985.Although Eerdmans has approximately 100 pages less text thanHarper’s it is more comprehensive in its coverage with nearly 5000 entriescompared to Harper’s 3700, and also contains more written text. The in-creased coverage is due to Eerdmans’ editorial policy of including all ncimesfound in the Bible whereas Harper’s includes, with some exceptions, onlynames that occur at least three times. In order to obtain such increasedcoverage in fewer pages, Eerdmans has used smaller, and thus more difficultto read, print than Harper’s.Although Eerdmans hzus more written text. Harper’s has more pho-tographs (16 pages in colour and over 500 black-and-white photographs116 Consensuscompared to about 120 black-and-white photographs for Eerdmans), moremaps (16 pages in colour and 72 black-and-white maps compared to 12pages in colour for Eerdmans), and more charts and line drawings. Thecolour maps for both dictionaries were produced by Hammond, Inc., butHarper are more useful because of the seven-page index of places includedwith the maps.The range of topics covered by both dictionaries is immense, goingbeyond just entries on persons, places, plants, animals, and objects men-tioned in the Bible and on all the biblical books (including the Apocryphal,Deuterocanonical, and Pseudepigraphal books) to entries on important an-cient Near Eastern civilizations, extrabiblical writings such as the Dead SeaScrolls, archaeological sites, biblical criticism, and the early Church. Forstudents of the biblical languages Eerdmans provides very helpful transliter-ations and translations of all terms in Hebrew', Greek, or other languages,whereas Harper’s provides translations of such terms, but does not givetransliterations. Harper’s is especially good in its articles on archaeologicalsites, since those who have written the articles are often those who have par-ticipated in the most recent excavations. The abundant use of photographsis a further aid to understanding these sites. Harper’s goes beyond whatone would expect in a Bible dictionary by also including two long articleson the influence of the Bible on art and literature up to the present time.In theological stance Eerdmans is “primarily evangelical in focus”, butits editors have attempted “to display greater sensitivity to the broad spec-trum of interpretation” by “presenting as objectively as possible divergentperspectives” (v). A major difference between the two dictionaries is in theirchoice of specialists for writing (and for Eerdmans^ revising) the articles.Eerdmans uses 48 contributors (6 of whom w’ere also contributors to the1975 edition) “including not only Reformed, but also Baptist, Brethren,Disciples, Episcopal, Mennonite, Methodist (and Wesleyan), Pentecostal,Presbyterian, and Independent, as well as Roman Catholic and Jewish”scholars (v). Eerdmans indicates which entries are new and which havebeen extensively revised but does not give the academic affiliation of thecontributors nor indicate which entries they revised or newly contributed.Eerdmans does not indicate how many authors contributed to the 1975 edi-tion on which this edition is based. Harper’s^ on the other hand, has 179contributors from seven countries: their academic affiliations are given andtheir authorship of entries is indicated by the use of their initials. AlthoughHarper’s contributors do not write “from any confessional perspective, butrather from the broad perspective of expert biblical knowledge” (xix), itis possible to see from their academic affiliations that they represent amuch wider range of religious affiliations than Eerdmans^ including severalLutherans. No Lutherans contributed to Eerdmans’ revision.Eerdmans’ theological stance can be seen by its presentation of moreliteral interpretations along with interpretations reached through thehistorical-critical method. Harper’s, on the other hand, only makes useof the methods of historical-critical interpretation. An example of theirBook Reviews 117approaches can be seen in their entries on the Pentateuch and its sources.Eerdmans gives as much space to the traditional view that Moses was re-sponsible for the Pentateuch as to the Documentary Hypothesis of mod-ern scholars, even though concluding that the historical-critical approachis important for understanding the sources for the Pentateuch. Harper’sdiscusses only the Documentary Hypothesis.In conclusion, I can say that I am happy to possess both dictionar-ies. For its comprehensiveness, wider range of theological interpretation,and greater attention to linguistic details I find Eerdmans a valuable re-source. For its more pleasing format (larger print, more pictures, maps,and charts), wider range of authors, and more up-to-date biblical criti-cism I value Harper’s. A further plus for Harper’s is the newly published(1988) companion volume. Harper’s Bible Commentary, with its extensivecross-references to the dictionary.David W. DahleCamrose Lutheran College, Camrose, AlbertaThe Living Voice of the GospelFrancis J. MoloneyNew York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1986U.S. $8.95Francis Moloney wishes to bring to laypeople the insights that have beengained by careful and responsible scholarship. The growing sophisticationof believers, especially among the young, suggests to him that the time isripe for scholars to communicate with laypersons on a more challenginglevel.After a general introduction regarding the appropriate reading of agospel the author devotes two chapters to each of the four gospels, out-lining first the general argument and the major theological issues foundwithin the gospel under consideration, and then examining a particularsection from that gospel. In the concluding chapter Moloney reflects on thedynamism that has always characterized the revelation of the Word of Godin Scriptures and in the Tradition.Moloney presents data which demonstrate that the gospels are at vari-ance with one another at significant points. “There are two very differ-ent versions of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth” (93), he observes, and thegospels often diverge widely in the way in which they portray such inci-dents cLS Peter’s confession of faith, for instance. Careful comparison of theMatthean Sermon on the Mount with the corresponding material in Luke,leads Moloney to conclude: “If we claim that the gospels are historical, inthe modern sense of the term, then either Luke or Matthew must have their

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary

Scholars Commons

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2012&amp;context=consensus

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons