Does James Strong's Affiliation Matter?

James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., compiled the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Many have claimed that he was a Mason and that this affects the authenticity of his work. But does it really affect whether his work can be trusted? No. First, the claim that he was a Mason is an unsubstantiated rumor, possibly spread by someone who wants to advance their own ideas without the blockage caused by a widely respected and accurate work.

Who was James Strong? He was born in New York city in 1822 and died in Round Lake, NY in 1894. Dr. Strong was a Methodist. He graduated valedictorian from Wesleyan University (a purely Methodist university) in 1844. In 1856 Wesleyan University granted him the degree of Doctor of Divinity (D.D.). From 1858 until 1861, Strong was both Acting President and Professor of Biblical Literature at Troy University (New York). In 1868 he became Professor of Exegetical Theology at Drew Theological Seminary, where he remained for twenty-seven years. In 1881 Wesleyan honored Strong with the degree of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.).

His work on Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has been criticized by some solely for the fact that he was never fluent in either Greek or Hebrew. But is this really reason to criticize his work? Consider when you write a report on a book or some scientific subject. Do you need to be fluent in those subjects for your report to be considered accurate? Do you need to have a degree in physics to write about the effects of a quasar? No. Time and the wide acceptance and standard use of his work have proven that it was a scholarly effort.

However, what if he was indeed a Mason? Should we be concerned? Concerned about what? Secret societies, obscure rituals, hermeticism, and strange conclusions culled from obscure research? These things in no way affect whether one's work can be considered scholarly. Scientists and archaeologists draw conclusions from very little data that eventually gets disproved all the time and does this affect their reputations? No. But are we talking about theories and speculation with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance? Not even close. Strong's Concordance was based on preexisting research, not on Dr. Strong's knowledge. All he did was number every Hebrew and Greek root word found in the Bible and scholarly recorded the major uses of those words in various translations. That is the extent of his contribution.

Now it may be that some are confusing "hermeticism" (the practice of pseudo-scientific magic adopted by the Masons) with "hermeneutics" (a research philosophy). Biblical hermeneutics is the practice of determining relationships found between the author, the reader, and the text. This field of study would only have affected Strong's work on "McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature", "A New Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels", and maybe "The Tabernacle of Israel in the Desert". It would in no way affect his work on the Exhaustive Concordance.

Could Dr. Strong get away with changing the meanings of words and over 100 years later not one single person has exposed it? What matters is the attestation of other scholars, and James Strong not only has the attestation of leading scholars, but they use his reference works for much of their own work and have made many works that utilize the numbering. There is a reason why his work is so widely used. It is because his work has withstood the test of time and reflects legitimate scholarly workmanship of the highest caliber.

But has Strong's work been left unedited? On the contrary. Since its creation, it has been revised and updated repeatedly to reflect the latest understanding of Biblical texts. But in whose hands has this occurred? Under the hands of Masons? Not solely. Currently it is published as "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Not associated with Masons, but with Methodists), "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" by Thomas Nelson Publishers, and "The Stronger Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" by Zondervan Press.

Also see the following articles:
James Strong (Theologian)
Hermeneutics
Strong's Concordance

Comments

Wordherder said…
A quick note. Dr. Strong was not a Methodist minister. He was a layman in the Methodist Episcopal Church who pushed for reforms to allow more say by laity in that church and he also was one of the leaders who called for more theological education for those who were Methodist ministers.
Dismythed said…
I've looked through several biographies about James Strong and none of them mention anything about the Episcopal Church. I also found nothing regarding reforming anything. However, it is true that he wasn't a minister.
Dismythed said…
To Anonymous of 4/21/14 of 7:39 AM:

http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2014/03/does-faithful-and-discreet-slave-mediate.html

Who is brainwashed? The one basing statements from the Scriptures? Or the one following the words of men over the Scriptures?
Dismythed said…
Apologies, Mr. Padrón. I could not post your comment because it lacked support and jumped around on subjects unrelated to the subject of this post. If you wish to focus your comment on whether James Strong was affiliated with the Freemasons and whether such an affiliation affected the quality of his work, or wish to challenge any statement I made in the post, then feel free to comment again.
Unknown said…
Unknown wrote [at 7:57 AM on Feb 24, 2019]: [I believe] Freemasons are saved... So yes it would affect his work
Thank you for your opinion, unknown.
Gina Watford said…
[Comment originally posted on March 12, 2019 at 11:12 AM]

I think the subject matter is regarding "The Word" and since The Bible tells us the power of life and death is in the tongue as well as Jesus bringing his sword upon his return, this has certainly always been a huge worry if mine that time and the wisdom found only in prayer has been my only trustworthy consolidation or validation. Since God did not write the scripture we are at the mercy of man and not God when it comes to the contemplation of which authors and which words were chosen and hence translated from the Most High, Our Father as opposed to familiar spirits wanting to be received as HIM. The Bible is just a reference to take to HIM in prayer and prayer alone. That is the safe "space" where my divine speaks, through His image, which is our soul and not anything on the physical plane. Jesus could have written a autobiography had he chosen. My humble opinion is concluded in something I took away from the "divinley inspired Book"...the flesh is WEAK the spirit is STRONG. Revelation warns of a STRONG Delusion so I personally can't help but be suspicious of a STRONG translation.So when I ask myself if Strong's affiliation matters, I see matter as flesh so speak and the flesh is weak so I ask the most High to be my spiritual translator. This is again, my very humble opinion.

[Edited for content. Off-topic discussions are not permitted.]
Solitairecat said…
James Strong’s affiliation doesn’t matter but we need to test his work to see if it is from God as John warned in 1 John 4:1.

If we look at Gen 2:7 in Hebrew, the meaning is different than the English translation.

The following words are translated in a neutral way, using Strong’s Concordance definitions, aphar is translated ‘dust’, naphach is translated ‘breathe’, aph is translated ‘nose’, neshamah is translated ‘breath’, chay is translated ‘life’ and ‘living’, and nephesh is translated ‘being, person, soul’, making it appear this was when God created man. However, when Paul quotes this verse in 1 Cor 15:45, comparing the first man Adam becoming a living soul with the last Adam, Yahshua, becoming a life-giving spirit, it becomes apparent that this is when man lost eternal life, became mortal, ‘natural’ as he goes on to describe in v. 46 – 49.

If we look at Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, aphar also means ‘ashes, powder, rubbish’, naphash also means ‘cause to lose life, seething, snuff’, aph also means ‘angry’, neshamah means ‘soul’, chay means ‘appetite, wild beast’, nephesh means ‘desire, passion, appetite, emotion’ and in Gen 1:20, 21 & 24 is translated ‘creatures’.

So when “Formed Yahweh gods the man . . .”, rather than “ . . . dust from the ground and breathed into nostrils breath of life and became the man a being living.“, it is more likely “ . . . ashes from the ground and snuffed in anger soul appetite and became the man a creature wild beast.”

Whether James Strong is responsible, the translators,or both is uncertain, but this proves that we can’t rely on the English translation.
Dismythed said…
Solitaircat

Have you really not given any thought to those verses? It seems clear that you have not.

1 John 4:1 is talking about messages claiming inspiration. James Strong, and those who have edited his work since, have never claimed inspiration. There have Lso been hundreds of translations of the Bible and I am not aware of a single one that supports what you wrote. Are you really saying that you have been appointed by God to declare all translations false?

Also, are you trying to say that James Strong was right or wrong? Because you are using James Strong to support your alternate rendering.

If what you say about 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 were true, then how do you explain Paul's words in verse 46, saying, "What is spiritual is not first"? By your assumption, he should be saying the exact opposite, that spirit is first, then physical second.

"Formed Yahweh gods the man . . .", and " ". . . dust from the ground and breathed into nostrils breath of life and became the man a being living," does not contradict in the least. One minute the man was not formed, the next he was. One minute the man was not breathing and the next he was. One minute he was not a living soul and the next he was.

The translation you stated makes no sense whatsoever. If I try to make sense of it, it looks like this: "Jehovah gods formed the man from ashes from the ground and snuffed in an appitite of an angry living thing and the man became a wild beast."

Just because words have a variety of meanings depending on the context does not mean that we cannot know their meaning in that context. For example, in our own language, most words have many synonyms and each can be applied in a variety of ways. Just earlier today I was searching for a synonym for "correspond", in the sense of writing letters, but it gave me mostly synonyms for the sense of being "similar". Two entirely different meanings. Are you saying that context is not enough to distinguish one from the other? If I say, "I would like to correspond with you," as I wrote today, would you think I wanted to become like him? Of course not.

Now allow me to give you the exact meaning of the original Hebrew prefixes and suffixes that you clearly do not understand:

"And pressed Yahweh God* at red* the gray of the red*-thing and let-pah-thing in nose-let-with the exhale-much-masculine of life* and became the red* a shell-pah-thing life."

* the letter "M" in Hebrew is a magnifier meaning "much" used to indicate either plural or a special use. Thus "Elohim" literally means "much god", translated as either "gods" or "high god".

The word "pressed" refers to the action of pressing, molding or forming clay. The Hebrew word "Elohim" always refers to a singular being when applied to Jehovah, as indicated by the context. "Red" (Adam) refers to a singular individual whose name reflects his origin, namely "red* thing" (See below). "Gray" (apar) always refers to any powdery substance or the color of ash, and most often refers to what comes from the ground or from an ash pile. "Red-thing" (adamah) always refers to the soil, namely red soil, or clay, the origin of the gray, or dirt. "Let-pah-thing" (yippah) is referring to the flow of "pah" or breath; the thing that blows. "Nose-let-with" (appaw) refers, not just to the nose, but to the part of the nose that it "lets with". "Exhale-much-masculine" (nismat) is the masculine (active) form of breathing, indicating that it acts on its own, involuntarily. "Shell-pah-thing" (nippah) refers to the breath being contained within a shell or skin, having walls.
Dismythed said…
... This then correctly translates to: "And formed Jehovah God* at man* the dust of the ground, and blew into nostrils the breath of life* and became the man* a living soul life." And with English grammar appears as some variation of: "And Jehovah God formed the man from the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul."

Hebrew is the most well understood language of the ancient world. Please do not claim to be an authority on something that you clearly know nothing about.

For the record, James Strong's work is not the sole source of translation. There are books that teach Hebrew grammar and other sources that teach the origins of original Hebrew words. You have demonstrated no awareness of any of them.
Unknown said…
Its interesting how throughout these comments, tge name of Yahweh somehow transformed to Jehovah and so its clear what is taking place.
Dismythed said…
Let's analyze the facts.

1) "Jesus" is the latinization of the Greek Yesuos, which is a greekification of the Hebrew "Yeshuah", which is a reduction of "Yeheshuah". So which of these names should we be pronouncing in regard to our savior?

2) "Jehovah" is the latinization of the name represented by the Hebrew letters "YHWH". Why, then, do you spell it "Yahweh"? If pronunciation is important, then certainly spelling is important also, as the Bible DOES clearly show us how it is spelled.

3) The Bible never explains how God's name is pronounced.

4) The Bible never gives any importance to the pronunciation of God's name.

5) Modern Jews did a study to find the pronunciation of God's name in 2,000 ancient scrolls faithfully copied through the centuries and found that God's name was likely originally pronounced as "Yehovah".

6) If, in English, we latanize the first letter to a J, what authority do you have to claim that we are not allowed to latinize God's name?

God's word does not judge for pronunciation. It does, however, judge for judging others.