Customer Reviews

Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The book is overall very good quality inside and out. It self-proclaims that it is MORE "accurate, up-to-date, complete numbering system, and user-friendly" than Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary. My review is mixed, even though overall I do like the book.

PROS:
1. Indeed, some of the entries are more up-to-date than Vine's. But you cannot really tell the difference. A simple lay person has to believe that it is up-to-date.
2. I do find OT entries more complete than the Vine's, but shorter in definition. It simply has more entries for OT words than Vine's book. And I find it useful.
3. Dictionaries at the back really helps. These dictionaries are not concordance dictionaries where you find them at the back of concordance. These dictionaries provide short but clear definitions for the word at hand. Truly handy.
4. Hardcover book is clean and tight. Pages are thin (like the pages of the Bible)... this could be either pro or con depends on your preference.

CONS:
1. Some NT entries are not necessarily better than Vine's in my opinion. Such terms as "envy" "godly, godliness" and OT entry "wisdom" are better explained in Vine's. Hence, some entries are better than Vine's but other entries, the Vine is clearly better.
2. Personally, I do not like the format of the book (but this is subjective judgment). Under the English entry, both Hebrew and Greek corresponding words are discussed. To me this is a bit inconvenient. I like the Vine's format better: having separate entries for Hebrew words and Greek words.

Overall, I do like the book and recommend it. But I suggest that you use the book with good old Vine's Expository Dictionary. For my studies, Vine is hard beat.

The title says the dictionary is "Complete," and the cover blurbs call it "Vine's for the 21st Century," and say that compared to Vine's, Mounce's work is "More accurate," "More user-friendly," has "More up-to-date definitions" and a "More complete numbering system."

Undoubtedly these things are all true. It also features, in my opinion, a more readable layout, more contemporary and reader-friendly wording, and the fact that OT and NT words are not divided into entirely separate sections of the book is logical and convenient.

Finally, the inclusion of concise, "Strong's-like" lexicons at the end of the book is a nice touch.

The complaints:

Despite its claims of being "complete," it is most certainly not so. Only when closely examining the Introduction does one understand the curious inability to locate certain words: "It includes all Greek words occurring TEN times or more, all Hebrew words occurring FIFTY times or more, and other words occurring less if they are exegetically or theologically significant." (Emphasis added by reviewer.)

This makes sense if and only if concision is the overriding goal. After a bit of consideration, it is easy to realize that it is often those words LEAST used that are MOST in need of careful definition and exposition. This is a significant drawback, and in my opinion makes the title of the book misleading if not outrightly untruthful.

Involved in a debate about the Biblical teaching about homosexuality? Sorry, except for the very brief entry in the Strong's-type lexicon in the back of the book, you won't find any mention of "arsenokoites" in this tome.

In contrast to Vine, Mounce also seems to provide "exposition" that avoids some of the ongoing controversies in Christianity.

Trying to suss out whether Heaven and Hell really are "everlasting" or merely "age-long" as various "eonian" proponents claim? Vine frames parts of his definitions in such a way that they seem intended to directly address claims posited by some eonians and Universalists; Mounce's definitions are clear and adequate, but less "direct" in terms of addressing controversies.

I agree with the previous reviewers. There are several weaknesses in the layout and the dictionary itself. Example: on page 783, the author discusses the Greek word for weep (Klaio) and his explanation and examples totally ignores one of the most well known times when Jesus wept (John 11:35) which is the verb dakryo. This verb is listed on page 1115 - in the Greek! Not much good for those who haven't studied Greek before. There are several times this happens. The word 'contend' (e.g. used in Jude 3) and receives only one reference in Mounce (Diakrino); in Vine's it receives 3 references (athleo, diakrino & epagonizomai - the actual Greek word used in Jude!) My advice as a language teacher - Vine's should be your first stop - then Mounce's.

Late to arrive was Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Zondervan, though copyrighted 2006). This is very similar to a recently produced (2005), Vine-replacement dictionary from Hendrickson, Stephen Renn, ed., Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts. Both dictionaries do different things. For instance, Mounce has a Hebrew-English and Greek-English Dictionary in the back that gives a more substantive definition (with scriptural references) than Renn, who simply indexes each Strong's entry (original language) with its English counterpart. Thus, words not covered in Vine's (Renn) get some coverage in Mounce.

In the body proper, however, Renn is more substantive: first, in that many entries have an "Additional notes" section that describes the transition of word meaning from the OT to the NT; second, Renn is more comprehensive in words covered. For instance, under "Sacrifice," the noun ag is also covered under OT words (though its primary referent is "feast"), while the adjective eidôlothyton is covered under NT words. However, Mounce has the advantage of deriving from the NIV rather than KJV. Sometimes this advantage becomes apparent, as when one reviewer of Renn decries a lack of entry for apostasia when, in fact, it could be found under "Forsake" when checking the index. However, in Mounce, apostasia (2x) is only found in the Greek-English dictionary in the back.

Mounce advertises his dictionary as an updated replacement for Vines. My big respect for Mounce comes from using his learn NT greek course. Before that (and still) I relied heavily on Vines for definitions of greek NT words and found him more than excellent. The idea of Mounce updating Vines led me to buy 4 copies as gifts for friends.

Mounce's dictionary is like an abridged version of multi-volume International Dictionary of NT, handy for those people with no or middling greek knowledge.

Having used it for a few months my conclusions are:
- I'd recommend it
- It is a good dictionary
- It is tied to a modern numbering system
- Useful scripture index
- Modern multi-scholar content
- It is not as good as Vines - He was the sole author, you became familar with him - his character and godliness, he was very thorough almost exhaustive, he had 'spiritual' insight. Mounce lacks being exhaustive and seems bland in its definitions, almost afraid to be definite or lacking insight. The multiple authors of Mounce leaves me unable to get a feel for their belief and character.

I like having both dictionaries on my shelf. One makes up for the shortcomings of the other. I wouldn't be without both.

I do concur with the previous evaluation. This volume is good, but it is not necessarily a complete replacement of your old Vine's. The improvements on Vine's are laudable, but that is all. Keep your Vine's.

In fact, there are still places where you will find a better discussion in Vine's.

Mounce's, however, has a better OT treatment overall. I especially like the brief lexical treatment in the back.

Purchase it, but don't discard your Vine's and allow to gather dust.

Widely billed as the new Vine's for the 21st century, this book does have several advantages, perhaps the most prominent of which is that it is simply different.

My own opinion is that anyone interested in seriously needing any dictionary of the Old and New Testament words needs both books. Neither of them is very expensive, and if you're looking at a particularily difficult translation, you just might want to look at both. Often two wordings of essentially the same definition of a word just might explain things a bit differently. (If they weren't different, there would be no need for a second dictionary.)

One claim being made is that Mounce is more user friendly than Vine. Probably true if you are not already familiar with Vine's system. But if you've been using Vine's for years, you know it and how to use it, while you have to learn Mounce's.

All in all, I find it impossible to say one is better than the other. Sometimes I like Vines, sometimes Mounce's. Get Both.

Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary Hardcopy 2006.
This is a reasonably good dictionary if you use the NIV and if it had more words. I have looked up several words and not found them which is frustrating. Words included are those mentioned over 50 times in the OT and over 10 times in the NT. Sometimes it is the less used words that need more explaining. The other disappointment is the use of GK numbers instead of Strong's.

This seems to be a very good book. And that's too bad because I can't get to any of the words I want to look up because the kindle edition does not have an index at all. If I need to look up a word starting with the letter w, I literally have to press the page button about 800 times to finally get to the word I am looking for. I'm sure the actual physical book is great, but the fact that the kindle edition has no index makes this book completely useless; how am I supposed to navigate it? There is no way to select the word I'm looking up with no index. I was excited to buy it, but but with the lack of an index I cannot use this book. It just doesn't make any sense. A complete waste of 15 dollars.

The hardcover edition is very good and usefull but the Kindle edition needs a lot of work. I understand that the Hebrew might still be a problem because the Kindle doesn't support Hebrew but the Greek can be fixed.

The gap in quality between the hardcover and the kindle is not reflected in the price difference between the two for they are almost priced the same.