The Editor takes this opportunity of announcing his intention of proceeding speedily to the preparation and publication of a new edition of his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. The former edition was, what it purported to be, principally a translation of the first edition of Wahl's Clavis philologica; which, however, was subjected to a thorough revision; and some of the most important articles were written anew. At that time, the works of Bretschneider, Riemer, Passow, and others, were not generally known in this country, and were not accessible to the Editor. It is obvious, therefore, that a new edition of the lexicon will require much revision and very considerable changes and additions, in order to bring it up to the highest standard of New Testament lexicography at the present time. In the interval since its publication, there have appeared new editions of the works of Wahl and Bretschneider; (the same that are reviewed in the following article ;) and also two successive editions of the lexicon of Passow; to say nothing, either of the persevering and successful labours of Winer in the grammar of the New Testament, or of the recent commentaries of Tholuck, Flatt, Fritzsche, Bleek, Rheinwald, Pelt, and others abroad, and of the no less learned and to us still more important works of Professor Stuart at home.

In the new edition it will be the object of the Editor to draw from all the new sources which are thus opened; as well as to give the results of his own investigations. The former edition will, of course, remain the basis of the work; and there are very many articles which will require no change whatever. It is, however, his intention to incorporate both into the plan and body of the work, every thing in which the lexicon of Bretschneider may seem to have the preference over that of Wahl; while the excrescences and errours of both, (of which the following critique points out not a few), will be carefully avoided. One change from the former edition may in particular be expected; viz. the host of references to classical authorities will be very much diminished. Of what possible consequence can it be to shew, that the most common words in the language were used in the same manner by classic writers? that ayando for instance is also used by Xenophon in the sense of to love? Such references can only be required, where there is some infrequency or doubt in regard to the use of a word; and even then, one or two passages cited at length are better No. III. 70

than twenty references. It is a more important point, to shew where a word is not used by classic writers; and to point out its real character and quality.

It must be obvious to all, that the execution of the work upon this plan, will require a great amount of time and labour. Should a kind Providence spare his life and health, the Editor hopes to be able to accomplish it in the course of the present and the coming year. To complete it in any shorter period, would seem to be hardly possible under the most favourable circumstances. EDITOR.

REVIEW.

Clavis N. T. Philologica, auctore C. A. WAHL, 2 Vol. Ed. 2. Lips. 1829. pp. 874. 683.

Lexicon Manuale in libros N. T. auctore C. G. BRETSCHNEI

DER, 2 Vol. Ed. 2. Lips. 1829. pp. 780. 662.

The publication of these two Lexicons after the work of Schleusner, has undoubtedly advanced the lexicography of the New Testament in a very great degree; although the encomiums which were lavished, especially upon the work of Wahl on its first appearance, were, probably, somewhat exaggerated, and the really important points were not brought forward on that occasion with sufficient prominence. To which of these works the preference is due, is a point on which public opinion is yet divided. Still, the majority of theologians seem inclined to assign the palm to that of Wahl, principally because of the more extensive philological research, and the logical arrangement. We shall, therefore, direct our attention chiefly to this work, interspersing our remarks on Bretschneider by the way.

That the work of Wahl in the new edition, (we speak always of this, inasmuch as it is so greatly changed and enlarged,) is distinguished above that of Bretschneider in reference to philological investigation,-including both what respects lexicography and grammar, and also in regard to logical arrangement, as well as generally in respect to carefulness and diligence of execution, cannot well be called in question. The very first glance at many of the articles shews this. Compare e. g. the articles εἰ, εἰμί, ὅτε, ἵνα, μή, ού, etc. and especially all the prepositions.

We find every where the most careful use of all philological helps and previous labours, the most laborious selection of citations from the classics, the most accurate logical division and determination of the significations, the most diligent collection and arrangement of the New Testament passages under the numerous divisions and subdivisions, also accurate and in part new grammatical investigations. The article &iui covers twenty pages; i and is not less than thirty pages; (the articles & and is were printed separately as a literary offering at the jubilee of Niemeyer in 1827;) the article v not less than thirty-seven pages. In all these respects, therefore, Wahl presents us doubtless more than Bretschneider. But we must be permitted much to doubt, whether this laborious and cautious research has always been a fruitful one; and whether those things which have been regarded as giving to the work of Wahl a preference, are in all cases real advantages.

We begin with that feature which is most prominent in the new edition, and on which especial care has been bestowed, viz. the logical arrangement. Much of what has been done here, we must regard in general as inappropriate, and more calculated to retard than to assist in the understanding of the Scriptures; and in saying this, we know that we have several very important voices in the philosophical and theological community upon our side. Those articles which are treated of with particular copiousness, are always preceded by a conspectus, or table of contents, after which follows the uberior rei expositio;-a course to which the author was compelled, in consequence of the too great fullness and detail of the articles. For the sake of those who have not access to the book itself, we give here a specimen of the conspectus of the article ciui. I) sum,

I am

A) copulat subjectum c. praedicato

a) universe

aa) interveniente adjectivo a) universe et aa) solo posito —ßß) addito dat. personae-vel for any one-vel in respect to any one-vel pertinente ad amicam, quae est alicui c. aliquo, necessitudinem-ß) adjectivo negativo ovdiv, undev, dicto aa) de rebus-nunc universe-nunc de criminibus--ßß) de personis

bb) ope participii

cc) interveniente substantivo a) c. adject. conjuncto-universe-in similitudine-8) addito numerali-universe

is, etc.

et dat. personae-y) solo posito aa) proprie usurpato) plene-universe-additur dativ. personae i. e. dat. commodi-vel pertinens ad amicam alicujus c. aliquo necessitudinem-vel for any one-additur cum emphasi ouros) minus plene i. e. abest vel predicatum-vel subjectum ßß) metonymice dictum 77) metaphorice dictum.

Thus this conspectus runs on for four pages; and then in eighteen pages more follows the uberior rei expositio. The appropriate biblical citations are every where inserted in their proper place; thus e. g. on a whole page the passages where ɛīva, εἶναι, connected with an adjective, designates WHAT a person or thing But however much pains this logical decomposition and this arrangement of the appropriate passages may have cost the author; still such an unyielding adherence to system in a lexicon is in general unsuitable and useless. What in all the world can be the possible utility of collecting a whole page of passages, where tival with an adjective denotes what one is by nature? To what purpose can a particular subdivision be, where siva is connected with the numerals? etc. Indeed, such a minute adherence to system is in the highest degree prejudicial; since it thereby becomes utterly impossible to glance over all the different significations, and find out where we are to look for that which may suit the passage in question. How much time must be spent in vain in turning over the thirty-seven pages which the article v occupies, before one can find the place where the passage occurs, for the sake of which he consults the article! And when moreover he has actually found it, still he is no better off than before; for-and this is the other disadvantage necessarily connected with such a minute dividing up of ideas-the lexicographer himself, in consequence of the monstrous number of subdivisions, has become doubtful where the passage is properly to be placed. E. g. we find ev de John 3: 21, under the signification ad normam a Deo praescriptam; but a reference is given at the same time to F. BB. a. bb. where another signification is specified, viz. indolem mentem Dei indutus. So ixβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, stands under the sense by authority of Christ; but we are also referred to the signification ope Christi, G. c. bb. Further, л000εvzεovai év óvópari Xoiorov, ad normam praeceptorum Christi; but with a reference also to F. BB. a. aa. B. 77. There one may look!

What would the learned world say to a lexicon of the classic Greek or Hebrew, written on similar principles? What would become of the lexicons of Passow and Gesenius, if executed in this manner? At least, the author ought not to have thought of putting upon the title-page of this edition the words, "Člavis usibus scholarum ac juvenum accommodata." More easily might the juvenes find their way through the endless labyrinths of the Roman catacombs, than through all these divisions and subdivisions. We hope the learned author will not take all this ballast with him into the small lexicon which he has announced. -If now such a minute and hair-splitting system of division is injurious to lexicography in general, it is especially so to that of the New Testament; for minute divisions and distinctions are no where more out of place, than in the word of God; which, like nature, exhibits multiplicity in unity. If therefore Bretschneider in this respect has done far less than Wahl, it is to be regarded rather as an advantage than a disadvantage. But even in him there is too much subdivision. We will shew this in one article, which is particularly important in reference to theology, the article βασιλεία.

Besides the significations referring to βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, Schleusner has no less than eight belonging to Baolía. Wahl has reduced these to three, the last with two subdivisions: 1) terra regis imperio subjecta, kingdom. 2) imperii administratio, dominion. 3) dignitas regia. a) prop. Luc. 19: 12, 15. Apoc. 17: 12. b) pro Paoilsis, reges vel regiae potestatis socii, Apoc. 1: 6.-In Bretschneider's first edition, it stood thus: 1) regia potestas. 2) respublica ipsa, quae imperio subest. 3) materia imperii, vel nationes, vel terrae. In the second edition: 1) regia potestas. 2) republica ipsa, quae imperio subest.-The order is better here in Wahl; first the kingdom itself, and then the abstracta, dominion and royal dignity; but it is inappropriate to bring forward these abstracta as two separate significations; and still more so is the subdivision under no. 3. Bretschneider has properly passed by the signification imperii administratio; but he also should not have placed the meaning regia potestas under a separate number. In the passages which Wahl brings to support the meaning dominion, the three, Matt. 6: 13. Luke 1: 33. Heb. 1: 8, may just as well be rendered dignitas regia; and vice versa, in Luke 19: 12, 15. Rev. 17: 12, which are brought in support of the meaning dignitas regia, we can with the same right say that Baotheia siguifies dominion; and Bretschneider has actually ranged them under this head. In