predecessors, that Gesenius was enabled to add so much to our knowledge of the language. By the light which he has thrown upon its grammatical forms, by the introduction of the alphabetical instead of the etymological arrangement of the words, and by a more natural and systematic classification of their significations, he has so much facilitated the acquisition of the language, that he may be said to have created a new era in Hebrew literature.

The lexicon of Simon is well known, having been in general use before the publication of that of Gesenius. It contains a mass of learning, which, however, from the want of systematic arrangement, is of but little use. It is a valuable lexicon with respect to the meaning of single words, but fails in the explanation of phrases and figurative expressions. It is also, in some measure, chargeable with adopting fanciful derivations, and, of course, fanciful interpretations. In common with all other Hebrew lexicons before that of Gesenius, it adopted the etymological arrangement of words, and thus could be consulted with ease by none but proficients in the language.

Of this lexicon Winer has published a new edition, with such alterations in matter and arrangement, that it must be considered as Winer's lexicon on the basis of Simon's. He has excluded much that was in the old lexicon, and introduced some of the results of the recent investigations in Hebrew literature. He has also attempted to arrange the meanings of words in a more systematic manner than Simon arranged them. He has improved the lexicon of Simon in some respects. But he is not, like Gesenius, entitled to the praise of original investigation. For most of his matter he is indebted to Gesenius Rosenmüller and a few others. He himself acknowledges that he could bring forward nothing new from the kindred dialects, and that he undertook the work, not with the hope of correcting any errors or supplying any deficiencies in Gesenius, but because the bookseller thought that another edition of Simon's lexicon would sell well amongst the English and the Dutch.

Winer retains the old etymological or radical arrangement of Hebrew words in preference to the alphabetical. We can perceive no better reason for such an arrangement in Hebrew than in Latin, Greek, or French. It supposes one to be a proficient in the language previous to the use of the lexicon. It has probably done more to discourage and disgust the Hebrew

student than any other cause whatever. Who would think of referring the young student of Greek to the lexicon of Stephens or of Scapula?

Winer has made some strictures upon the proneness of Gesenius and other critics to multiply the significations of words, which are worthy of attention. But, in our opinion, he sometimes errs himself in attempting to limit the number of significations. Thus he will not allow that by ever has the signification of because that, propterea quod. But such passages as Ps. xlv. 3, Ps. xlii. 7, Gen. xxxviii. 26, cannot be well explained without admitting that meaning. In limiting the significations of the particle? he is also very unsatisfactory, and puts force upon a number of passages.

Winer's article upon the name of God and its plural

We

is very imperfect, but inferior, in our opinion, to that of Simon which he has excluded, and to that of Gesenius upon the same word. He leaves the student in doubt whether the term is ever applied to any persons but 1. false gods, and 2. the true God. He does not mention that the term is ever applied to kings or to disembodied spirits; and after giving the two meanings abovementioned, only makes the special remark, that 'they mistake, who suppose the term to be applied to judges or magistrates, in Ex. xxi. 6, Ps. lxxxii. 1. 6, or to angels in Ps. viii. 6, xcvii. 7.' Whether the term is ever applied to angels or magistrates, he leaves us in doubt. That it is applied to kings we suppose no critic has any doubt.* e are aware that Gesenius and some other modern critics, have decided that that term is applied to no magistrates but kings. But we are inclined to the judgment of the older critics. It appears to us that this word applies to other magistrates, who excel in dignity, or who are objects of reverence, and that our English translators were right in rendering the term, judges, in Ex. xxi. 6, and xxii. 8. 9. Gesenius and De Wette would render the term, God, whom the judges represented. But this is very harsh. The only argument for it is Deut. xix. 17, where it is said, 'Then the men between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges.' From this it is inferred that to be brought before judges is called being brought before God, because the judges were assembled in a sacred place. To this it may be objected that in Ex. xxii. 8, it is not only said that the parties

*See Ps. xlv. 6. 7. 8; lxxxij. 1. 6; cxxxviii. 1.

are brought before elohim, but it is added and whom the elohim shall condemn.' Now there is no evidence that the sacred writer attributed such infallibility to the judges, that when they condemned, God condemned. The verb shall condemn is in the plural in the original, which affords some presumption that the Supreme Being is not denoted, the singular verb being usually employed in such a case. Besides, if the sacred writer had meant that the parties were to be brought before the Supreme Being, he would probably have used the term Jehovah, as in Deut. xix. 17. The words of our Saviour are also worthy of consideration; If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came.' We conclude, therefore, that the word elohim is applied to judges and other magistrates as well as to kings. We are also inclined to follow the old interpreters in supposing that angels, considered as dwelling in heaven, are sometimes called elohim, the term being equivalent to sons of God, and applied to them on account of some circumstances of supposed resemblance. That the term sons of God, is applied to angels as well as to kings, is well known. For the same reason we suppose that they are sometimes called gods.

On the whole we regard Winer's new edition of Simon's lexicon as of very little value to such as can procure that of Gesenius. He has neither given us the work of Simon, nor yet a systematic, well arranged, complete work of his own. We think it evident that he is far inferior, both in learning and judgment, to Gesenius, and as the lexicon of the latter has the advantage of alphabetical arrangement and English meanings, we hope it will continue to be used by students to the exclusion of Winer's. The translation of Gesenius by Mr Gibbs, though it contains a few errors, is on the whole superior to the original. He has done well in altering the original, where the author acted the part of a commentator rather than of a lexicographer, a fault into which lexicographers are prone to fall. Thus, the word Immanuel, according to Gesenius, is the name of a son of the prophet Isaiah, who portended the deliverance of the Jewish nation; according to Mr Gibbs, the name of a child, who portended great happiness to the Hebrew commonwealth. The interpretation of Gesenius is disputed, and as it is not pretended to be involved in the meaning of the word, it ought not to be thrust into a lexicon.

ART. VII.-The New Testament in the Common Version, conformed to Griesbach's Standard Greek Text. Boston. 1828. Svo.

It is a simple and well known fact, that the ancients multiplied copies of their books by the slow and laborious process of writing; or, in other words, that all their books were manuscripts. And when we say all their books, we mean, of course, to include the books of the Old and the New Testament, both of which, especially the former, are collections of very ancient writings, and were, of course, multiplied by transcription, as all other writings were.

This fact we have called a well known one. And yet, well known as it is, it does not seem to be generally borne in mind. There is nothing more common, we believe, to the experience of those who have been called upon to defend in conversation some disputed religious doctrine, than to find that any argument founded on the principles of biblical criticism, is received with a great deal of uneasiness and suspicion, and that even an allusion to the original languages of the bible, is regarded as a blind, or a subterfuge, which may be conveniently resorted to in all cases of necessity. It is very extraordinary indeed, after all that has been said on this subject, that so many people persist in talking of the bible, as if the only one which was, or ever had been in existence, was that which was published in English by the authority of James I. At the bare sound of the word manuscript, they start and look incredulous; just as if there were any books in the world but manuscripts, till about four hundred years ago, a mere date of yesterday; and as if every portion of the Old Testament and New, every prophecy, gospel, and epistle, had been printed on the spot, the moment it was uttered or written, and had been in type ever since. These are conclusions, to be sure, which would not be acknowledged by these persons, but still they are conclusions which are justifiably drawn from their conduct. They are not so ignorant as to maintain that our common English New Testament was printed, just as it is, in the first age of Christianity; but still they act as if it was, because they are averse to acknowledge that any use is to be made of the fact, that the original language of the christian scriptures was an entirely dif ferent one from our own, and the other fact, that they were

VOL. VI.-N. S. VOL. I. NO. III.

45

preserved and handed down by means of the pen alone, for the space of fourteen hundred years.

There is one subject connected with these facts, which, when it is presented barely, and without explanation, is apt to trouble even the liberal and the well informed. It is the subject of the various readings of the scriptures. By various readings, we mean all those words or passages, all those insertions or omissions, in which any authority for settling the text of the scriptures differs from the received text. Now, when a serious and sincere Christian is abruptly told, for the first time and without any commentary, that in the New Testament alone, these various readings amount to the enormous number of one hundred and thirty thousand; that there are, in the manuscripts and ancient versions of the christian scriptures, a hundred and thirty thousand variations from the book which he has always read and revered as the New Testament, it is not surprising if he should be disturbed at the intelligence, and feel as if the very foundations of his faith had received a rude shock.

We wish to show, to the satisfaction of every one, that these various readings have nothing to do with the foundations of our faith, and do not in the least affect them. We shall not say anything which will be new to the scholar; of that we are well aware. Our intention is not to display learning, but to state plain considerations in a plain way. We shall confine ourselves, for the sake of unity of subject, to the various readings of the New Testament, though the Hebrew scriptures have also their various readings.

We shall show, first, that in the natural course of things, copies of the writings of the New Testament could not have been preserved from errors. We shall show, secondly, that it is unreasonable to require that they should be exempted from this natural course. Thirdly, we shall exhibit the kind and degree of alteration which ought to be made in the received. text, in consequence of the various readings of manuscripts. And fourthly, we shall state the advantages which we derive from the possession of numerous manuscripts, differing in their readings.

We are to show, in the first place, that the writings of the New Testament, in the long course of transcription which they underwent, could not have been preserved from variations and errors, in the natural course of things.

To settle this point, one or two considerations only are