« PredošláPokračovať »
ART. VII.-LEXICOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. By EDWARD ROBINSON, D.D.,
LL. D., Professor, &c. A new edition, revised, and in great part rewritten. Large 8vo., pp. 804. New-York: Harper & Brothers. 1850.
THE history of New-Testament lexicography in this country is soon told, and is mostly covered by Dr. Robinson's brief account of his own labours given in the preface to this volume. Germany itself, rife as it is with Biblical philology, has produced only two works of this kind worthy of fame beyond the continent, namely, the lexicons of Wahl and Brettschneider. On this subject, Dr. Tholuck, in 1843, gave his class the following summary in his lectures, (translated in the “ Bibliotheca Sacra” for May, 1844, p. 345 :)
“Wahl's smaller Clavis of the New Testament accomplishes very well the object for which it was intended. His larger Clavis' [of which Dr. Robinson's first effort was a translation, and which furnished the basis for the former edition of this his original work] is faulty in respect of its definitions, which are altogether too minutely subdivided. Wilke has published a small · Clavis,' which is very convenient for common use, but not sufficiently fundamental for a student who wishes to make a thorough examination of a word. The new edition of Brettschneider's Dictionary, published in 1839, is superior to Wahl's in one particular; it makes more extensive use of the Hellenistic literature. It is inferior, however, in all other respects. Its explanations of words are often very unnatural. The various meanings which it gives to words are not arranged with precision, as they are by Wahl. The definitions, too, are more deficient than Wahl's, in the statement of the true religious import of words. Schleusner's Lexicon, fourth edition, 1819, is still worthy of reference as a depository of philological citations and of antiquarian notices. Winer is at present engaged in preparing a new German Lexicon of the New Testament."
Since that time, improved editions of some of the above works have been published; but the Lexicon of Winer has not yet appeared. In England, Parkhurst had long held sway in this department; but his defects have become so apparent, in spite of amended editions, that the republications of Robinson's first edition of his own Lexicon have now greatly encroached on this antiquated dominion. It thus appears that, in the hands of a single author, American lexicography of the New Testament already compares to decided advantage with that of Europe; and it is a matter of just national pride that the same publishers who have furnished our public, in the standard form of Liddell and Scott, with the best general Greek Lexicon extant, have, in this edition of a native work, supplied the best Lexicon hitherto written for the New Testament.
Dr. Robinson has come to this task with peculiar qualifications, not only from his clearness and sobriety of mind, bis habits of close and patient application, and his varied and extensive acquirements in Biblical philology, but also from his special acquaintance with this department of it. The light
elicited by all his literary labours readily converges to this focus, and there is not a page of his Lexicon but attests this illumination. In his edition of Hahn's New Testament, his Greek Harmony of the Gospels, his translation of Buttman's Grammar, and this Lexicon, besides other kindred works, he has furnished the Biblical student with the means for carrying out his own excellent suggestion in the preface, (p. ix, 5,) namely, “ first to study the New Testament for himself, with only the help of his Grammar and Lexicon, giving close attention to the context and the logical connexion.” It ought to be remembered, however, that Commentaries are very valuable helps in tracing this “ logical connexion,", and herein perhaps consists their only appropriate sphere; while incidental explanations properly belong to the Bible Dictionary. Our only regret in surveying this field of study is, that the Methodist community is so poorly furnished from its own resources with these lexical, grammatical, and critical helps to an understanding of the New Testament, that we are obliged to depend almost entirely upon the productions of other denominations for our text-books in this department. This ought not so to be, nor need it continue. The materials for such books are abundant, and free for all; there are scholars among our preachers competent to mould them into the requisite form; we have a publishing house possessed of ample facilities for issuing them, and the present actual wants of our ministry and membership would justify the enterprise even in a pecuniary way. We make these remarks not invidiously, as if jealous of the books of other denominations, even when they are professedly such; but because every community and circle needs its own literature, and our identity can only be maintained by this means. Least of all are we suspicious of theological influences in Dr. Robinson's works adverse to our own peculiarities of sentiment as a church. He is too genuinely catholic for that, and knows too well the distinction between the scholar, even in sacred criticism and exegesis, and the sectarian; and his Lexicon offends our prejudices in this respect so little that, but for the principle of home dependence, we should not have alluded to this point at all. Besides, it is hardly less than literary sponging to be always drawing from the general stock of learning amassed by the research of others, without ever contributing to its advancement or dissemination ourselves. Still, if we must be borrowers, it is consoling to be allowed to have recourse to such generous sources as this Lexicon. Dependant we certainly are for the present, and therefore the author deserves our most cordial thanks for supplying so well the desideratum.
The true elements of any good Lexicon of whatever language, it seems to us, are (1) the etymology of the words, that is, their derivation and affinities, and (2) the tracing of the definitions, as required by the variety of senses in actual use, from the radical idea thus obtained; (3) appropriate passages being quoted or referred to for their justification. From these arise-in a “dead language "-certain secondary features, such as (4) the peculiarities of inflection and construction; (5) the explanation of terms in their historical and archeological relations, and (6) the interpretation of difficult texts. These latter strictly belong to the departments of grammar, antiquities, and hermeneutics, and should, therefore, be sought in treatises expressly on those
subjects; but they are so convenient and serviceable in a Lexicon that it is perhaps best to introduce them there, even at the expense somewhat of scientific method. Besides these, in a Lexicon of a peculiar dialect or class of writers, such as in the New Testament, (7) a constant reference is needed to the usage of earlier and more general writers, e. g., to the Homeric diction, the Hebraism of the Septuagint, and the uses of the Kolvý dráhektos, in order to exhibit properly the agreement or deviation in import or application. These principles are, in substance, all recognised by Dr. Robinson in his Preface, (pp. viii, ix;) a careful reference to them in the examination of a few examples from his Lexicon will briefly determine its value. As the merits of the older edition have now become well understood, we may, at the same time, discover the improvements in this edition by comparing it with the former. Let us take a specimen of convenient length from a chance opening of the volume :
EDITION OF 1836.
EDITION OF 1880.
Διατίθημι, f. διαθήσω, to place αραrt, διατίθημι, f. διαθήσω, (τίθημι,), το i. e., to set out in order, to arrange, to set, put, place apart, in a certain order, dispose in a certain order, etc. Sept. for to arrange, to dispose, e. g. troops, Sept. OD 1 Sam. 11: 11. Xen. Mem. 2, 1. for phun 1 Sam. 11, 11. Thuc. 1. 126; 27.-In N. T. only Mid. dlarideual, f. events, Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 27.-In N. T. διαθήσομαι, to arrange in one's oιom be- only Mid. διατίθεμαι, f. ήσομαι, to haly, to make a disposition of, trans. arrange or dispose for oneself, in one's
a) gen. to appoint, to make over, to own behalf; e. g. commit to, etc., e. g., Thy Baochelav, seq. 1. Of what belongs to oneself, a) genr. dat. Luke 22:29 bis.-Xen. Cyr. 5. 2, 7, i. q. to appoint, to assign, c. acc. et dat. Thu Juyarépa.-80 of a testamentary Luke 22, 29 bis, kai diariveual útiv disposition, to devise, to bequeath, sc. by Baochelav. Comp. Xen. Cyr. 5, 2, 7, tipv will; hence o Sladéuevos, a testator, Heb. dè Juyarépa raútnv (ool) éTLTpénw dla9: 16, 17.-Jos. Ant. 13. 6. 1. Pol. 20. Géodal, Önwg av où Boúhn. b) Spec. by 6. 5. Dem. 1029. 27.
will or testament, to devise, to bequeath ; b) spoken of a covenant, to make an hence ó diad é E Vos, a testator, Heb. arrangement with another party; and 9, 16. 17. So Jos. Ant. 13. 16. 1. Dem. dlariðɛuai diayakny, to institute or make 1067. 1. Plato Legg. 924. a, b, c, e. a covenant with, seq. dat. Heb. 8: 10, 2. Of a covenant, to arrange mutually, coll. v. 9. seq. após c. accus. Acts 3: 25. to covenant with another party; hence Heb. 10:16. So Sept. for 677 nn?, Slativeual SlaghKNU TLví v. Tpós Teva, to
make a covenant with any one, Acts 3, seq. dat. Deut. 5: 3. Josh. 9: 6, 7. seq. Tpós Ex. 24: 8, Deut. 5: 2, 2 Sam. 3: 13. Jer. 31, 33 where Sept. c. dat. for
25. Heb. 8, 10 and 10, 16, quoted from -Aristoph. Αν. 439 ήν μή διάθωνται γ' οίδε διαθήκην έμοί. .
honan; also c. após tiva, Ex. 24, 8.--Aristoph. Av. 439 hv un diálwyrai γ οίδε διαθήκην έμοί.
Here it will be perceived that in the later edition the derivation is indicated from the simple tiunul, and a more natural arrangement of the primary senses is given in the first sentence. Then the citations that follow are distinguished by the two examples of " troops” and “events,” a passage from Thucyd. being added to illustrate the former. Thus far the general signification has been settled and illustrated from the Hellenistic and Kolvý dialects. Next is given the New-Testament usage, stated to be limited to the Mid. voice, to a better conformity with whose import the phraseology is amended, and the first paragraph rightly connects•with the ensuing development by an
" é. g.," the “ transitive” of the old edition being omitted as unnecessary. In the subdivisions, the distinction observed in the former edition between numerals and letters, the former being used for generic, and the latter for subordináte meanings, is not fully retained; the first divisions being in this edition always designated by numerals, however near the senses may approach each other or the primary. Whether this is an improvement, may be doubted; but it was probably done from the difficulty of determining, in very many cases, which notation ought to be used,--and when the difference of import was very wide, it is perhaps sufficiently obvious of itself. The secondary subdivisions have been more distinctly designated, as in a) and b) under No. 1 of this article; and the superiority in clearness thus attained is evident. For our own part, we would have preferred that with each subdivision, down to the most minute, a new paragraph should have been begun; for we think that the advantage in readily catching the eye, especially with young students, would have overbalanced the space gained by this condensation into lengthy paragraphs. The only other difference of importance under the head in consideration, is the more extended citation of the passage from Xenophon, (a matter of great convenience to students, who generally have not the classics at hand for comparison,) and the substitution of a reference to Plato for that to Polyb. Under the last head of the article various minor improvements are introduced, which can be best seen by inspection.
This may be considered a fair specimen of the shorter articles, and of the longer ones in proportion; many could, no doubt, be found which have undergone a more thorough remodelling, but we have not room for their examination. The articles involving history and antiquities, especially, have been greatly enlarged from recent authorities and researches, as may be seen, e.g., under 'Apianvý. The derivation might have been more exactly traced in some instances, but it was probably presumed that the student would consult the general Greek Lexicon for that purpose. The copious references to the grammars on the form and construction of words, forms a valuable feature of the work; and there are, all along, references to other books illustrating nearly every point. Classical authorities are given everywhere to sustain the significations of every grade, and the idiom and usage of the Septuagint has continually been appealed to. This is a crowning merit of the book, and, as the author confesses, was the most laborious part of its compilation. The task of finding, assorting, and verifying so many thousand citations, from a mere numerical reference to a full quotation, from the whole range of Greek authors, was truly herculean, and one which the critical world will know how to appreciate. The logical classification of senses, however, is, in our opinion, a still more difficult work, and it cannot be expected that any one person could have perfected this branch of New-Testament lexicography. Still, it
, will be found that the significations actually occurring in the New Testament are generally all arranged in some form under each word, and the divisions are substantially correct, although perhaps rather too many synonymous
definitions are given, and several are often clustered together. The grammatical sequents, such as prepositions, cases, etc., are universally given, and that under each division ; à feature, we apprehend, more valuable for the advanced scholar than the beginner, who is generally seeking the meaning rather than syntactical niceties.
Much more room might justly be devoted to this splendid and enduring monument of American scholarship than can here be spared; we will conclude this examination by placing, side by side, the treatment of a single word, first by Parkhurst, as emended by Rose, and then by Robinson in his two editions, adding (even at the risk of illustrating in our own person the hypercriticism of Momus) a specimen embodying the above comments. We cannot do better than to take, for this purpose, the first word of importance in the alphabetical order, namely, ủyalós, which certainly deserves to be well handled :
Rose's Parkhurst. Robinson, 1834. Robinson, 1850. Suggested.
'Αγαθός, ή, όν, g. 'Αγαθός, ή, όν, αγαθός, ή, όν, αγαθός, -ή, -όν, άγαστος admirable, (άγαν much, ex- (ủyav,) corresp. to adj. (u-euphonic from áyásoual to ad- ceedingly,) corresp. Heb. , Lat. prefixed to the ulmire, which from to Heb. sig, Lat. bonus, Engl. good. timate radicallae, αγάω, , ομαι,
the bonus, and Eng. 1. good, i. e. dis- theme yt, identical same; or else åya- good.
tinguished for good with Germ. gut, Jos may be derived 1. good, i. e. from and eminent quali- Eng. good, with immediately from the force of the ties, character; of which it áyúw or ủyaual to theme, excellent, dis- persons, Matt. 19, ponds in force and admire. This is a tinguished, best. 16 didúokahɛ úyadé. use;. with the adj. very general and a) of persons. v. 17 bis. Mark 10, termination extensive word, like Matt. 19: 16 didú- 17 sq. Luke 18, 18 anomalously oxythe Heb. 20, to okaże uyaté. v. 17 sq. (Jos. Ant. 9.5. tone; very irreg. which it usually bis. Mark 10: 17, 2 toù, uyavoùç kai in comparison, in the 18 bis. Luke 18: dikalovs 4TTÉKTELVE. Kühner, $
bis. So Xen. Ven. 1. 14.) Stuart, $ 36, 10) I. Good, Mat. Sept. for siz 1 Sam. Of things, Luke 10, good, i. e. excellent xix. 17. (This is 9: 2. Judith 11: 8. 42 tiv uyavi re- in its kind. (In the general sense Jos. Ant. 9. 5. 2 pida. John 1, 47. the Sept. everyof the word, which toucủyadoùs úvdpaç Sept. for ain Ezra where for the Heb. Schleusner, I think, kai dikalaus úté- 8, 27 załkou úya- 210, and nearly raises sometimes KTELVE, Xen. Cyneg. Jou.Spec. synon. with kahós. higher than is ne- 1. 14.
a) In a physical - Very freq. in cessary, or than his b) of things. sense, good, as opp. Hom., who uses it instances bear him Luke 10: 42 tv to bad, e. g. dévdpov it of valour, noout in, viz. what is ayatnu uepida. ủyatov Matt. 7, 17. bility, beneficence, entirely perfect of John 1: 47 rí úya- 18; rã ủy. Luke &c.) e. g. its kind, and of the Jóv what_remark- 8, 8. Sept. rñ áy. a. Absol., gooil, highest excellence. able. 2 Thess. 2: for zin Ex. 3, 8. — i. e. intrinsically In Mat. xix. 16. 16 xaric ayaún, un- Plut. Gryll. 3. Xen. excellent.. John i. 47. 2 Thess. less this is put for Ec. 16. 7 yñ úy. a) Phys., good, ii, 16. nothing of anis ayatõv. So b) In a moral i. e. naturally well this kind seems im- Sept. for in Ezra sense, good, well- constituted, e. g. a plied. The strong- 8: 27 xał KoŨ dya- disposed, upright. thrifty tree, rich est instances are fou.
a) Of persons, Matt. soil: Matt. 7: 17, Mat. xix. 17. James 2. good, absolute- 5, 45 ÉTTÈ Trovnpous 18; Luke 8: 8.i. 17.] Neut. plur ly, i. e. of good cha- Kai đọaoóc. 12, 35. So Sept. Em Y. Ex. 'Ayađà, tá, good racter, disposition, 22, 10. 26, 21. Luke 3: 8.-Xen. Ec. things, Luke i. 63. quality.
23, 6). John 7, 12. xvi, 17, Yĩ đY. xii. 18, 19. xvi. 25.
a) of persons, Acts 11, 24. Sept. b) Morally, right, See also Prov. xi. upright, virtuous. for i. . 10. Eur. Phæn. 906. Matt. 5: 45. 12: 35. 15, 3. So Xen.. justice, piety, and Joseph. Antiq. ii. 22. 10. 20: 21, 23. Mem. 3. 4. 8 Toùs honour, e. g. up3, 2. Hence the Luke 6: 45. 19: 17. Kakoùç kohúÇELV kaì right persons, howord denotes pros- 23: 50. John 7: 12. Tous Syavoùs thuậv. nest principles, holy