in the text of Stephens (1550) Matthäi, and Griesbachand the Clementine Vulgate version opposite to the Greek. Of this impression we have here a new edition, on a plan somewhat altered and improved. The Complutensian text, which is still retained, has been so diligently compared and revised, that this impression may be looked upon as faultless. The punctuation of the Greek text has also received much attention from the Editor, who expresses, in his Preface, a deep sense of its importance. Some of his changes in the punctuation suggest new modes of interpretation of these the most important are Rom. xi. 8, where the parenthesis is removed, and Luke, vi. 9, where a note of interrogation is inserted after ri. The principal alteration of the original plan consists in this-that, instead of the variations in the text contained in the three former editions, we have now at the foot of every page, 1. a collection of parallel passages, 2. the most important various readings, with an indication of their value. The latter is for the most part denoted by signs, though in some cases, the origin of the spurious reading is briefly pointed out. In his critical decisions, the editor generally coincides with Griesbach. Here and there, however, he adopts the suggestions of Matthäi, particularly in relation to the text of the Apocalypse.

Besides the peculiar interest and importance which this work must possess for the Catholic theologian, it is interesting to critics of all persuasions, as presenting a direct and easy access to the Complutensian text of the New Testament. The execution of the work is good-the paper white and strong-the impression clear and beautiful. To this last commendation, however, there is one exception: the spiritus in the Greek type of the notes being scarcely legible.

Novum Testamentum graece et latine, expressum ad binas editiones a LEONE X. P. M. adprobatas, Complutensem scilicet et Erasmi Roterod. Additae sunt aliarum novissimarum recensionum variantes lectiones graecae, una cum Vulgata latina editionis Clementinae ad exemplar ex typographia Apost. Vatic. Romae, 1592. correctis corrigendis ex indicibus correctoriis ibidem editis, nec non cum additis lectt. ex Vaticanis editionibus latinis de annis 1590, 1592, 1593, 1598, variantibus, adpositisque locis parallelis. Studio et curâ LEANDRI VAN ESS S. Th. Doctoris. pp. 755, 8vo. Fues. Tübingen.

1827.

This work appeared about the same time with the one just noticed, and under the name of the same publisher who issued Dr. Gratz's first edition, (Fues of Tübingen,) of which indeed it is a mere modification. Dr. Van Ess assumes as the basis of his text, 1, the fifth edition of Erasmus; 2, the Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglott. When these two differ, Griesbach decides between them: when all three differ, Griesbach is preferred. Besides the various readings of these three, we have also those which occur in the other editions of Erasmus, in Stephens' edition of 1546, and in the two editions of Matthäi.

The improvements on the Greek text of Erasmus, presented in this work, can scarcely be considered as of much importance, because they are not founded on the principles of sound criticism, but on a mere revision and comparison of the Complutensian text. This circumstance is no doubt owing to the fact, that the edition was designed exclusively for Catholics. It is to be feared, however, that it will not give satisfaction to Catholics themselves; 1, because it was not the fifth, but the first edition of Erasmus which Leo X. sanctioned; 2, because the present editor allows a Protestant to sit in judgment upon two impressions of the Greek text, both sanctioned by pontifical authority.

The execution of the work has not received due attention. Besides the errors in accentuation, which are very numerous, there are many others servilely transcribed from Gratz's first edition, which have since been corrected-and not a few typographical mistakes of the Complutensian Polyglott are enumerated here as various readings.

DAS HOHE LIED, ein Collectiv-Gesang auf Serubabel, Esra, und Nehemiah, als die Wiederhersteller einer judischen Verfassung in der Provinz Juda. Uebersetzt und mit historischen und philologisch-kritischen Bemerkungen erläutert nebst einem Anhange über das vierte Buch Esra, von Dr. Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser, Professor der Theologie auf der Königl. baier. Universität Erlangen und Consistorialrathe. Mit einem Titelkupfer Erlangen, in der Palm'schen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1825. pp. xxxviii. and 274, 8vo.

DAS HOHE LIED Salomo's übersetzt mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen, und einem Anhang über den Prediger. Von Dr. Georg Heinrich August Ewald, Repetent der Theol. Facultät (jetzt Professor) zu Göttingen. Göttingen, bei

Rudolph Deuerlich. 1826, pp. 156, 8vo.

These two works (the latest which have appeared upon the subject) may be regarded as specimens of the two diametrically opposite modes of interpretation which are commonly applied to the Hohe Lied or Song of Solomon. Dr. Ewald denounces, in the strongest terms, the allegorical method of interpretation and deprecates most earnestly the consequences which, in his opinion, must result from the practice of ascribing a mystical meaning to the plainest passages of scripture. Dr. Kaiser, on the contrary, not only thinks it obvious, that the song in question is an allegory, but maintains, that to view it in any other light is to degrade the character of the Word of God, and contaminate its

purity, insomuch, that so long as there is any color for interpreting it allegorically, the contrary hypothesis ought not to be tolerated for a moment. (Preface, p. xxx.)

Such being the diversity of their principles and opinions, the results of their labors, contained in these two works, are of course very different.

Dr. Kaiser regards the Poem as a descriptive eulogy upon Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the three great restorers of the Jewish religion, and in some measure, of the Jewish monarchy, in Palestine-and as a continuation of Ecclesiastes, which, in his opinion, is a practical didactic history of the Kings of Judah from Solomon to Zedekiah. Agreeably to this hypothesis, he supposes the Poem to be naturally divided into three parts or Canticles. In the first, the poet sings of Zerubbabel's journey with the first Jewish colony to the Holy Land, the feast of tabernacles celebrated by them, the foundation and erection of the temple after many hindrances and difficulties, Zerubbabel's final regulations, and his return to Persia. The author supposes the colony to be personified, agreeably to oriental usage, as a bride. One of the arguments adduced by Dr. K. in proof of his assertion, that Zerubbabel is the subject of this canticle, is the apparent allusion in the words of the third verse-thy name is as ointment poured forth-to the name of the Jewish leader, which he derives from two synonymous Chaldee words.

In the second Canticle, Ezra, the second who brought up a colony to Judea, describes it still under the figure of a bride, but because a former colony was already planted, at the same time personifies it as a sister. He also celebrates

the splendor of the second Temple.

In the third Canticle, Nehemiah describes the Jewish people under the figure of a sister. He first surveys the magnificence and beauty of Jerusalem, in a walk around it by night, then builds its walls, relieves its wants, celebrates

the feast of tabernacles, increases the population of the city, takes leave of the people, and returns.

The date of the composition of this allegorical eulogy, our author fixes in the time of Nehemiah; and interprets the inscription which it bears (Song of Songs, &c.) to signify a collective song (that is, a panegyric upon several different characters) relating to Solomon, by which he understands not the real Solomon, but the mystical Solomon or Messiah, to whom the Poem is supposed to bear a secondary and prospective reference.

To Dr. Kaiser's work is added an appendix on the Fourth Book of Ezra, in which he attempts to prove, that it was written by a Christian, towards the end of the first century. A copperplate accompanies the work, representing the inscriptions on some ancient coins.

Dr. Ewald, as has been already intimated, proceeds upon principles totally at variance with those of Dr. Kaiser, whose work he alleges, in his preface, to be useful only as a warning of the danger and absurdity of similar attempts. He even goes so far as to maintain the impossibility of putting a mystical construction upon the language of the Poem; and of course, in all his explanations excludes the supposition of an allegory. He also maintains the unity of the Poem, in opposition to the three-fold distribution of his predecessor, and fixes its date, neither so early as Solomon, nor so late as the captivity, but about the year 920 before Christ.

Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Dr. Joh. Leonhard Hug, Prof. der. Theologie in Freyburg, Grossherzhogl. Bad. Geistl. Rath. und des Königl. Würtemb. Verdienstordens Ritter. Dritte verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Stuttgart und Tübingen in der Cotta'schen Buchhandlung. 1826. Erster Theil. pp. xxiii, and 535. Zweyte! Theil, pp. xii. and 618, 8vo.