« PreviousContinue »
concordance. He does not however appear to have the remotest idea of the real nature of such a work, the peculiar design of which is, not to give all the forms in which words occur together with their prefixes and suffixes, but to state in what places and in what connections they are found.
And even were the scheme of giving every word in the order of the alphabet completely carried into effect, its ridiculous absurdity will at once become apparent, when we reflect that were a verb conjugated through all the modes, tenses, and persons of all species, it would be necessary to insert it in not less than one hundred places, not including the prefixed particles. It is true, that no one verb is thus extensively employed; but we have examined the verb in the Dictionary, and find that it occurs no less than twenty-nine times, while Gesenius in his lexicon has given it but a single place. The noun is also made to form seven distinct articles. We are thus enabled to perceive whence the author derives the boast in his modest preface of having given “several thousand more words than Hebrew lexicons in general."
That the author is not familiar with even the characters of the Arabic and Syriac, is obvious from the fact that out of every twenty words from either of those languages not three are correct. As we have already exhibited some specimens of this, we will here confine our remarks to the Arabic and Syriac columns in the table of “Oriental Alphabets" placed at the beginning. As only one form of each letter is given in mutilated alphabets of this sort, which by the way are intended not for use but for show, initials only should be employed; yet we meet with four medials in the Arabic column, and one a) in the Syriac. In arranging the Arabic letters opposite the Hebrew, the author has made j=7 and =1, the reverse of the truth. The initial (named Caf) is properly placed opposite the Heb. ; while its medial form (named Kaf) is made to correspond to, the author evidently taking it for a different letter of the alphabet! The letter below this is Elif (†) instead of Lam (J). The Arabic (Sin) is placed opposite to, and (Shin) to it. In the Syriac column we have a final Yud () instead of an initial Nun (»).
We will now discuss, as briefly as possible, the claims of the book to "correctness and completeness in its definitions ;" and that neither himself or others may accuse or suspect us of doing him the slightest injustice, we will speak only of the first verb (1) which occurs, and of the first word (7) to which the author requests our particular attention in this respect.
"1. He perished, was lost, utterly destroyed; 2. went astray, departed from God;" (this last signification is completely erroneous: we have indeed a lost sheep, but the word 7 is
never applied to man in the metaphorical sense here attributed to it ;) "3. became vain, empty, desolate, destitute" (the product of the author's brain). Although synonymous and erroneous interpretations here as elsewhere have lent their aid to give an appearance of fullness to the definitions, the real uses even of the simple or Kal species are not all given, while those of Pi'hel and Hoph'hal are utterly neglected. We will proceed at once to the other parts of the article, dwelling on them as slightly as possible. "3. m. s. Pret. K. irreg. ND Num. 17: 12." (not there) "Ps. 9: 67." (for 9: 6,7; in the first of the two verses it occurs in the Pi'hel with the transitive signification to destroy), "Deut. 32: 28." (the word is here not a preterite but a participle) "Hiph. Num. 24: 9." (not there) "aff. She " (it should be ̧). “Arab. As To perish, die. Kimki.” (the amount of ignorance and presumption compressed within this small space is truly astonishing: the middle letter of the Arabic root should be an initial not a final Be, thus f; the meaning attributed to it is the direct reverse of the true one, which is to last long, to endure, and in support of it we are referred to Kimki! The fact is Kimchi never wrote an Arabic lexicon, and the Sepher Hashshorashim makes no mention of the word "1777 Targ. Onk. on Deut. 33: 18." (incorrect). "As a n. f. s. 2 A lost person" 77 (untrue: the word is applied to things only) "destruction, perdition, the invisible state, the bottomless pit" (all false). “Exod. 22: 9.” (not there it should be 22: 8.) " Deut. 22: 5." (not there: it should be 22: 3.) "Prov. 22: 20." (not in the chapter). "i Chald." (false: the termination i is purely Hebrew, and occurs in a multitude of nouns, e. g. ie, in, im, etc.; again, as the author supposes it to be Chaldee, why does he refer for it to " Job 28: 22." Is Job written in Chaldee !)
We pass over the string of synonymes in No. 1, and proceed to "2. he taught, punished, Jud. 8: 16." (the word is here in Hiph'hil, and signifies merely to cause to know, to teach); "3. revealed, made known, Gen. 45: 1." (the word is here in the Hithp. with the reflexive meaning he made himself known); " 4. was discovered, 1 Sam. 22: 6." (the word is in Niph. the passive of the simple form Kal); "6. he directed, pointed out, Exod. 18: 20." (it is here in Hiph. and with the same meaning as in No. 2.) "7. constituted, etc. 1 Sam. 21:2." (not there); "9. regarded, etc. 1 Sam. 2: 1. 2: 10." (not to be found in either place); “10. was convinced, etc.; 11. he produced, etc.; 12. distinguished,” etc. (in all the passages referred to in support of these senses, the verb retains its primary meaning, to know; except in "Deut. 1: 29," where it does not appear!); "13. acknowledged, etc.; 14. feared," etc. (the same may be observed of the significations here given; for the last we are referred to 1 Sam. 2: 12, where it means simply to know scil. the Lord, as correctly rendered in the English version) "3, m. s. Pret. K. irreg.
Ps. 1: 6." (we here find a participle, but no preterite) "Prov. 27: 23." (a future and an infinitive, but no preterite) "Dan. 6: 10." (not there besides the whole chapter is in Chaldee !) "F. 1 Sam. 20: 30.” (we find here which as the merest tyro might perceive, is a preterite and not a future)" Deut. 8: 5." ("37" !) “ Job 20: 20." (the root itself!!). "aff., 3 f. s. 2. m. s." (why not also 2. f. s. Jer. 50: 24. ?) " l. c. p." (the Daghesh should be erased)" 2. m. p." (a Daghesh should be inserted in n; why have we not also Gen. 31: 6. ?) “♬ her” (it should be ♫). "Niph. 1 Sam. 22: 6. F. v. 31." (the chapter has but twenty-three verses). "Piail. 1 Sam. 21: 2." (not there). "Whence To imagine, invent, devise, think" (the only point of resemblance between this and the root to know, that we can discover, is that both contain a!)
These are the results of an impartial examination of the two books whose titles stand at the head of these pages. We think we have fully redeemed our promise of showing a warrant for the opinions of their respective merits stated in the outset: viz. that the School Dictionary may be regarded as a valuable accession to the stores of Hebrew lexicography, while the Complete Hebrew and English Dictionary is wholly unworthy of
the claims which it has set up to respect and patronage. Let the reader call to mind, that in speaking of this latter performance (it is unworthy the name of a work), we have confined ourselves to the parts corresponding to the few examples adduced from a single letter of the alphabet in speaking of the School Dictionary, together, with the first verb, and the first word for which its author challenges our especial admiration; and he will find no difficulty in believing us when we affirm, that to enumerate all the misstatements and blunders in this volume of 700 pages, would require a book of twice its size, to say nothing of the general mode of execution, which betrays a total want of conception of the very nature of lexicography. We owe it to ourselves to state, that neither would we have spent our time or taxed the patience of the reader in wading through such a rudis indigestaque moles of error and absurdity, did we not feel that the interests of literature and the reputation of the country imperatively demanded it at our hands.
1.-An Inquiry respecting the Self-determining Power of the Will; or Contingent Volition. By Jeremiah Day, President of Yale College. New Haven : Herrick & Noyes. 1838. pp. 200.
The question of the self-determining power of the will is intimately connected with many of the theological discussions of the present day. "Yet there are reasons for believing that it is not, in all points of view, generally and clearly understood." There is certainly great confusion of views often manifested in the prevailing popular debates and discussions embracing this question. We hail, therefore, with pleasure, the publication of this volume by President Day. We have only had time to bestow upon it a cursory examination. For this however, we feel richly rewarded, and have no hesi tation in pronouncing the work every way worthy of the character of its respected author; whose habits of thinking, as well as his conciliatory spirit, peculiarly qualify him for a satisfactory and useful discussion of so difficult a subject, and concerning which there has, of late, been so much excitement among theologians of different schools.
This volume has so recently come to hand, that we have neither time nor room to give a full review of it in the present No. of the Repository. This it is our purpose to do in a future No. After a few pages of introductory observations, the running titles of the seve ral sections of the book are the following, viz. powers of the mind, self-determination, influence of motives, liberty and necessity, ability and inability, consciousness and accountability, common sense, mechanical and physical agency, moral government of God, activity and dependence, fatalism and pantheism, testimony of Scripture. It is for the sake of securing a due appreciation of the last named source of evidence, on a subject so momentous, that our author has felt himself called upon to settle the several principles involved in the preceding topics of discussion. On this point his own remarks are as follows.
"Here we are met with an assumption which precludes a refer ence to the decision of Scripture. It is claimed, that reason and consciousness, and common sense, have already decided the point; and that God cannot contradict, in his word, what he has distinctly made known to us by the faculties which he himself has implanted in the soul. Whatever passages, therefore, which seem to favor a particular doctrine, may be found in the Scriptures; they are to be so interpreted, as not to signify any thing which reason pronounces to be absurd. We are called upon, then, to inquire, whether the position, that nothing but the will itself has any influence in determining what its acts shall be, is so intuitively or demonstrably cer tain, as to preclude all possibility of finding the contrary declared in the word of God. So long as this position is adhered to, it is in vain to think of appealing to the authority of the Scriptures, on the question respecting a self-determining power of the will. They will, of course, be so explained as to express a meaning in conformity with the principles assumed. This is my apology for making an application of dry metaphysics to a subject so nearly connected with one of the most important departments of scriptural theology." (p. 13.) Again he remarks," I do not propose to establish certain theological points, by metaphysical reasoning, and then call in the aid of revelation merely to confirm the results of philosophical discussion. I would only aim at removing some of the objections which may lie in the way of a ready admission of the testimony of Scripture on the subject under consideration." (p. 14.)
Dry metaphysics, however, when applied with the caution and discrimination of Pres. Day, become attractive and entertaining, as well as instructive, to minds which are sufficiently disciplined to follow a continuous train of reasoning to its results. They are dry and uninteresting only to such as lack the patience of investigation and the power of discrimination which are necessary to conduct the mind to satisfactory conclusions on such subjects. Such only, we venture to predict, will complain of "Day on the Will," as tedious