Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (). TABs- Online titles. Contents. א. ב Lexicon. (click on letters). Grammatical and Analytical. Gesenius Hebrew Chaldee (Aramaic, Syriac) Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures translated and edited from the German original by. Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures; translated, with by Gesenius, Wilhelm, ; Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux,
|Published (Last):||19 March 2012|
|PDF File Size:||14.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
There are options set in ‘Advanced Options’. Search verses, phrases, and topics e. Blue Letter Bible offers several daily devotional readings in order to help you refocus on Christ and the Gospel of His peace and righteousness.
This lexicon was originally written by Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius in the German language. Gesenius’s influence as a master of Hebrew is widespread. The editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon refer to him as the father of modern Hebrew Lexicography. Gesenius first published a work on Hebrew grammar in before turning his efforts on chwldee.
There have been various versions of Gesenius’s work in English. We have chosen to use the version translated by Samuel P.
Tregelles is most famous for his version of the Greek New Testament, though he also wrote hymns and worked with Hebrew grammar in addition to textual criticism. As mentioned in the section called To the StudentGesenius was a known rationalist, or neologian as Tregelles refers chzldee him. Though some of these rationalistic expressions are found in the lexicon, Tregelles was faithful to make corrections, which are enclosed in brackets.
To get to the BLB lexicon pages, go to a verse, hover over Tools and click on Interlinear, then click on the appropriate Strong’s number within the chart. Another way to access the lexicon is through the Geseniue Tab.
The LexiConc is a lexical concordance tool and searches the BLB lexicon for words which are used in the Authorized Version please note: Or, if you are looking for a particular Strong’s number, type it in the search box and hit enter:. William Gesenius, late professor at Vesenius. The attainments of Gesenius in Oriental literature are well known. This is not the place to dwell on them; it is more to our purpose to notice his lexicographical labours in the Hebrew language: Of this work a greatly-improved edition was published at Leipzig in Prefixed to it there is an Essay on the Sources of Hebrew Lexicography, to which Gesenius refers in others of his works.
Another and yet further improved edition appeared in The third part of the “Thesaurus” appeared in ; a fourth in ; and a fifth in ; bringing the work down as far as the root. On the 23rd of October,Gesenius died in his fifty-seventh year. Three years, however, have passed away without any further progress having been announced.
Between the publication of the first and second parts of the geaenius appeared the “Lexicon Manuale,” in Latin, of which the present work is a translation; and also inan edition of his German Lexicon, conformed to the “Lexicon Manuale.
Of several of the above works translations have been made into English. InJosiah W. This translation has also been twice reprinted in London.
The first chaldde these Lexicons lexicno translated by Christopher Leo, and published at Cambridge, in 2 vols. This work of Dr. Robinson, chalfee well as the translations of Gibbs, had become very scarce in England, and the uebrew of a good “Hebrew and English Lexicon,” really adapted to students, was felt by many. The question arose, Whether a simple reprint of one of the existing translations would not sufficiently meet lexicln want?
It did not appear so to the present translator; and that on various grounds: Gibbs’s work, having been based upon the earlier publications of Gesenius, was in a manner superseded by the author’s later works; while, as regards the translation of Dr. Robinson, considerable difficulty was felt, owing to the manner in which the rationalist views, unhappily held by Gesenius, not only appeared in the work without correction, but also from the distinct statement of the translator’s preface, that no remark was required on any theological views which the work might contain.
Marks of evident haste and oversight were also very traceable through the work; and these considerations combined led to the present undertaking. This translation was conducted on the following plan: A faithful adherence to this plan must insure, it is manifested, not only correctness in the work, but also much of the value of the “Thesaurus,” in addition to the “Lexicon Manuale. Every word has been further compared, and that carefully, with Professor Lee’s Hebrew Lexicon; and when he questions statements made by Gesenius, the best authorities have been consulted.
In Arabic roots, etc. Winer’s “Simonis” and other authorities were also compared. In the situations and particulars of places mentioned in the Old Testament, many additions have been made from Robinson’s “Biblical Researchers. The forms in which the proper names appear in the authorised English translation have been added throughout. When this work was ready for the press, a second edition of Dr. The publication of this new edition led the translator gseenius question whether it would not be sufficient for the wants of the Gesenus student: Vesenius as containing anything unsound.
It was thus apparent that the publication of the new American translation was in no sense a reason why this should be withheld. The translator has, however, availed himself of the advantage which that work afforded; his MS. This obligation to that work is thankfully and cheerfully acknowledged. It has been a special object with the translator, to note the interpretations of Gesenius which manifested hebree tendencies, in order that by a remark, or by querying a statement, the reader may be put on his guard.
And if any passages should remain chapdee, in which doubt is cast upon Scripture inspiration, or in which the New and Old Testaments are spoken of as discrepant, or in which mistakes and ignorance are charged upon the “holy men of God who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,”—if any perchance remain in which these or any other neologian tendencies be left unnoticed—the translator wishes it distinctly to be understood that it is the effect of inadvertence alone, and not of design.
Gesfnius is a matter on which he feels it needful to be most explicit and decided. The translator cannot dismiss this subject without the acknowledgment of his obligations to the Rev.
Boys was peculiarly adapted, from his long familiarity with Hebrew literature, especially with the works of Gesenius, both while engaged in Hebrew tuition, and whilst occupied in the Portuguese translation of the Scriptures. All additions to the “Lexicon Manuale” have been enclosed between brackets : Nothing further seems necessary to add to the above remarks; they will inform the student as to the nature of the present work,—why it was undertaken,—and the mode in which it was executed.
It has been the translator’s especial desire and object that it might aid the student in acquiring a knowledge of the language in which God saw fit to give forth so large a portion of those “Holy Scriptures which are able to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The following are the more important MSS. This name has been justly objected to; for these languages were not peculiar to the race of Shem, nor yet co-extensive with them: This term, though only an approximation to accuracy, may be regarded as a qualification of the too general name Shemitic ; and, in the present state of our knowledge, any approach to accuracy in nomenclature where it does not interfere with well-known terms which custom has made familiar will be found helpful to the student.
Davies ‘s translation of the last edition of Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammarby Prof. Robinson’s translation have since appeared: In issuing a new impression of this translation of Gesenius’s Lexicon, there are a few subjects to which I may with propriety advert. The accurate study of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, so far from becoming of less importance to Christian scholars than heretofore, is now far more necessary.
For the attacks on Holy Scriptureas such, are far more frequently made through the Old Testament, and through difficulties or incongruities supposed to be found there, than was the case when this translation was executed. Indeed, in the eleven years which have elapsed since the final proof sheet of this Lexicon was transmitted to England, there has been new ground taken or revived amongst us in several important respects. We now hear dogmatic assertions that certain passages of the Old Testament have been misunderstood—that they really contain sentiments and statements which cannot be correct,—which exhibit ignorance or the want of accurate and complete knowledge of truth on the part of the writers; and this we are told proves that all the inspiration which can be admitted, must be a very partial thing.
We are indeed asked by some to accept fully the religious truth taught “in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” while everything else may be it is said safely regarded as doubtful or unauthorised.
Gesenius Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon Old Testament Scriptures.Tregelles.1857. 24 files.
It is affirmed that the Sacred writers received a certain commission, and that this commission was limited to that which is now defined to be religious truth: To what an extent some have gone in limiting what they would own to be religious truth, is shown by their holding and teaching that we must judge how far the Apostles of our Lord were authorised in their applications of the Old Testament. Thus even in what is really religious truth of the mast important kind, it is assumed that we are to be the judges of Scripture instead of receiving it, as taught by St.
Paul, as “given by inspiration of God. And these things are connected with such dogmatic assertions about the force of Hebrew words, and the meaning of Hebrew sentences, as will be found incapable of refutation on the part of him who is not acquainted with Hebrew, even though on other grounds he may be sure that fallacy exists somewhere.
Hence arises the peculiar importance mentioned above, of properly attending to Hebrew philology. A real acquaintance with that language, or even the ability of properly using the works of competent writers, will often show that the dogmatic assertion that something very peculiar must be the meaning of a Hebrew word or sentence, is only a petitio principii devised for the sake of certain deductions which are intended to be drawn.
It may be seen by any competent scholar, not only that such strange signification is not necessary, but also that it is often inadmissible, unless we are allowed to resort to the most arbitrary conjectures.
Here, then, obsta priracipiis applies with full force: Thus will the Christian scholar be able to retort much of what is used against the authority of Holy Scripture upon the objectors themselves, and to show that on their principles anything almost might with equal certainty he affirmed respecting the force and bearing of any passage.
And even in cases in which absolute certainty is hardly attainable, a knowledge of the Scripture in the original will enable the defender of God’s truth to examine what gdsenius asserted, and it will hinder him from upholding right principles on insufficient grounds.
Inaccurate scholarship has ehbrew detracted from the usefulness of the labours of those who have tried, and in great part successfully, to defend and uphold the authority of Scripture against objectors.
The mode in which some have introduced difficulties into the department of Hebrew Philology, has been by assigning geseniua and gesehius meanings to Hebrew words,—by affirming that such meanings must be right in particular passages although no where elseand by limiting the sense of a root or a term, so as to imply that some incorrectness of statement is found on the part of the Sacred writers.
Much of this has been introduced since the time of Gesenius, so that although he was unhappily not free from Neologian bias, others who have come after him have been far worse.
Ancient Hebrew Bookstore – Free eBooks
And this leads me to speak of one feature of this Lexicon as translated by me, to which some prominence may be given in considering these new questionings. This Lexicon in all respects is taken from Gesenius himself ; all additions of every kind being carefully marked. The question is not whether others have improved upon Gesenius, but whether under his name they have or have not given his Lexicography.
Students may rest assured that they have in this volume the Lexicography, arrangements, and divisions of Gesenius himself, and not of any who have sought to improve on him. For such things at least the translator is not answerable. It would be as just to blame a translator of a Dialogue of Plato for the manner and order in which the interlocutors appear, as a translator of Gesenius for not having deviated from his arrangements. That Rationalistic tendencies should be pointed out, that such things should be noted and refuted.
That any should object to these anti-neologian remarks of mine is a cause of real sorrow to me; not on my own account, but on account of those whose sympathy with the sentiments on which I found it necessary to animadvert, is shown too plainly by what they have said on this subject.
Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon – Study Resources
If they consider that an excessive fear of neology haunts my mind with morbid pressure, I will at least plainly avow that I still hold and maintain the sentiments expressed in my preface to this Lexicon eleven years ago: I receive Holy Scripture as being the Word of God, and I believe cnaldee on this, as well as on every other subject, we must how to the sovereign authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost through the Apostles.
Thus are we sufficiently taught how we should receive and use the Cgaldee of the Old Testament as well as of the New. To be condemned with the writers of the New Testament, and for maintaining their authority in opposition to some newly devised philological canon for the interpretation of the Old, is a lot to which a Christian need but little object as to himself: Sound Hebrew Philology will, then, often hinder difficulties from being introduced into the text of Scripture, and will guard us against the supposition that the writers of the Old Testament hevrew strange and incongruous things incompatible with true inspiration, and against the theory that the chalde and hearing of Old Testament passages were misunderstood by the writers of the New.
Thus a whole gesnius of supposed difficulties and objections is at once removed out of the way of him who receives Scripture as the record of the Holy Ghost: And farther, it may be said, that lfxicon we receive the Old Testament Scriptures on the authority of our Lord and His Apostles as being really and truly the inspired revelation and record of the Holy Ghost, then all the supposed discrepancies must be only seemingand we may use all that is written for our learning, whether history, precept, or prophecy, well assured that its authority is unaffected by any such difficulties.
Objections will no doubt continue to he raised: