entail a change in its construction, and consequently in its classification in the Lexicon. In the absence of an acknowledged consensus of scholars in favor of any one of the extant printed texts to the exclusion of its rivals, it is incumbent on any Lexicon which aspires after general currency to reckon alike with them all. Professor Grimm originally took account of the text of the 'Receptus', together with that of Griesbach, of Lachmann, and of Tischendorf. In his second edition, he made occasional reference also to the readings of Tregelles. In the present work not only have the textual statements of Grimm's second edition undergone thorough revision (see, for example, "Griesbach" in the list of "Explanations and Abbreviations"), but the readings (whether in the text or the margin) of the editions of Tregelles and of Westcott and Hort have also been carefully noted.
Again: the frequent reference, in the discussion of synonymous terms, to the distinctions holding in classic usage (as they are laid down by Schmidt in his voluminous work) must not be regarded as designed to modify the definitions given in the several articles. On the contrary, the exposition of classic usage is often intended merely to serve as a standard of comparison by which the direction and degree of a word's change in meaning can be measured. When so employed, the information given will often start suggestions alike interesting and instructive.
On points of etymology the statements of Professor Grimm have been allowed to stand, although, in form at least, they often fail to accord with modern philological methods. But they have been supplemented by references to the works of Curtius and Fick, or even more frequently, perhaps, to the Etymological Dictionary of Vaniček, as the most compendious digest of the views of specialists. The meaning of radical words and of the component parts of compounds is added, except when it is indubitably suggested by the derivative, or when such words may be found in their proper place in the Lexicon.
The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context or discussion:—or, to state the same truth from another point of view, the lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to some extent, the functions of the exegete, although he can and should refrain from rehearsing the general arguments which support the interpretation adopted, as well as from arraying the objections to opposing interpretations.
Professor Grimm, in his Preface, with reason calls attention to the labor he has expended upon the explanation of doctrinal terms, while yet guarding himself against encroaching upon the province of the dogmatic theologian. In this particular the editor has endeavored to enter into his labors. Any one who consults such articles as αἰών, αἰώνιος, βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ etc., δίκαιος and its cognates, δόξα, ἐλπίς, ζωή, θάνατος, θεός, κόσμος, κύριος, πίστις, πνεῦμα, σάρξ, σοφία, σώζω, and its cognates, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστός, and the like, will find, it is believed, all the materials needed for a complete exposition of the biblical contents of those terms. On the comparatively few points respecting which doctrinal opinions still differ, references have been
