Malan has only translated this name in a note. In the Persian the Pharisees are called "Seceders." Caiaphas (xl. 49) is called in the Anglo-Saxon a "Bishop." The Chiliarchus of xviii. 12 is called "a captain ;" in Syriac, "the captain of a thousand;" in Ethiopic, "the captain of ten hundred;" in Armenian, "captain of a thousand;" in Georgian, "the officer;" in Anglo-Saxon, "the ruler." The "pavement" (xix. 13) is rendered by Litastros, Lithostratos, "the place known as laid with stones." The pool of Siloam, which is by interpretation "sent," is expressed in the Syriac "the bathing place of Shilukho;" in Ethiopic, "the bath of Siloam, which by its interpretation is, messenger;" the Persian simply saying "the fountain of Shiloah."

Turning now to the doctrinal passages in the Gospel, it is gratifying to find that all the versions most faithfully represent our Blessed LORD's wonderful discourse at Capernaum. They all use the very same words: "I am the bread of life;" and in the other most important verses, they are all rendered as nearly alike as may be. In verse 52 the Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Arabic and Persian use "body," while the remainder use the word "flesh." The greatest discrepancy is in the 55th verse. Instead of "My flesh is meat indeed," the Syriac reads "For My body is really food;" the Ethiopic, " For My flesh is in truth righteous food:" the Armenian," For My body is true food ;" the Georgian, "Because My flesh is true food," which the Slavonic, Sahidic, and Memphitic follow. The Arabic and the Persian sadly weaken the force of the expression, the former reading "For My body is true eating;" the latter, "In truth My body is food." The readings in verse 57 vary between" of Me," "because of Me," "through Me," and "by reason of Me." In verse 64, where our version reads "For JESUS knew from the beginning who they were that believed not," the Syriac reads "For JESUS was aware of old;" the Ethiopic, "For JESUS knew from olden time;" the Georgian, "For JESUS knew from the first ;" the Arabic, "Because JESUS was acquainted from olden time.” In the seventh chapter, the verse, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ?" is very curiously rendered by the Syriac, "How doth this man know books, as He hath not learnt?" by the Ethiopic, "How doth this man know the Scriptures, He Who was not taught?" The versions divide between them the words "books," "letters," and "scriptures." The "Judge not according to appearance," in the same chapter, is translated "with respect of persons," Syriac and Ethiopic, Sahidic and Georgian; "according to the eye," Armenian; "with partiality," Arabic; "with hypocrisy and a double face," Persian. The dispersed of the Gentiles" is represented by "the parts of the nations," Syriac; "the country of the heathens," Ethiopic; "scattered among the heathen," Armenian; "dispersed among the Greeks," Slavonic. The Persian paraphrases in this miserable

VOL. XXIV.

3 H

دو

manner:- "Shall He perhaps go to some unknown distant country, that He may teach men of another religion?" The power of that wonderful saying in the eighth chapter, "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning," is almost lost. The Syriac reads, "Albeit that I have begun to speak with you;" the Georgian, "Because I said unto you at the first ;" the Arabic, “Truly, although I had begun to address you." In some, however, the true force is preserved. In the Armenian, "The first, that I also speak with you;" in Slavonic, "The beginning, as I say unto you;" in Gothic, "The beginning, which also I speak unto you.' "He shall never see death," of this same chapter, is variously rendered. "Shall not see death unto eternity," Syriac; "Shall not taste of death unto all ages," Ethiopic; "Shall not see death for ever," Gothic. In the miracle of healing the blind man, which is recorded in the ninth chapter, the "made clay and anointed mine eyes" of the English version is in the Syriac "made mud, and smeared over mine eyes." Indeed "mud" occurs for " clay" in all the versions but our own. In chap. x. 21, "These are not the words of him that hath a devil," "demoniac," "one possessed with a devil," "one that is devilish," "of a madman," being the corresponding expressions in the other versions. "Ravish is used for "pluck" in verse 28 of the same chapter. The verse in the history of Lazarus, "LORD, if he sleep, he shall do well," differs very much in some of these translations: the Syriac, "Our LORD, if he sleepeth, he is getting well;" Ethiopic, "LORD, if he sleepeth, he shall get well and shall awake;" Armenian, "LORD, if he is fallen asleep, then he liveth;" Georgian, "LORD, if he sleep, he shall recover;" Slavonic, "LORD, if he is fallen asleep, he shall be restored;" Sahidic, "LORD, if he hath fallen asleep, he shall get up again." The translations of the 35th verse of this chapter show the contrast very well. Syriac, "JESUS' tears were coming;" Ethiopic, "JESUS shed tears;" Armenian, "And He shed tears, JESUS;" same Georgian, Slavonic; Memphitic, "JESUS, His eyes shed tears;" Persian, "A tear was flowing from JESUS' eye." In chapter xii. 31, we read, "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." The Syriac calls him "the ruler of this world;" the Ethiopic expands the text, "And henceforth they shall persecute the king of this world, and they shall drive him out" the Sahidic, "ruler of this world shall be cast down." In the succeeding chapter (xiii. 4) He "took a towel and girded Himself," is by the Syriac rendered "He took a napkin, and cast it about His loins;" by the Ethiopic, "Took a band of linen cloth, and girded His loins;" by the Persian, "He took an apron and girded Himself with it." The psomion, or little piece of bread, which our version (xiii. 26, 27) renders "sop," the Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic, and Persian all translate simply "bread," both here and in the 30th verse as well. Nearly all the versions read "dwellings" for

"mansions" (xiv. 2.) In verse 18, the "comfortless" is mostly translated "orphans," except by the Ethiopic: "I shall not leave you, that ye become children of death."

Most of the versions are very weak. In chapter xx. 27, "Reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side:" Syriac, "Bring thy hand, and stretch it to My side;" Ethiopic, "Give thy hand, and bring it within My side;" Sahidic, "and thy hand, thrust it upon My side:" Anglo-Saxon, "and take thy hand, and do it to My side;" Persian, "Bring hither thy hand, and put it into My armpit." The "Children, have ye any meat?" is given in Syriac as "Lads, have ye anything to eat?" in Ethiopic, as " My children, is there that by you that we may eat?" in Armenian, as "Children, have ye perhaps anything to eat?" in Anglo-Saxon, as "Lads, say ye, have ye provision?" The "Ariston" of chap. xxi. 15, in our version, "when they had dined," in Syriac is, "after they had breakfasted;" in Ethiopic, "after they had their meal;" Armenian, "after they had eaten ;" so also the Memphitic, AngloSaxon, and Arabic; in Persian, "after they had eaten breakfast." The "feed My lambs," a few verses in advance, becomes "tend My sheep," the word "tend" in this use occupying the place of "feed." "Continue" is used for "tarry," in the promise made to S. John. We must be content with one other illustration, which shall be taken from S. John xxi. 21: "Peter seeing him saith to JESUS, LORD, and what shall this man do?" the Syriac, "When Peter saw him he said unto JESUS, My LORD, and this one what?” the Ethiopic, "And Peter saw him and said, LORD, as to this one how?" the Armenian, " Peter having seen him, saith unto JESUS, LORD, this one what then?" the Georgian, "When Peter saw him, he said unto JESUS, LORD, and what about this one?" the Slavonic," Peter having seen him said unto JESUS, LORD, and this one what?" the Memphitic, "But when Peter saw him he said unto JESUS, LORD, this one, what to him?" the Arabic, "Peter saw him and said unto JESUS, O LORD, and this one what betideth him?" the Persian, "When Peter saw him he said unto JESUS, My LORD, what is for this one?"

We have longed to make our comment upon some of these readings, but have thought it better to refrain from so doing, leaving the matter in the reader's own hands. As far as we can understand some of the translations, they are so bald as to be nearly unintelligible; but this is a good fault, and deserving of little censure. It is florid paraphrases which cannot be treated with too severe a hand. On the whole, we think that our Authorised version improves by its association with these translations of versions. It most certainly comes nearer the sense of the original Greek. At most the versions are valuable as giving shades of meaning; but alas! in the process of translation much of this delicate discrimination disappears. Hence there is great profit in reading one of these versions side by side with the original text,

but very small profit in comparing the translations of these versions with each other. Mr. Malan has done all that a good scholar could do. Our remarks apply to the nature of the work, not to his execution of it.

The title of "Notes on all the alterations proposed by the Five Clergymen in their revision of this Gospel, published in 1857," by no means conveys to the reader any notion of the perfect mine of scholastic and patristic lore which is summed up in these 134 pages. To us it seems indeed to be a green pasture after the toilsome road we have travelled, over ill defined verbal distinctions with hardly a difference. The first chapter is most copiously illustrated, in fact the notes upon it occupy a little more than a quarter of the whole. The sixth chapter has as much space devoted to it as its intrinsic importance would seem to demand. In these notes all languages have been pressed into the service. The classical writers are quoted with a freedom and appositeness that would indicate a thorough knowledge of their contents: the Christian Fathers, the Jewish Rabbis, the Targums, the Chaldee paraphrase, fall by the side of an Oriental Homily: Philo and Pindar, Homer and S. Athanasius, fit in well with each other. The more the notes are read and studied, the more will they be appreciated, and the more the peruser's respect for Mr. Malan's scholarship be increased.

As this paper is not so much a review of Mr. Malan's book as an account of what it contains, it falls within our design to give a brief abstract from one of his notes upon the word Logos or Word, that the reader may be able to judge of the others for himself, not so much as to the method in which particular passages would be illustrated, as to the general mental calibre which would be brought to bear upon any given subject.

The summary which Gennadius gives in his "Monuments of the Faith of the Church," Mr. Malan analyses and resolves into its factors, the sayings of S. Athanasius upon the "Incarnation;" of Eusebius in his Demonstration and Theophania; of S. Theophilus in his Letters to Autolycus; of S. Justin, S. Athenagoras, and the Oration of Tatian. After the summary of Gennadius Mr. Malan continues: "But except to a learned Greek óyos only conveys the idea of voice or speech." As the Syriac word signifies, "a voice that took a body." (S. Ephrem's Second Sermon.) Next is noticed a definition of Theophylact from his Commentary upon S. John, that "He is called the Word because He announced the things of the FATHER." He is spoken of in Heb. i.: éλáλnoe hμïv év viæ. The Liturgy of S. Gregory addresses CHRIST: "Thou art the Word of the FATHER, GOD from everlasting, the Great High Priest." Philo is quoted in his treatise upon the "Migration of Abraham," as proving the λóyos to be an interpreter, "the Interpreter of the FATHER'S will," and both Theophylact and Lactantius brought in to support this view. Lactantius contrasts (iv. 8) the Word with

the Spirit, and adds, " quod ipsum primo locutus est ut per eum ad nos loqueretur, et ille vocem Dei ac voluntatem revelaret." This aspect of the investigation being almost exhausted, Mr. Malan proceeds to take up the word according to its etymology and classical use. “ But λόγος does not come from λαλεῖν. Λόγος whether it means a word, a sentence, a discourse, a reason, is in itself inseparable from ψυχή. Λόγος δὲ φωνὴ σημαντική (Aristot. Poet. 20, 11, De Interpr. 4, 1): not so λaλiá." Ammonius is cited to prove that the λóyos is a thing spoken advisedly, while simply to speak is unmethodically. The Sanscrit derivation of λaλev is here given, as expressive of mere talk and prattle without sense, and the use of the word by Theocritus, Pindar, Aristophanes, Euripides, Theophrastus, and Moschus. This forms the second stage in the inquiry. The distinction between λaλev and Aéye is then very beautifully worked out from Philo and Aristotle, by the former the Word being compared to a fountain which flows from the mind, through the mouth, and escapes in speech: by the latter to a demonstration which does not belong to external speech, but to what is in the mind. It was the first-born of the Spirit, whether within or without ἐνδιαθέτος προφορικός. “ Λόγος here belongs to the highest order of intellect it is often said of the Gods and of GOD; and θεῖος λόγος, λόγος θεοῦ often occurs in classic Greek; for λέγειν is λαλεῖν with διανοίᾳ.” These remarks, with some more illustrations from Philo, close this section of the note. The Word is now taken up in philosophical use, so as to trace its bearings upon the Gnostic heresy. Here SS. Irenæus and Epiphanius, with the French writer Maittaire, are largely quoted from. Lastly, the equivalent for the Greek word λóyos is commented upon in all the versions which appear in the commentary, its Syriac, Latin, Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Memphitic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, equivalents are all most elaborately illustrated, and all this because when rightly understood it "leads us as far as we can follow into the mysteries of God's nature and attributes."

:

We must now in very truth take our leave of Mr. Malan, Not that we have done him justice; our space and the enormous amount of erudition which is stored up in his fine quarto, would prevent us from giving more than an indication of what our readers may find in his book for themselves. We confess to having but little sympathy with versions of Holy Scripture, and still less with translations of these versions; yet we cannot help regarding Mr. Malan's edition of the Gospel of S. John as a most noble offering to the department of Biblical learning and Mr. Malan himself, although we only know him through his books, as a sort of philological phenomenon, who can interpret writers of such varied climes, Pagan, Jew, or Christian, with equal facility, and use them so readily when interpreted for a purpose which seems to consecrate them all, in the elucidation of the most profound yet most seemingly simple book of the Sacred Canon.