24. 3. mente consternatæ essent . ἐν τῷ ἀπορεῖσθαι.

— 10. ubi sunt qui te accusabant ε = ποῦ [εἰσιν] ἐκεῖνοι,

12. 19. proficimus

47. custodierit

13. 24. et dixit ei

14. 11. Non creditis

18. 18. ad prunam

ὠφελεῖτε.
· πιστεύση.
πύθεσθαι.

πιστεύετε.

from ἀνθρακιὰν πεποιηκότες.

19. 34. latus ejus aperuit [ἤνοιξεν] τ. πλευρὰν τ. δεξιὰν ἔνυξεν.

I have now, I think, produced a considerable mass of evidence in favour of the Greek origin of the Arabic Gospels. I must frankly avow my inability to discover any similar evidence of a Latin origin. I do not deny the existence of phenomena, which would, in former days, have been interpreted as such by critics of the school of Wetstein. It would be an insult to Dean Alford, Dr. Tregelles, and modern Biblical scholars in general, to treat these phenomena as serious difficulties, or to speak of them in an apologetic tone. If the Arabic Gospels sometimes differ from the Byzantine text, and agree with the Vulgate, it is almost invariably when the Vulgate agrees with Greek authorities of the highest character, and with other ancient versions. I know of very few instances in which the Arabic, when agreeing with the Vulgate, is unsupported by extant Greek authorities. Luke, ix. 45, seems to be one of them; both the Vulgate and Arabic reading in cordibus vestris for siç rà ra vuv. But the Ethiopic version, which was certainly made from the Greek, is an independent witness in favour of the Vulgate reading; and if "hearts" was found in the Greek MSS. whence the Latin and Ethiopic versions were respectively made, why may it not have been in the Greek MS. from which the Arabic version was made? The Latin and the Peschito agree in a certain number of readings, unsupported by any other authority. This merely shows that readings which once undoubtedly existed in very ancient Greek MSS., were, after a certain period, completely superseded by others.

Let us now suppose that the Greek origin of this Arabic version has been satisfactorily established; let us also suppose that, by a judicious collation of MSS. from different countries, interpolations from Syriac, Coptic, or other sources have been eliminated, and the purity of the text restored: may it not be questioned whether the version itself, owing to its comparatively late date, can be made available for any useful critical purpose."

9 This version has been received from time immemorial by the different Christian communions in the East. Michaelis has shown that it was known to the authors of the Druze Catechisms. A still more ancient Druze authority is Behaeddin el Moqtana, author of some of their sacred writings, and one of the earliest founders of the religion. He does not quote it literally, but he is evidently acquainted with it. The same observation is true with reference to the Christian patriarch Eutychius, in spite of a note of Selden (Eutych. Orig., p. 164), who thinks he quotes from the version of John of Seville. Eutychius in general does not really quote; he paraphrases the sacred text. He

I do not believe that this question can be satisfactorily answered until the text has been critically dealt with; but I am quite certain that it is in the highest degree unscientific to pronounce the version valueless on the mere à priori ground of its recent date. It may possibly turn out to have been made from a corrupt Greek MS.; but the contrary supposition is, at least, as probable. Antiquity and beauty of execution are certainly very valuable qualities in a manuscript, but they are not all, nor are they absolutely indispensable. A manuscript of the third or fourth century may possibly contain the most absurd readings, even though written in the most splendid uncials. And a rudely executed cursive MS. of the tenth or twelfth century may, on the other hand, have been copied from an extremely ancient uncial MS. of the highest critical authority. It is well known to Biblical scholars that several MSS., whose dates are more recent than that of the Arabic version, furnish most important evidence as to the text of the New Testament. To give only one instance:

"A MS. obtained by Tischendorf", says Dr. Tregelles," "deserves to be mentioned amongst the most valuable of the cursive documents. . . . . A subscription to the MS. states that it was written by John the Monk, in the year answering to A.D. 1054. The agreement of this MS. with the most ancient and authoritative codices, is most remarkable; and when such copies as A, B, and C, differ from one another, this MS. far more often than not contains the reading which has the highest claim on the attention of a critical editor. Its excellence thus can hardly be estimated too highly; and it may be regarded as undoubtedly a copy of some very ancient and authoritative uncial MS.".

And differing, as I feel compelled to do, in so many impor tant details from Dr. Alford, I have the greater pleasure in expressing my thorough agreement with him in the following

remarks:

"The more a critic is versed in examining the phenomena of different MSS., and applying them to the revision of the text, the

uses all sorts of rhetorical artifices to avoid giving the very words of Scripture. When he seems to do so, he is sometimes grossly inaccurate. He quotes the Pentateuch, for instance, as saying, that when the sons of Elohim "had seen the daughters of Cain", etc. Some of his references to the Gospels, however, literally agree with our Arabic version, and if it were worth the while, I could show that his phraseology in this part of his Annals is deeply impregnated with reminiscences of our version. On a supposed translation of the Gospels by Waracâ, an early contemporary of Mahomet, see the biographies of the prophet by Sprenger and Muir.

10 Introduction, p. 211.

11 Prolegomena, p. 78, 3rd edition. This passage has been omitted in the last edition, but not, I believe, in consequence of any change in the mind of the

writer.

less, I am persuaded, will be his value for mere MS. authority; and, especially, the less will be his reverence for mere antiquity in this matter. Far too much stress has been laid, and, I am sorry to say, by some very intelligent modern critics, on the mere difference of age in the transcription of our MSS. But we want very much more than this. We want a new and thorough collation and examination of our MSS., to ascertain, not merely the age of their transcription, but the internal character of their text with regard to corrections and mistakes. There may yet be found among our cursive MSS. texts of great value, more pure as judged by critical principles, than any which we now possess.

"And I would not confine this examination to MSS., but extend it to versions and citations. Let it be discovered what versions may be fairly taken as representing verbally the text from which they were made, what versions, on the other hand, are merely paraphrastic, or deviate into elucidation and explanation; who among the fathers quote strictly, and who loosely; and let due weight be given to each. I may be answered that this has been done; but I am compelled to reply, that it has been rather talked about than done".

ART. VI.-Notice of an unpublished Translation of the Pentateuch, by Father Richard Simon of the Oratory. By P. LE PAGE RENOUF.

I

WAS not a little surprised a few years back, on opening a volume lying on the shelves of the Royal Library at Aschaffenburg, to find a French manuscript of 726 folio pages, entitled Le Pentateuque traduit par Richard Simon, avec des remarques. The handwriting was large, handsome, and carefully executed. The orthography was peculiar, but not unlike what is found in some books printed at the beginning of last century; accents and stops were systematically omitted in places where we should expect them, or else they were found in wrong places. It required but a very slight examination of its contents to convince me that this MS. was a copy of a genuine work of the celebrated Oratorian Richard Simon, the founder of modern Biblical science, particularly of that branch of it which has been cultivated in Germany under the name of Isagogik, and which has been illustrated by the works of Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Jahn, Hug, de Wette, and a host of other learned but less celebrated authors. The authorship of the work is unmistakeable. Father Simon has a certain homely style with which one immediately gets

familiar, a peculiar kind of erudition, and a method and tone in dealing with facts, which are essentially his own. Both the translation of the Pentateuch and the notes appended to it have all the qualities which made his writings so remarkable in their day, and drew upon him the animadversions of all his theological contemporaries, both Catholic and Protestant. There is not a page of the MS. which does not remind one of the objections of Spanheim or the Dutch theologians on the one side, and of the pastoral of the Cardinal de Noailles on the other.

Though no man, probably, of his time was better able to throw light on the difficulties of the sacred text, few learned men were less qualified to undertake a translation of it. Bossuet once expressed a wish that Father Simon would translate both the Old and New Testaments, but the Nouveau Testament de Trevoux no sooner made its appearance, than the wish was changed into a regret.

The character of Father Simon's writings closely corresponds with the description which is given of his person and habits. He was a little old man of unprepossessing countenance, and of more than ascetic abstemiousness. He shrunk from intercourse with the world to such an extent, that, to avoid the presence of a congregation, his daily mass was always said before his neighbours had risen. He was, indeed, capable of warm attachments, particularly with learned men; but the world in which he habitually lived, and which alone he really knew, was that of books, and those chiefly written in languages no longer spoken. He was ardently devoted to the cause of science, but his mind was essentially prosaic. The sublimest and most poetical parts of Scripture are, perhaps, those which he translated worst. They are shocking to read in his versions, and sometimes almost ludicrous. They remind us of the way in which some of our school-fellows, excellent scholars, perhaps, used to destroy all the beauty of the noblest passages in the Greek classics. The Cardinal de Noailles reproaches him with talking in his notes about "gueux", and "donner un sofa". He certainly had no intention of being disrespectful to the Word of God; reverence is compatible with the most homely images and language, but "one man's meat is another man's poison". He had not the most distant notion of the painful, offensive, or ludicrous impression which would be produced on devout, sensitive, or irreligious minds by language which was the natural expression of his own earnest conception of the sacred text, any more than he was capable of foreseeing the direction which the current of the "critical inquiry" on the sacred text would take after his death.

The anxiety he felt that his translations of Scripture should