men of this portion of the book, we transcribe the statement respecting the passage last referred to, Luke ix. 55.

"55. * om. ' and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.' Gb Lm Td Tg Al w. & A B C E &c. itt fu cop æth Bas Cyr Jer. But insert it, D. F w. K MUA curss itt vg all the syrr &c."

The above, expressed more fully, would inform us that the omission is sanctioned by Griesbach as probable, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, with the Sinaitic Ms., the Alexandrine, Vatican, Ephraem, Basle, and other uncial MSS., the valuable cursive MS. numbered 33, and others, some copies of the old Italic, and the Fulda copy of the Vulgate, the Coptic and Ethiopic version, and the early Fathers Basil, Cyril, and Jerome. In favor of inserting the words, are the Cambridge and five other uncial MSS., some cursives, some copies of the old Italic, the Vulgate in most copies, all the Syriac versions, &c.

The remainder of the volume, about one-fourth, is devoted to Notes on the Gospels. These are partly in explanation and defence of the author's renderings of the passages to which they relate, and on that account should be consulted by all who would judge fairly of the translation. Repeatedly we have, at the first glance, thought Mr. Folsom's rendering strange and indefensible; but, on turning to the Notes, have found that there was authority for it, which, if not always sufficient to satisfy us of its correctness, at least showed that it was not the result of caprice or the love of novelty, but of the judgment of a careful scholar.

It may be thought capricious to translate the words of the Magi, "we have seen his star in its rising," when, just before, we had been told that they were " from the East;" but the Notes not only tell us of the authority of other critics for the change, but draw attention to the fact, that dvaroλǹ, in the singular, elsewhere signifies "rising," while "the East" is, elsewhere as here, indicated by the plural. Mr. Folsom's rendering corresponds with the distinction observed, in every instance, throughout the New Testament and the Septuagint; besides giving a more lively and positive turn to the phrase.

We regard it, accordingly, as well sustained, if not fully justified.

So again at the first glance, it seems a causeless and useless change to substitute "happy" for "blessed" in the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount;" but turning to our author's notes we are reminded that "There are two other words, ivλoyrtós and ivλornuéros, both, also, translated' blessed,'" while "the word happy,' in modern usage, expresses the sense wherever the word uaxágos occurs. And," as he goes on to point out, "it is the adequate sense in this passage." Though, therefore, we shall still call those precious sentences "the Benedictions," we are satisfied that Jesus spoke of a happiness which should spring naturally, and therefore providentially, from the virtues he inculcated.

The value of the Notes, however, is by no means confined to the account they give of the author's principles of translation. They often present a most instructive and impressive commentary; the more instructive and impressive because brief. The admirable note on the Temptation, for example, despatches all the questions about time and place, and a personal appearance of the Evil One, in half a page, briefly setting aside that bald literal interpretation, which few scholars would now defend; devotes a somewhat longer space to answering the suggestion of Schleiermacher and Norton, that the whole was a parable; and then goes on, in two pages, to describe, with great force and beauty, the trains of thought in the Saviour's mind, which constituted the successive temptations, with the scenes and circumstances that gave rise to them; closing with a short and striking practical application. Another fine instance of a note rendering intelligible a dif ficult subject, is that on the proem of the Gospel according to John. The author clearly points out how frequent was the use of personification, especially as applied to the Divine Wisdom, by the Old Testament writers, by the later Jews, as in the Apocrypha and the writings of Philo, and by the Saviour himself. We do not, however, agree with Mr. Folsom in his translation of the last clause in the first verse," and God was the Word;" for, not only is it permitted by Greek

usage to consider the noun which follows the verb as the subject of it, but the next verse appears to us to decide the question. "This was in the beginning with God." What is the antecedent of "this?" Surely not "God;" the writer would not say," God was in the beginning with God." "The Word" is the antecedent; the subject of the first two clauses is the subject of the fourth also, and we can hardly avoid, therefore, regarding it as the subject of the intervening clause. In the third verse, Mr. Folsom rightly guards against expressions by which nearly all preceding translators have given to the verb éyéveto a much stronger meaning than it possesses. We are not sure, however, but, that in avoiding the idea of creation, the term he selects suggests another, which goes beyond the meaning of ¿yéveto in a different way. "Arose into being" seems to imply growth, if not self-creation. Mr. Sawyer, though not always happy, seems to us to have here the right word, "existed." We agree with Mr. Folsom's translation of" it," rather than "him" for άvrov. Neither rendering is adequate, because either excludes the meaning of the other, while the original admits both.

We will not pursue further an examination of Mr. Folsom's rendering of this important passage. Enough, perhaps, has been said, to show the care with which the task has been performed, and the claim which this rendering, and the note which accompanies it, have to the attention of all who desire fully to understand this "Golden Proem."

In his notes to John v. 1, and vi. 4, Mr. Folsom states briefly, but very clearly, the grounds of different judgments respecting the length of the Saviour's ministry, with the names of the most distinguished scholars who have favored the respective opinions. His own conclusion appears to be that the "feast," mentioned in John v. 1, was not that of the Passover, but of Purim; that, consequently, three Passovers, and only three, were included in the ministry of Jesus, making its whole length about two and a half years.

Still more important is the note on John xii. 1, in which the translator examines the alleged discrepancy between the Fourth Gospel, and the Synoptics, with regard to the time of

VOL. LXXXVII. -NEW SERIES, VOL. VIII. NO. III.

24

the institution of the Last Supper. The grounds on which this discrepancy has been asserted, are examined by Mr. Folsom, in his usual condensed but thorough manner. He considers the words "before the feast of the Passover" as referring, not to what occurred at the supper, but to the knowledge which was in the mind of Jesus. The writer does not mean, "Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus washed his disciples' feet," but "before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew what was about to occur; and, loving his disciples, he was thus induced, when the Passover had come, and they were all met together, to give them this striking lesson of humility and attachment." He points out that the expression, "Buy what we have need of for the feast," John xiii. 29, may have related, not to the paschal supper, but to the continued festival; and, in regard to the scruple of the scribes against entering the Prætorium, "that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (xviii. 28), he observes that, conceding that the paschal supper is meant, "precautions not to be defiled would be entirely groundless, on the supposition that the supper was not to be until the next evening; for, by bathing in the course of the day, before they ate, they could wash away the defilement." He therefore supposes their participation in the Passover supper to have been delayed by their eagerness for the arrest and condemnation of Jesus; and that, their purpose now was, as soon as that condemnation was decreed, to return to their homes and satisfy the demands of the law, by partaking of the Passover before sunrise.

On John xviii. 39, Mr Folsom well remarks, that "the proposal of Pilate to release a prisoner, according to his custom at the Passover, is more appropriate to the festival having already commenced." On the word "preparation," as applied to the day when Jesus was crucified (xix. 14), he shows that it could not mean preparation for the Passover, but simply, according to common usage, and as evidently employed in other verses of the same chapter (31, 42), preparation for the Sabbath, that is, Friday.

Thus the imagined' discrepancy, not only between this

Gospel and the others, but between this and the well-attested practice of the Apostle John, disappears when fully investigated; and we are not compelled to believe that in the midst of the Quartodeciman controversy, about the time of keeping Easter, a book was surreptitiously introduced as the work of the Apostle John, and found unopposed reception, which gave testimony on that subject contrary to the well-known opinions and practice of John himself.

Of the Notes in this volume, more than half are on the Gospel of John, and they constitute a valuable commentary on that most spiritual book.

The volume of Mr. Folsom is not, like some new translations of works that had never been well rendered before, a book to be taken up for the mere pleasure of meeting with obvious improvements. Most readers will prefer the old version to this, or to that of Dr. Noyes, or to any other that could be made; for there are dear and sacred associations with the venerable book which has done so much, through three centuries and a half, for the language, the mind, and the heart of the English race. But of new translations of the Bible, and especially of this, the value is to the student, to the intelligent reader, who, though, perhaps, familiar only with the English language, yet wishes to know the true meaning of what prophets and apostles wrote in Hebrew and in Greek; and would fain have a distincter knowledge than the common manuals afford, of that region wherein so much of learned labor has been expended, — of the collation of manuscripts, and the comparison of interpretations. In this region, the translation of the New Testament by Dr. Noyes covers a wider ground; and, besides departing less from the old rendering, possesses the advantage of a more idiomatic English style, which the book before us has sometimes lost, through its exceeding faithfulness; but this affords, with regard to that portion of the New Testament which it renders, advantages in the careful presentation of authorities, in its valuable notes, and often in its attention to the finer shades of meaning. We anticipate for it, among scholars of various denominations, abroad, as well as here, not certainly general popularity, but