nen.") "In Greek,"adds he, "we find 'Ich bin was ich auch anfangs gesagt habe (das Licht der Welt,')" Ob., v. 11. In the Greek we find no such thing; λalo is not "gesagt habe," nor is τηv αpxny correctly translated by "anfangs," as we have abundantly proved. We cannot pass all this over without calling the attention of our readers to the manner in which this author contradicts himself. In the explanation of the text he remarks that the Son of God" calls himself the Beginning," &c., and in the next sentence informs us that the Saviour never used the expression at all, but only "I am what I also said to you from (or in) the beginning, (anfangs), the Light of the world," as in v. 12.*

Kistemaker, in his tenth edition of his Testament,t renders it, "Der Anfang Der ich auch das zu euch sage." The best we can say of this rendering is to be silent. We should, indeed, be puzzled to put it into English. With the rest, he gives us "Der Anfang," nominative case for Tηv αрxηv. He makes an effort, however, to retain the accusative of laλw, 71 (Vulg. " quod loquor"), "das zu euch sage," and correctly puts the verb in the first person," sage," not with Allioli in the third, "redet."

"Der

Weitenduer's version needs no special comment: Anfang (aller Dinge) wie ich euch shon anfanglich gesagt habe." He works two words, "anfang" and "anfanglich," out of the single one apxnv. The only correct interpretation of this verse we have ever met with is that given by Dr. J. Th. Beelen in his Flemish edition of St. John's gospel: "(Ik ben) volstrekt dat, was ik ulieden ook leer (te weten, de beloofde Messias)"-(I am) assuredly that what I also announce to you (to wit, the expected Messiah).

The whole interpretation hinges on the meaning of the word τnv αpxnv. It must be borne in mind that nowhere else in the New Testament does the word occur, bearing the signification Beelen here attaches to it. But on this ground alone no one would contend that it should be rejected. Neither does it occur, as we remarked before, in the sense

The versions of Martini, Allioli, and Glaire have been approved by the Holy See. It is proper to state, however, that this approbation is a mere negative one, not necessarily implying the endorsement of a single line of any of the works. But such as it is, since it is rarely granted, and never except to works that come before the Holy Father with the very highest encomiums, it gives any text so approved a considerable degree of authority. Besides the three mentioned, we know of only two other vernacular versions of the Holy Scriptures approved by the Pope: the Polish text of Father Wuicko and the Spanish version of Father Scio de S. Miguel. We have none in English. Louvain, 1862.

+ Munster, 1850.

of απ' αρχης. But whereas no Greek author is found to have used the accusative adverbial αρχην οι την αρχην in the sense of "from the beginning," there are various examples to prove that they employed it to mean plane, prorsus, omnino, volstrekt, assuredly.*

It is sufficient to note here that two Greek fathers, Chrysostom, in his Fifty-third Homily on St. John,and Theophilactus ad h. 1., understood τnv apxny in the sense of volstrekt, omnino, assuredly, expressing it by its equivalent adverb olos. Owing, however, to a false reading of the text, both entirely misunderstood the passage. But this rather strengthens than impairs their testimony as to the signification which the adverbial phrase τnv apxnv may obtain.t Beelen's interpretation, then, exactly accords with the original; it is clear, simple, and literal:

τι

και

ook

λαλω υμιν.
relieden.

leer

that what also I teach

you.

Την αρχην 0 Volstrekt dat was Assuredly Each Greek word has its equivalent in the vernacular, and the whole passage exactly suits the context.

66

But it may be asked, if the Saviour meant nothing more than "I am what I also announce to you," why he did not say at once " Εγω ειμι ον με ειναι λέγω,” and from the fact of his not employing the usual mode of expression, are we not to conclude that he insinuated in that obscure phrase something more than the ordinary and plain expression would imply? We do not deny that the Saviour might have answered, "I am what to-day I am ;" but the text as it stands is far more pregnant, and more in accordance with the context.

"If you believe not," said the Saviour, v. 24, "that I am, you shall die in your sins." This verse is in reality the great puzzle. What did he wish them to believe? "That I am." It was not certainly this existence standing as he was befor ethem. The Jews were no Berkeleyites. Yet the object he proposed to their belief must have been something of the last importance, as we gather from the emphasis of the sentence, and the warning, "You shall die in your sins." What, then, does he demand belief in by to, "That I am."

• See Raphelius, Annotationes in S. Scripturam, tom. 1, page 638, Lugduni Batav., 1750. See also "Grondregels voor het vervaardigen eener Vertaling van het Nieuwe Testamet door J. Th. Beelen," page 74 seq., Amsterdam, 1858; and Vigerus, "Annotationes Hermanni," Lips., 1822, page 80, note 2, and

p. 723.

They read o and re as one word, which forced them to suppose an ellipsis of some verb. See "Grondregels," page 74, note 1.

"Our Lord," says Archbishop Kenrick, "evidently means to give his hearers an insight into this divine nature, and lead them to recognise it." The archbishop favors the opinion of St. Augustine, that "I am" is here used to denote essential being, even as God said to Moses,

66

TER AN sum qui sum." I am who I am. Herein the archbishop is entirely astray. Through the whole chapter the drift of the Saviour's discourse is to impress upon his hearers the idea that he is "The One sent by the Father."*

That the Jews well understand what he meant in asserting that he was sent by the Father is evident from collateral Scripture authority and Jewish tradition. John the Baptist, for instance,t sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus was he The One Coming, "o exóμevos" (7) habbah. "Sent by the Father," was well understood by his auditors as sent by God. Compare v. 41. Bearing in mind the expectations of the Jews, o 8pxоμεvos о Xproт05, and the Missus a Patre, vs. 16, 18, were unmistakable and synonymous terms. When Christ, therefore, asserted (v. 12) that he was the "Light of the world," and (vs. 16 and 18) that he was "sent by the Father" the Jews well understood him to announce that he was the Messiah. But they refuse to believe, and put him questions in ironical ignorance, (vs. 19 and 22.) Whereat Jesus, never heeding the irony, denounces, (v.24) their incredulity, and threatens they shall die in their sins if they believe not that He is (the One sent by the Father). Now, instead of that emphatic "I am," "ori ε1u1," Jesus must have οτι ειμι,” said, in the dialect of Jerusalem, N 8, ana hou, i. e., I he, or I the One. In the context, v. 24 might be translated, "If you believe not that I am he, you shall die," &c. Compare Acts, ch. xiii., v. 25: "When John was drawing towards the end of his course, he was wont to say, Whom think ye that I am ?" ovn εur εyw," "non sum ego" "not I am," which St. John must have expressed in his own dialect, (lah anah hou), not I he, or I am not the One, but behold cometh after me he, &c. John the Baptist was just as intelligible in this wise. to the Jews as when he replied. John, ch. i., v. 20, ovи εiμι o Xpotos. The εy εut, therefore, of vs. 24 and 28, refer not, as Bishop Kenrick supposed, to the Saviour's divine nature, but to the Messianic character of Jesus. We have no objection to saying, with the archbishop, that Christ, in the course of the conversation here related, hinted at his divine nature, and wished to lead his hearers to a recognition of the same (see v. 5S). * See vs. 14, 16, 18. 23, 26, 28, 29, 36, 38, 40, 42. † Luke, ch. vii., v. 19.

Vs. 16 and 18.

This was secondary, however. His main purport was to bring out his Messiahship, that he was the One sent, the One coming. But to return to our text. The archbishop is greatly mistaken in attaching the same meaning to the eye εui of this verse which the words bear in verses 24 and 28. Notwithstanding the Jews well understood what Jesus taught or declared of himself in the preceding part of his discourse, they now (v. 25) put him the ironical and impertinent question, "Who art thou?" The Saviour has but to reiterate, with emphasis, τny apxny, that he is that what he also announces to them-o, nominative case, in answer to the question, and neuter, because referring to the abstract idea of his office or mission. To seize the full force of the second member, τι και λαλω υμιν, we must call to mind the outset of the Saviour's discourse. In v. 12, he asserted that he was the "Light of the world." The Pharisees take him up, and object that he is his own herald, and, as such, unworthy of trust that his testimony is not true. Christ replies that his testimony is true, albeit coming from himself; for he knows whence he cometh, and, furthermore, he is not alone his own witness, for the Father is with him, and beareth witness to him (vs. 14, 16, 18). The na lalo in the second member of Christ's answer (vs. 25), "I also declare," has reference to the refusal of the Jews to accept his own declaration (v. 13). He now threatens (vs. 24-25) that they shall die in their sins if they refuse to believe him to be the Messiah; and, to their question, repeats emphatically that he is that what he also preaches himself to be.

Those of our readers who wish to see the whole subject of vernacular versions treated in a manner at once comprehensive, learned, and interesting, we would confidently refer to Dr. Beelen's work already cited, i.e., Grondregels, &c. But it requires little learning or research to see that the version of the Final Committee" is by no means final, except so far as its numerous blunders, as well as its crude, harsh, and yet pedantic style, may serve as a warning to others to undertake only what they are competent to fulfil. As remarked at the outset, we have declined to criticise it in this paper, further than to refer to a single passage as a specimen of the tout ensemble, but we intend to take up a chapter or two on a future occasion, and compare them with the original as well as with other English versions, if only for the purpose of showing our readers that the quasi pundits of the Final Committee would require to go to school à little longer.

a

ART. VII.-1. Principles of Human Physiology, with their chief application to Psychology, Pathology, Therapeutics, Hygiene, and Forensic Medicine. By WILLIAM B. CARPENTER, M. D., F. R. S., &c., &c. Philadelphia, 1856.

2. Clinical Lectures on the principles and practice of Medicine. By JOHN HUGHES BENNETT, M.D., F. R. S., Professor of Institutes of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh. New York.

3. Histoire de la Medicine. Par Daniel Leclerc, Genève.

4. Histoire de la Medicine depuis son origine jusqu'au dix-neuvieme siècle. Paris, 1846.

5. Institutions historic Medicine. Nuremberg.

A SOUND condition of body being a prerequisite to the proper exercise of every faculty, one would naturally look far back into antiquity for the first observations on the disturbing causes of health, and would expect to find them only by deep thought and patient research. Yet the recorded views of men who have devoted themselves to such enquiries are very few and unreliable when we carry our ken beyond the time of Hippocrates. Mythology furnishes some information on medical matters in the earliest historic times, but even that is a garbled tradition of the pre-Hellenic epoch. Homer makes mention of two physicians, Machaon and Podalirus, whose chief skill consisted in staunching wounds and effecting a temporary alleviation of pain. Were it not, indeed, for the famed story of Esculapius, we would scarcely have proof sufficient to establish the existence of medical men as a separate class among the earliest communities. This tradition, however, conclusively shows that as far back as authentic and even legendary history goes, there existed men who made disease and the healing art a special study, and derived their means of subsistence from the practice of their craft. Beyond this, however, very little has been handed down to us, and it is probable very little could, for observations and theories which proceeded on the assumed truth of the crude philosophic systems of the early Greek and Eastern schools, must have been either barren of result or entirely false.

This applies especially to principles and facts underlying pathology and therapeutics, for isolated observations and the description of symptoms were both nu