one," says Dr. Thomson, "and you are delighted with a succession of verdant floors spread around the trunk and gradually narrowing as you ascend. The beautiful cones seem to stand upon, or rise out of, this green flooring" (The Land and the Book, p. 200). The majestic form and large spreading branches of this noble tree, which make it the pride of so many parks in England, made it the glory of Lebanon to the Jew (Isa. xxxv. 2). The cedar was the highest tree known to him. "His height was exalted above all the trees of the field. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him" (Ezek. xxxi. 5, 8); and it was considered to be the noblest member of the vegetable kingdom. Solomon's botanical knowledge extended from the meanest plant, the hyssop springing out of the wall, to the noblest, the cedar of Lebanon (1 Kings iv. 33). The cedars were the type of pre-eminent greatness and excellence. Trees of the Lord" (Ps. civ. 16) the Psalmist calls them, by a parabolic Hebraism, to indicate their mighty grandeur. 66 An aromatic odour pervades every part of the plant, and this, according to Schulz, is characteristic of the cedar groves. "Everything," he says, "about this tree has a strong balsamic perfume, and hence the whole forest is so perfumed with fragrance that a walk through it is delightful." This explains such allusions as "His smell shall be as Lebanon" (Hos. xiv. 6). This perfume is present in the wood, and is due to a resin which freely exudes from the trunk while the tree is living, and may often be seen spotting the wood after it is made into furniture; metal objects placed in cabinets of cedar-wood are often injured by being coated with this resin as with a fine varnish. The resin was held in high esteem by the ancients as a powerful antiseptic, and under the name of cedria was employed by the Romans in embalming the dead. To this is due the prevalent belief in the imperishable nature of cedar-wood. The value of the timber for practical purposes has recently been called in question, but without good foundation. The high value set on it in ancient times, as shown by its extensive use in the first and second Temples, and in the palace of Solomon, which from the quantity of this wood employed in its construction was called "The house of the forest of Lebanon" (1 Kings vii. 2), as well as from the trouble that the Assyrian king took to obtain it from Lebanon for his palace at Nineveh-this high value is fully justified by an examination of the wood itself, which, though soft like almost all coniferous woods, is nevertheless a close, compact-grained wood, fitted for carving, and susceptible of the highest polish. Fragments of the cedar beams employed in the palace at Nineveh were found by Mr. Layard in the progress of his excavations, and are now preserved in the British Museum. These specimens, which have been subjected for some three thousand years to the oxidation and other chemical actions to which all dead organic bodies are liable, and have lost the elasticity of new wood, are still in a remarkably perfect condition. Through some imperfect observation they were declared to be frag ments of yew, but I have made a careful microscopic examination of the wood-cells, and have satisfied myself that the minute structure confirms Mr. Layard's determination from their external appearance, and their odour when burning, that they were portions of Lebanon cedar. The labours of the eighty thousand hewers whom Solomon employed in Lebanon, to supply the demands of the Temple and the palace he was erecting, must have made serious havoc among the cedars, from which perhaps they have never recovered. The wood was brought down to the shore and shipped to Joppa, whence it was transported to Jerusalem. Josephus records that Herod also used cedar for the roofing of his temple. The fir-tree was supplied by Hiram from Lebanon, as well as the cedar, for the construction of the Temple. The pines of Palestine belong to two species, the Aleppo pine (Pinus Halepensis, Linn.), found in the mountainous tracts throughout the country, and common on the Lebanon range above the zone of evergreen oaks; the other, the sea-side pine (P. maritima, Duh.), forming forests here and there along the coasts, or on the sandy plains bordering the coast. Extensive forests of a third pine (P. Carica, Linn.) occur on the mountains of Gilead, on the farther side of Jordan. The Aleppo pine is probably the berosh (in) or beroth (nina), generally translated "fir-tree" in our version. Solomon employed fir planks in the Temple for the flooring, and he made the two entrance doors and the gilded ceiling of this wood (1 Kings vi. 15, 34). The Tyrians used it for the decks of their ships (Ezek. xxvii. 5), and David's harps were made of the same material (2 Sam. vi. 5). The tidhar (1777) is associated with the fir and the box on the mountains of Lebanon (Isa. xli. 19; lx. 13); but whether it was one of the coniferous trees, as the translators of our version have understood it, or some hardy tree like the elm growing with them, it is impossible to say, as there is nothing in the context or the word itself to throw light on the question. Much difference of opinion also exists as to the oren (), from which idols were made (Isa. xliv. 14). Our version renders it "ash," but as this tree is not a native of Palestine, this interpretation must be set aside. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render it "pine-tree," and this view has been adopted by most critics. The abundance of the pine in Palestine, and the fitness of its wood for image-making, are in favour of this interpretation. Isaiah specifies the timber of the cedar, cypress, and oak, as well as the oren, as used for making idols. The tirzah (), translated "cypress," occurs only in this passage, and may be that tree, though the Septuagint and Vulgate make it the oak, and others render it "holly." The cypress is extensively planted in the countries of the East as it is with us, but it has not been noticed as indigenous in the north of Palestine. The trees frequently mistaken for it are species of juniper, which are abundant on the Lebanon range, about three thousand feet above the level of the sea; and the tirzah may be the arborescent juniper of Lebanon (Juniperus excelsa, Willd.). It has been con in the opposite picture the tree, emblematic of the man who trusteth in the Lord, is only specified as that which grows by the water-side (Jer. xvii. 8). It cannot be the heath, as no plant of this group is met with in the desert. We have already seen that the juniper of our Authorised Version (1 Kings xix. 4, &c.) is a leguminous plant (Vol. IV., p. 194). The gopher wood (p) of which Noah constructed the ark is conjectured by some authors to have belonged to some coniferous tree, and the cedar, the pine, and xviii. 12) when the Apocalyptic Babylon is destroyed, is thyine wood (Eúxov Ovivor). This is the Callitris quadrivalvis, Vent., a tree nearly related to Thuja, but having jointed branches, with rings of small scale-like leaves at the joints. It is found on the Atlas range, and its wood has been always highly prized. It was known to the ancient Romans under the name of citronwood, and brought a fabulous price in the market. Pliny records that a table made of this wood was sold for 1,400,000 sesterces, equal to about £13,750 of our money! H THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. THE DOUAI AND RHEMISH VERSIONS. BY THE REV. W. F. MOULTON, M.A. LOND., D.D. EDIN., MASTER OF THE WESLEYAN HIGH SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE. ITHERTO our history has mainly recorded the efforts made by earnest reformers of the Church to diffuse throughout England the knowledge of the Scriptures. The opposition to these endeavours has proceeded from the Church of Rome, and has at times been as successful as it was intense. Less than fifty years have elapsed from the time when Tyndale's Testaments were burned at St. Paul's Cross, and now an English version of the New Testament is offered to the Romanists themselves, with the sanction of an authority which none could dispute. This version bears the following title: "The New Testament of Iesus Christ, translated faithfully into English out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greeke and other editions in divers languages: with argvments of bookes and chapters, Annotations, and other necessarie helpes, for the better vnderstanding of the text, and specially for the discouerie of the Corrvptions of diuers late translations, and for cleering the Controversies in religion of these daies. In the English College of Rhemes. Psalm 118.1 That is, Giue me vnderstanding and I will searche thy law, and will keepe it with my whole hart. S. Aug. tract 2, in Epist. Ioan that is, Al things that are readde in holy Scriptures, we must heare with great attention, to our instruction and saluation: but those things specially must be commended to memorie, which make most against Heretikes: whose deceites cease not to circumuent and beguile al the weaker sort and the more negligent persons. Printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny. 1582. Cum privilegio." was made Cardinal by Sixtus V., in 1587. 66 The translation of the Old Testament was not published until 1609, 1610, though finished long before. The title is similar to that of the New Testament, Doway," however, being substituted for Rheims; the text on the title-page is Isaiah xii. 3, “You shall draw waters in joy out of the Saviour's fountains." The work was printed at Doway by Lawrence Kellam at the "sign of the Holy Lamb." 86 The Romish College at Douai was one of the English Colleges beyond the seas," founded with the object of organising missionary work in England. William Allen, through whose efforts the college was founded, was a man of learning and of untiring energy. In Mary's reign he was Principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and Canon of York; soon after the accession of Elizabeth he left England, and for a quarter of a century was the mainspring of the movement for the restoration of England to communion with Rome. He 1 This verse and the quotation from Augustine which follows are given in both Latin and English. The preface to the Rhemish Testament is an elaborate and ingenious document. The translators are at no pains to conceal that their motive in undertaking the work was the extensive circulation of other versions of the Scriptures. Not content with translating truly, they "have also set forth large Annotations" to help the studious reader embarrassed by the controversies of the times. The text which they follow is not the Greek, but the "old vulgar Latin used in the Church for 1,300 years, corrected by St. Jerome according to the Greek, commended by St. Augustine, declared by the holy Council of Trent to be of all versions the only "authentical," preferred even by adversaries such as Beza, so exact in representing the Greek that "delicate heretics" have pronounced it rude, shown to be impartial by the fact that even the versions of Erasmus and others are more to the advantage of the Catholic cause than this ancient Bible of the Church. The Latin (they say) is found to agree either with other manuscripts of the Greek or with the reading of ancient Fathers of the Church. Whilst, however, the translation is from the Latin, the Greek text is not to be disregarded: the reader will often find the Greek word (also the Latin word) placed in the margin when the sense is hard or the reading ambiguous. The peculiarities of this version, therefore, result partly from the use of the Vulgate as a basis, and partly from the principles by which the translators were guided in their work. The Bible called the Vulgate is, strictly speaking, not one book, but a combination of several. The Old Testament, with the exception of the Psalter, is a translation from the Hebrew, executed by Jerome about the end of the fourth century. The Psalter is a revision (by Jerome) of a much older translation, made not from the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint. The Apocryphal Books also belong to the same early version, revised and corrected in part. The Old Latin version of the New unfamiliar and Latinised words, which convey no meaning whatever to the ordinary English reader. The last peculiarity strikes the eye at the first opening of the volume. The translators argue skilfully in defence of their practice. If (they ask) such words as Raca, Hosanna, and Belial be retained, why not Corbana (for treasury, Matt. xxvii. 6)? If Sabbath is kept for the seventh day, why not Parasceue for the Sabbath-eve? If Pentecost is a proper word, what objection is there to Pascha for Passover, Azymes for sweet (i.e., unleavened) bread, bread of proposition for shew-bread? If proselyte and phylacteries be allowed, why not neophyte and didragmes? It is not possible, they maintain, to avoid the word evangelise, for no word can convey its meaning; and for the same reason they use depositum" in 1 Tim. vi. 20; "He exinanited himself” in Phil. ii. 7; "to exhaust the sins of many" in Heb. ix. 28. A table containing the explanation of fifty-eight words is given at the end of the book. Some of these words are now familiar to all: as acquisition, victim, prescience, gratis, allegory, adulterate, advent, resuscitate, co-operate; others, as commessation, contristate, prefinition, are strangers still. Others are still in use, but not in the sense here assigned. Thus calumniate does not now denote "violent oppression by word or deed," nor is prevarication equivalent to "transgression," nor is issue limited to a "good event." But this list does not by any means do justice to the peculiar vocabulary of the Rhemish translators, as the following quotations will prove: "He will show you a great refectory adorned" (Luke xxii. 12); "I will not drink of the generation of the vine" (ver. 18); "sleeping for pensiveness" (ver. 45); "transfer this chalice" (ver. 42); "averting the people" (xxiii. 14); “adjudged their petition to be done" (ver. 24); "wrapped it in sindon" (ver. 53); "society of his passions” (Phil. iii. 10). To say nothing of words now well known (as altercation, fallacy, primacy, demureness, contumelious), we find many other Latin words disguised, or hardly disguised, such as odible, coinquination, acception, correption, exprobrate, potestates, longa Testament probably dates from the beginning of the second century; the New Testament of the Vulgate consists of this older translation, revised with care in the Gospels, but imperfectly in the Epistles. In the Psalms, therefore, a translation from the Vulgate presents the original at fourth hand, so to speak, the Hebrew having passed into a Greek version (often of very inferior quality), the Greek into a Latin, before the translation into English commenced. On the other hand, Jerome's own work is of great excellence. We may expect, therefore, that any correct reproduction of the Vulgate in English will be very faulty and imperfect in the Book of Psalms, but usually good and true in the greater part of the Old Testament. In the New Testament the case is more complicated. The Latin translation, being derived from manuscripts more ancient than any we now possess, is frequently a witness of the highest value in regard to the Greek text which was current in the earliest times, and (as was remarked in an earlier chapter) its testimony is in many cases confirmed by Greek manuscripts which have been discovered or examined since the sixteenth century. Hence we may expect to find that the Rhemish New Testament frequently anticipates the judgment of later scholars as to the presence or absence of certain words, clauses, or even verses. Thus in Acts xvi. 7, there is now overwhelming evidence for reading "the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not;" in Matt. v. 44, the words "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," and the words "which despitefully use you and," should be omitted from the text, having found their way into later manuscripts from St. Luke's Gospel; and in 1 Peter iii. 15 we must read "Lord Christ" instead of "Lord God." In these and many other instances the Rhemish Testament agrees with the best critical editions of the present day. There are, no doubt, many examples of a different kind, such as the reading "by good works make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter i. 10); but, on the whole, the influence of the use of the Vulgate would in the New Testament be more frequently for good than for harm in respect of text. As a translation the Vulgate is, as a rule, literalnimity, obsecration, scenopegia. The translation of and faithful, but often obscure: a correct reproduction of the Vulgate will reflect these qualities, and this the Rhemish Testament certainly does. If, however, we allow that this version faithfully represents the Latin, it must be understood that it is the Latin as current in the time of the translators. Even then it was acknowledged that the common copies of the Vulgate differed widely from Jerome's text, and the need of a new examination of manuscripts was felt as early as the Council of Trent. It was not until 1587 and 1592 that the authorised editions of the Vulgate appeared, and these were very far from supplying the want. We come now to the consideration of the principles of action adopted by the translators. Having the Latin text before them, how did they deal with it? The answer may be given in few words: the translation is literal and (as a rule, if not always) scrupulously faithful and exact, but disfigured by a profusion of some verses in the Epistle to the Ephesians will illustrate at once the Latinised diction and the excessive literalness of this version: "To me the least of al the sainctes is giuen this grace, among the Gentils to euangelize the vnsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worlds in God, who created al things that the manifold wisedom of God may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worlds, which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord;” “Our wrestling is not against flesh and bloud: but against Princes and Potestats, against the rectors of the world of this darkenes, against the spirituals of wickednes in the celestials." On the other hand, the translator's care strictly to follow the text before him often led to happy results, the preservation of a significant phrase of the original or of an impressive arrangement of words. Thus every translator would now agree with this version in the words, liberty of the glory of the children of God" (Rom. viii. 21); "holiness of the truth" (Eph. iv. 24); "by their fruits you shall know them" (Matt. vii. 16). If we turn to any chapter of the Gospels we shall find examples of excellent translation, which in some cases have been followed by our Authorised Version. In Matt. xxv., for example, the translation in verse 8, "our lamps are going out," is unquestionably correct; in verses 17, 18, 20, 22, the article should certainly be inserted, the five, the two; in verse 21, "place thee" is much better than "make thee ruler;" and in verse 27, "bankers," if a somewhat bold rendering, is more intelligible than "exchangers." It is from the Rhemish Testament that the Authorised Version obtains "blessed" in Matt. xxvi. 26 (for “gave thanks "); "hymn" in verse 30; “adjure” in verse 63; and it would have been well if our translators had also adopted "court" in verse 3, and “Rabbi ” in verses 25 and 49. In the first chapter of St. James we owe to the Rhemish version "upbraideth not" (verse 5), "nothing doubting" (verse 6), "the engrafted word" (verse 21), “bridleth not" (verse 26). If three chapters, taken by accident, yield such results, the reader will not doubt that very many examples of the same description might be produced. Nothing is easier than to accumulate instances of the eccentricity of this version, of its obscure and inflated renderings; but only minute study can do justice to its faithfulness, and to the care with which the translators executed their work. Every other English version is to be preferred to this, if it must be taken as a whole; no other English version will prove more instructive to the student who will take the pains to separate what is good and useful from what is ill-advised and wrong. The marginal notes which are added by the translators from time to time prove that they kept the Greek text before them, though translating from the Latin. Sometimes this saves them from mistake, as in Phil. iv. 6, where the Latin might mean "in all prayer," but the Greek must signify "in everything by prayer." The most remarkable proof of their use of the Greek is their treatment of the Greek article. As the Latin language has no definite article, it might well be supposed that of all English versions the Rhemish would be least accurate in this point of translation. The very reverse is actually the case. I have noticed as many as forty instances in which, of all versions, from Tyndale's to the Authorised inclusive, this alone is correct in regard to the article. This is the more remarkable, as the older versions were certainly known and used by the translators of the Rhemish Testament. They make no allusion in their preface to any indebtedness to preceding translators, but of the fact there can be no doubt. The comparison of any chapter with the translations in the Genevan and Bishops' Bibles will be sufficient to convince the most incredulous. It is not necessary to say much on those peculiarities of this Testament which stand connected with the faith professed by the translators. In a Roman Catholic version we expect such renderings as do penance, priest (for elder), sacrament (for mystery or secret); “Catholic usage" has also led to the substitution of " our Lord" for "the Lord." There is but little, however, in the text to favour Romish doctrine: it is in the notes that this is strenuously and perseveringly taught. With these, differing widely from the translation in their spirit and characteristics, we are happily not concerned in this place. Elaborate confutations of the teaching of these notes were published within a few years, by W. Fulke in 1589, and by T. Cartwright in 1618. In the former work the Rhemish version and that of the Bishops' Bible are given in parallel columns. Neither of these writers appears to criticise the translation to any large extent. On the Douai version of the Old Testament it will not be necessary to dwell. As it was not published until 1610, it does not belong (so to speak) to the line of ancestry of our Authorised Version. Editions of the New Testament appeared in 1600, 1621, 1633, and of the whole Bible in 1635. In 1749, 1750, the work was revised by Dr. Challoner; another revised edition, by Dr. Troy, bears date 1791. The later editions differ widely from the original version; an interesting paper on the variations will be found among the collected Essays of the late Cardinal Wiseman. GEOGRAPHY OF THE BIBLE. EGYPT. BY MAJOR WILSON, R.E. HE name by which Egypt is usually known in the Bible is Mizraim, a word in the dual form, which may perhaps indicate the natural division of the country into Upper and Lower Egypt; that is, the Nile Valley and the Delta. Egypt is also called "the land of Mizraim; "the "land of Ham" (Ps. cv. 23, 27), and Rahab ("the proud one") (Isa. li. 9). According to Ezekiel (xxix. 10), the country extended from Migdol to Syene, and these limits might well be used to define its extent at the present day, for the northern point, Migdol-the Magdolum of Antoninus, which was twelve miles from Pelusium-has been identified with Tell es-Semut, east of the Suez Canal; and the southern one, Syene, with Assouan, on the borders of Nubia, a little below the first cataract of the Nile. The districts |