derstand. We

may therefore now leave the word just as we found it, as being no less expres

sive of the term ayiot, than the word

is elsewhere used.

which

The next passage, cited from Rev. xix. 9.

66

i, e. The words of God الله ك سوزلري حقدر .viz

,

are true," is certainly defective; the pronoun bunlar, corresponding to the Greek OTOL οὗτοι these, having been omitted: and the consequence is, the proposition which is here announced is general, instead of being restricted to the context in which it is found. Dr. Henderson thinks, that because the passage has thus been rendered, no Mohammedan will refuse his assent; and further, that Ali Bey would not pollute his pen by adding the pronoun which has been left out.* If Dr. Henderson means to argue, that nothing ought to be found in the Turkish version to which a Mohammedan would give his assent; or, which may be found to correspond with any of the declarations of the Koran, I must answer once for all, that I know of no principle of criticism which calls for any such rule. But, when he says, that Ali Bey would not pollute his pen by writing the pronoun above-mentioned, I am at a loss to conceive what he could have meant. The omis

* It appears, however, in a communication from Professor Kieffer, that this word is actually in the MS.; the omission, therefore, is due to the copyist.

sion of it, as far as I can see, does by no means injure the truth contained in the proposition, view it in what light you will; the only effect occasioned by the omission being, that what is said of a part of the revelation in the original, is here said of the whole, including among others the declarations immediately preceding. If, therefore, a Mohammedan will not refuse his assent to this, which signifies nothing to us, I do not see on what ground a Christian Doctor can object, who seems anxious about nothing but the truths of the Bible. I still think, therefore, that the omission of this pronoun cannot be construed as ground sufficient for cancelling the whole of the edition in question: though I should strongly recommend its insertion in a future one.

4

"in the book,"

In Rev. xx. 12, we have instead of "in the books." In this place Dr. Henderson thinks, that Ali Bey has so translated the passage, as to countenance a certain dogma of Islamism. He then gives us an account of a celebrated commentator who has told us, that on the day of judgment a certain book will be produced, &c. in which the good or bad actions of every individual will be found. No doubt Dr. Henderson saw all this very clearly. Let us now see what the whole verse really means, and whether it will bear the construction which he

” وكوچك وبيوك امواتي كوردم که : has put upon it اللهك اوکنده طور و لر ايدي وكتابلر اچلدي وبر غيري

کتابده کتاب دخي كه حيات كتابي در آچلدي واول یاز لمش نسنه لر موجبنجه عمللرينه كوره امواته حكم

,"And I saw that the dead both small and great stood before God. And books were opened; and another book also was opened, which is the book of life; and, according to the things written * in that book, were the dead judged, according to their works." The book referred to, therefore, is the book of life, and not the Mohammedan book pointed out by the Doctor, for that never bears this name. It is remarkable enough, that the Arabic version published by Erpenius, as well as the Ethiopic of the Polyglott, renders this passage exactly as it has been translated by Ali Bey: and, that both present a word here for book, which is never applied to any but the Koran by Mohammedans. Why, it may be asked, did not Dr. Henderson turn to his favourite Ethiopic? In the Armenian, if we may believe Griesbach, the word in question is entirely omitted. Does it not now become probable, that the manuscripts have presented some variety here? and that the Arabic, Ethiopic, and Turkish translators, all read it in the singular in their copies, (i. e. εν τω Βιβλιω, and not εν τοις Βιβλιοις), and not in the plural? The Doctor has, by a fatality

* Εκ των γεγραμενων, of which the above translation seems to me the best that could have been proposed.

very common to his criticism, forgotten to notice these circumstances: and to tell us, that Ali Bey has joined two infidel translators of antiquity, (who were probably very sincere Christians,) in so introducing the mention of the book of life, as to favour Mohammedan prejudices! Whether these translators have followed the best reading or not, signifies nothing to our present purpose: it is sufficiently clear that no Christian doctrine has suffered by their translation: and more than doubtful, whether they intended to favour Mohammedan prejudices.

In Dr. Henderson's next selection, we have an instance, as he thinks, which affects the character of our Lord. John i. 39, we have

! Lord یا رب که ترجمه اولنسه يا معلم ديمك در

which, being interpreted,

signifies teacher." With the key to his version, which Ali Bey has here given to his readers, where they read, "our Lord Jesus Christ," they are to understand "our teacher Jesus Christ,”—an admirable improvement for a new edition of the Socinian Testament!" The Socinians would probably thank Dr. Henderson for his remark, could they place any reliance upon it. The original Greek has, in this place, paßßì (ὃ λέγεται ἑρμενευόμενον, διδάσκαλε). According to our authorized version, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, master)," &c. Unfortunately for our Reviewer, he has not been aware that the word → Rabbi, here used by Ali Bey, is the

corresponding ,ي

very word used in the original, just as it is in the English version, and that Ali Bey has given a perfectly literal translation of its meaning, as found in the Greek for no one will doubt that is exactly parallel to Aidaσkaλos, meaning teacher, in its primary sense, and its secondary ones, Master, Sir, or the like. The Doctor will perhaps reply But has no final to the Greek I in paßß. I answer, whether it be written or not, it is so pronounced. The word is therefore the same. But the word, in Arabic, he will say, no more signifies teacher than our English Lord does. Very true; but, as it has been here introduced as a foreign word, and explained as such, there will be no danger of its being misunderstood.

But Dr. Henderson has also neglected the context. The disciples of John are the persons who here address our Lord; there is no probability, therefore, that they would give him any higher title than that of teacher or doctor, as it is hardly to be supposed, that they were acquainted with the divinity of his person; and this inferrence will hold good had they addressed him, by the more dignified Arabic title of. Again, our Lord has been supposed by orthodox divines, if my memory does not fail me, to have sustained the office of teacher to his people, of which the