"differing probably from all these four." But "one title,” and yet after all "FOUR" titles!

In noticing this little contradiction in his mode of expressing himself, I do not wish to be thought captious, but as the satisfactory proof of there being no irreconcilable difference between the four Evangelists as regards the inscription upon the cross turns upon this point, viz., that there really was but one title, I am tempted just to notice it. That the Evangelists all differ, the one from the other, in their mode of giving the inscription upon the cross, is quite clear. Are then their differences reconcilable? Most assuredly they are.

I. John gives Pilate's “ title,” Εγραψε δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλάτος. Two other of the Evangelists give "the ACCUSATION" against Jesus. Matthew,—Ἐπέθηκαν ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένην. Mark, "Ην ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγέγραμμενη. Luke simply gives the word ἐπιγραφὴ.

But what was the empapy? It is most reasonable to answer Tis airias! Surely it is allowable to supply the ellipsis from Mark, whose words have been quoted.

II. What then was the TITLE ?—Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. What was the ACCUSATION ?-Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. See Luke xxiii. 2; Mark xv. 18; John xviii. 33, 37; xix. 12, 14, 15. Thus Matthew,δυτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Mark, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Luke, δυτός ἐστιν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. There is no inconsistency, no want of agreement, no irreconcilable difference here. Each evangelist does what he professes to do. John professes to give the "TITLE," and he gives it! Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not profess to give Pilate's title, but the "ACCUSATION" against Jesus, and they each of them give it. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or either of them, had used the word "title" (in other words, had professed to give Pilate's title) there would have been a discrepancy between all, or either of them, and St. John, which it would perhaps have been difficult if not impossible to have harmonized. But, each professes to give the " accusation," and the "accusation" ONLY; and as long as they each give the "accusation," (it matters not, whether it be simply given, as by St. Mark, Bariλevs Twv lovdaiwv, or with an additional remark, as by St. Matthew, "ôvtòs éσtiv 'Inσoûs," etc., etc., etc.; and by St. Luke, "OUTÓS ÉσTI,” etc., etc. etc.,) they each do what they profess to do; there is perfect consistency in their statements, and no semblance of irreconcilable differences between them.

W. R. C. R.

Dowdeswell Rectory, Gloucestershire, April 23, 1864.

REMARKS ON THE STATISTICS OF THE EXODUS.

As the heat of the controversy about the Exodus has somewhat subsided, you will perhaps allow me to draw attention to two or three

mistakes of fact and calculation into which almost all the writers on the subject have fallen.

:

First, it is generally assumed that the number of the Israelites to be accounted for was about two millions, and calculations are made to determine the rate of increase which would gain this result in, say, 215 years. But the only datum is the number of fighting men above twenty, and the total number of two millions is inferred from this on the hypothesis that the proportion is the same as in our own country in other words, that the actual rate of increase for the last twenty years had been the same as in England. Some writers, for instance, conclude that we may suppose the Israelites have been doubling every fifteen years, but on this supposition the number under fifteen years of age must exceed the number at all other ages. Thus : the increase in fifteen years, i.e., the excess of births over deaths, is equal to the whole previous population, i.e., to the number of survivors (now above fifteen) plus the number that have died. Therefore those under fifteen exceed those above by twice the number of deaths in the last fifteen years (supposing no children to have died). Now this supposed rate of increase is slightly above five per cent. per annum, and an easy calculation will shew that at this rate, where the males between the ages of twenty and fifty is 600,000, the total population will be about four millions and a quarter, of which those under twenty would be nearly two-thirds. On the other hand, when the total population has at this rate grown to two millions, the males between twenty and fifty will be about 275,000. These results are on the supposition that there are no deaths under the age of fourscore. It would be much nearer the truth, therefore, to say, that what we have to account for is the growth of a population of over 1,200,000 in 195 years; the excess over this number being nearly equal to the number of deaths in the twenty years from 195 to 215. The difference between this and the usual statement is important, as the numbers above given shew.

The number of the first-born under twenty in proportion to the entire population would require to be modified in accordance with the same principle of calculation. Another common error is the following: "It is very possible that in 215 years there may be seven or nine descents in the same line, and it is also possible that each generation may be six times as numerous as the preceding. Therefore it is argued, the nation may have experienced a sixfold multiplication seven or nine times in the same period. Now, this is to argue that in a family of twelve children, all may be supposed to be born at the same time, or as in the present case, all before the father is 245 or 215, i.e., 31 or 24 years old. If each man's eldest son is twenty years younger than himself and his youngest forty, the number of descents through youngest sons will be exactly half that through eldest sons. Writers who are on their guard against this fallacy say: "If we suppose every man to have ten sons born between his twentieth and fortieth years, we may suppose them born on an average in his thirtieth year;" in other words, we may assume in this

case that the population increases tenfold in thirty years. This is, however, fallacious. Thirty years is indeed the average interval between father and son, but it is less than the least period of tenfold multiplication; the family is not multiplied tenfold until the last of the ten sons is born. In fact, the word average in the premisses refers to the period of birth, some being born later, and some earlier, but in the conclusion it is transferred to the period of multiplication, which is not sometimes earlier and sometimes later, but always later. By a mathematical formula we can ascertain the number of each generation living at any particular period for any supposed rate of increase. Thus, on the above supposition, the total number of the fourth generation living at the end of 120 years would be 6,416 times the number at the beginning (instead of 10,000, as on Mr. Birks's calculation.) The number of the sixth generation living at the end of 172 years would be half a million times the original number; the first member of the sixth generation would be born in the year 120, and the last in the year 228.9 The gross blunder of supposing that four children to a marriage, for example, would give a fourfold increase, would not be worth mentioning if Dr. McCaul had not fallen into it. T. A.

THE NAME OF JESUS, PHIL. II. 9.

IN Mr. Franke Parker's article, in the April number of The Journal of Sacred Literature, entitled, "The Sepulchre in Sychem," he maintains the position that the "name above every name," of Phil. ii. 9, must be a name of God. This position is defensible if the reading of the received text be adopted, but it is greatly strengthened by the fact that the true reading is probably τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα. Ι cannot, however, think with Mr. Parker that the name referred to is Jesus, and that this name, as being compounded with "Jehovah," is spoken of by the Apostle as a name above every name." Names compounded with "Jehovah " are too common in Hebrew history for the argument to be a valid one, that our Saviour's possessing such a name was a reason why those in heaven, and those on earth, and those under the earth, should confess that He is the Lord. Besides, -whatever be the etymological import of the name "Jesus"this name appears, according to New Testament usage, to point to our Lord's humanity rather than His Deity; to be the name of His

may

The formula in its simplest form is as follows: Suppose the average number of sons to each father to be m, born at intervals of p years, beginning at the father's 20th; then the number of persons in the nth generation born between the years q-p and q, will be the co-efficient of a in 20 ̧20 †p (m−1)n. To find the number living at any a +a +a particular period t, we must add the co-efficient of all powers of a less than r. If the uniform age at death is s, we must take no power lower than r-s. is on the supposition, as before, that the age at death is uniform.

20+P+....

This

humiliation; His proper name as a man. I should suppose the Apostle's meaning to be somewhat like this: God the Father, in fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa. xlv., has given to His Son the name which is above every name, even Jehovah, or THE LORD, that to Jesus, who humbled Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, every knee may bow, and every tongue confess that He is Lord of all. We may thus with probability regard "the name of Jesus" as emphatic, "Jesus" being the name of the humiliation, though not "the name which is above every name." THOMAS TYLER.

P.S.-As papers written by me, and to which the initials " T. T." were appended, were inserted in earlier volumes of the J. S. L., it may possibly be worth while to mention that I am not the author of contributions in recent numbers bearing the same signature. London, April 7th, 1864.

HEBREW SYNONYMS.

THERE is no easily accessible modern work on Hebrew Synonyms. The work of Hirschfeld, Hebräische Synonymik, is not of much value. There is, however, an old work of some value by J. Plantavitius, entitled, Planta Vitis seu Thesaurus Synonymicus Hebraico-ChaldaicoRabbinicus, Lodovæ., 1644. A selection of synonyms carefully discussed, will be found in Reimarus (H. S.), De Differentiis vocum Hebraicarum, Wittenberg, 1717, which, however, is scarce. The more important recent works on the subject are in Hebrew, viz.: Paprenheim's Jerioth Salomo, 3 vols. (1784-1831), and a series of articles by Luzzatto of Padua, published in the Bikkune Ha-Ittim, from 1825 to 1829, said to be only specimens of a complete work, yet unpublished. An article on the bibliography of the subject by Müplan, is published in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch., vol. xvii., 1863, p. 316. T. A.

A FALSIFIED FRENCH VERSION OF THE BIBLE. THERE is a French version of the New Testament of which an edition published at Bourdeaux about 1688 became very famous, in consequence of its containing the words purgatory and mass, and sundry other flagrant corruptions. It may not be generally known that other Roman Catholic editions of the Scriptures in French, even earlier than this, exhibit some of its most wilful perversions. I have before me a folio Bible in French, said to have been translated by theologians of the university of Louvain, and faithfully revised, corrected, and illustrated with plates. It was printed at Paris by Sebastien Huré, printer and bookseller in ordinary to the king, 1667, "with approbation of the Doctors." A great number of passages in

this book are "ingeniously tormented" to make them teach popish doctrine. Take a few examples.

Is. viii. 19. When they shall say to you, shall not etc.-Answer ye, every people ask of its God to the dead for the living? (Chaque peuple ne s'enquêtera-il pas de son Dieu aux morts pour les vivants ?) This is certainly not opposed to praying to the dead.

Matt. i. 25. And had not known her when she brought forth her first-born son, and called his name Jesus.

xxvi. 28. This is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in remission of sins.

Luke xiii. 3, etc. Do penance.

Acts xii. 15. It is his guardian angel.

xiii. 2. The index informs us that, in this verse, the Greek means "while they sacrificed" (eux sacrifians).

XV. 2. Apostles and priests.

1 Cor. iii. 15. As by the fire of purgatory (comme par le feu de purgatoire).

vii. 10. The sacrament of marriage.

ix. 27. I chastise my body by blows (par batures).

2 Cor. vi. 14. Do not join yourselves to infidels by the sacrament of marriage.

as

Gal. iv. 10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years, if ye were yet under the law.

Col. ii. 18. Let no one seduce you at his pleasure under pretext of humility and of religion, given to Moses by angels.

1 Tim. iii. 2. If he has been a husband, that it be of only one wife (so of Deacons, in verse 12).

iv. 3. Condemning the sacrament of marriage, abstinence from food which God has created for the faithful, etc.

v. 17. Let the priests who duly preside, etc.

Tit. i. 5. Establish priests in the cities (par les villes).

Heb. iii. 7. He was heard for his reverence when he was raised. vii. 27. Had no need, like the priests, to offer sacrifices daily. ix. 22. Without the shedding of the blood of beasts legal defilement is not removed.

ix. 25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often as he did upon the cross.

x. 26. No more host (hostie) for sin. [This word is used in verses 11 and 12, and in verse 18 we are told there is no more legal oblation for sin.]

xi. 30. After a procession of seven days.

xi. 39. The promise, that is to say, entry into heaven.

xiii. 6. Marriage is honourable in all things.

xiii. 16. Do not forget well-doing and the communion, for one

merits before God by such sacrifices.

James iv. 11. We beatify those who endure.

v. 14. Let him call the priests of the church.

1 Pet. iii. 19. He preached to the spirits who were in prison, who were once disobedient.