argument has some remaining weight; for if Sodom did stand in the area which the lake now occupies, it seems reasonable to infer that it stood nearer to the mountains on the west of the valley, from which it derived or to which it gave its name, than to the opposite shore; and still therefore the distance of Zoar, if placed on the eastern side, would seem to have been too great to suit the circumstances.

At the place on the eastern side where Zoar has lately been sought by others, M. de Saulcy finds Zeboïm. The name of Taala Sebaan, as resembling that of Zeboïm, with the presence of extensive hillocks of ruins and traces of foundation walls, seems to form the grounds of this conclusion. There are besides evidences of volcanic action in the vicinity, though how that should tend to the special identification of Zeboim we do not see.

As M. de Saulcy's theory allowed him to look for all the five cities of the plain upon the existing shores of the Dead Sea, it was not likely that any one of them should be left undiscovered. We have accordingly to report that Admah also has been found at a place where no one would have been likely to look for it, being about four miles away from the western shore of the Dead Sea, upon the route from Esdoum to Hebron. This is at least the pretension of the map, in which Admah is set down at this place (Qasr-el-Adadah) in the capital type appropriated to the cities of the plain. But we cannot find this in the text, which seems rather to identify this Qasr-el-Adadah with the Adadah of Josh. xv. 20, a much more probable identification.

We have done with M. de Sauley's Dead Sea inquiries; and we do not mean to follow him in the other parts of his travels. It is not our fault if the tone of exception which we have in this part been sometimes constrained to assume should seem to give an unfavourable impression of a work we really think well of as a whole, and regard as a valuable contribution to Biblical geography.

We shall not, however, close the work without indicating briefly a few points that struck our attention in passing through its pages.

At Jerusalem our author has a tremendously long, but learned and ingenious, dissertation to show that the so-called tombs of the kings are really the tombs of the royal line of David. Of this we are not clear, but M. de Sauley seems to have fairly met some of the difficulties which opposed themselves to that conclusion.

At Shechem our author discovered the foundation ruins of the Samaritan temple upon Mount Gerizim, and was enabled to make out a ground-plan of the temples, of which he gives a representation. This reminds us that we have seen doubts expressed recently as to the existence of any temple on Mount Gerizim so late as in and after the time of our Saviour. None of these doubters seem to be aware that there is a representation of this temple, with a flight of steps leading to it, upon the reverse of a coin of Flavia Neapolis, of the time of Antoninus Pius, whose head appears on the obverse. The coin is in the Bibliothèque du Roi at Paris, and there is a figure of it in Mr. Ackerman's excellent Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament.

M. de Saulcy stands up for Kafr-Kenna as the Cana of Galilee, in opposition to Dr. Robinson, who wants to transfer the identification to

Kana-el-Djalil, which he says is exactly' Cana of Galilee.' But our author will not admit this translation.

"The words Cana of Galilee, supposing even that the country of Galilee should ever have been called El-Djalil in Arabic, could never have been expressed by Kana-el-Djalil. The last word is positively an adjective, meaning great or illustrious. I then most conscientiously declare that, according to my interpretation, and I dare say according to the interpretation of any native scholar, the words Kana-el Djalil cannot have any other meaning than that of Kana the great, or Kana the illustrious.'

Our author objects with Dr. Robinson to Tell-Hum as the site of Capernaum; but he also objects to Khan Minyeh, where Robinson finds it, preferring another place, Ain-el-Medaouarah, where the learned doctor would have been glad to find it, but could not discover any such traces of a former site as seemed needful for the identification.

In regard to Bethsaida, our traveller is at issue with the theory of two Bethsaidas-one to the east of the Jordan at its entrance into the lake of Tiberias, the Bethsaida Julias of the tetrarch Philip; and the other to the west of the same, the Bethsaida of the Gospels. He contends that Julias was on the right bank of the Jordan; that Bethsaida Julias is the Bethsaida of the Gospels; and that the fine ruins at TellHum are undoubtedly the ruins of both. This is all well worthy of attention. Let us add that in the land of Moab, east of the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, M. de Sauley discovered a curious monument, of which he thus speaks :—

'We arrived at the foot of a circular mound, formed of squared blocks of lava, partly covered over with earth, which seem to constitute the base of a small round tower. This ruin is called the Redjom-el-Aabed (the mound of the slave). When I reach it I find our Bedouins sitting near a large block of lava, which they point out to me saying, "Look, there is a stone, like those thou art in quest of." I look, and find myself in front of a magnificent stelon, in black compact lava, representing a bas relief, of an antiquity, the date of which I shall not presume to determine, even approximately. It consists of a figure as large as life, with the whole of the lower part wanting from the knees, but which, notwithstanding_this mutilation, exhibits a monument of art of immense value. To a certainty we have before us a Moabite sculpture. A personage, wearing a helmet of Assyrian shape, holds with both hands a javelin with a large iron head, with which he seems to strike a man supposed to be in supplication at his knees. The upper part of the body is naked; but from the hips down to the knees he is clothed in a short close tunic, exactly similar to that worn by the Egyptians. Over the right shoulder of this personage, and behind his back, is hung a bended bow, without any apparent string. Behind the warrior is the figure of a lion, of small dimensions, which appears to be merely the ornamented leg of a throne, judging by its diminutive size. The relievo of this figure is well defined, the expression of the face strongly marked, and characterised with a savage energy.'

We have compared this figure with those given in plates 3 and 4 of the number of this Journal for last January, but cannot see that it bears much resemblance to any one of them.

We should have stated before that M. de Sauley travelled at his own expense, but solicited and obtained permission to do so with the title of Chargé d'une mission scientifique en Orient. He had at first intended to travel only with his son and a very dear friend, the Abbé Michon. He was afterwards joined by three young gentlemen who wished to take part in the expedition, M. de Sauley retaining the chief command and sole arrangement. One of these gentlemen, M. Edouard

Delessert, has since published an interesting book respecting the journey. At Bethlehem they were joined for the exploration of the Dead Sea by Gustavus de Rothschild,' who had been preparing to cross the desert into Egypt, but was seduced by the prospects which a journey of discovery offered. Thus a goodly company was formed, which with servants and followers was in every way adequate to the purposes of the expedition.

We object to the morality which allowed these travellers systematically to exaggerate to an enormous degree the value of the presents they gave the natives, extortionate as those natives were. Apart from the abstract questions of morality, the deception being discovered, as it assuredly will, cannot fail to be detrimental to future travellers, whose declarations, however truthful, will not be believed. Nothing is of more importance than to uphold the credit of European truthfulness and honour among the natives of the East; and we cannot but think this has been grievously compromised by these proceedings. We observe with pain a certain low, chuckling satisfaction at having deceived (shall we say cheated?) the natives, which seems to us unworthy the character of 'gentlemen.' On one occasion M. de Sauley was caught in his own trap, by being requested to give, instead of the article offered, its value in money at his own estimate!

The orthography of the proper names is exceedingly careless; and the discrepancies between the text and map are continual.

A new Greek Harmony of the Four Gospels, comprising a Synopsis and a Diatesseron; together with an Introductory Treatise, and numerous Tables, Indexes, and Diagrams, supplying the necessary Proofs and Explanations. By WILLIAM STROUD, M.D. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons. 1853. A new Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels; consisting of a Parallel and combined Arrangement, on a new Plan, of the Narratives of the Four Evangelists, according to the Authorised Translation; and a continuous Commentary, with Brief Notes subjoined; being the First Period of the Gospel History. With a Supplement containing extended Chronological and Topographical Dissertations, and a complete Analytical Index. By JAMES STRONG, A.M. New York: Carlton and Philips. London: Blackader & Co. 1852. THE full consideration lately given in this Journal to the general subject, relieves us on the present occasion from any other duty than that of describing and characterising the two works before us.

Dr. Stroud is advantageously known to the public for a deeply interesting book on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, published some years ago; and it is current in religious circles that he has for a long time been taking a very active part in preparation of a new translation of the Scriptures, in which several other competent parties are concerned. Thus, although a physician, he deals with no unfamiliar theme in the work before us. Indeed, he states in his preface Journal of Sacred Literature,' October, 1852.

་

that it has at intervals engaged his attention for upwards of thirty years, until at length the results of his labour assumed the shape in which he now presents them to the public.

It may be asked what need there can be of any new Harmonies at this time of day? and it must be confessed that there is much ground for the inquiry. A comparison of the different Harmonies will show how little they really differ from each other, the re-adjustment of some few points, seldom of much consequence, being generally deemed a sufficient basis for the production of a new Harmony. They are differenced rather by the apparatus connected with them, such as Introductions, Dissertations, Notes, Tables, than by any very essential variations of textual arrangement. Dr. Stroud, however, makes good his title to add one more to the existing Harmonies of the Gospel. He says of those already before the public

Many of them are liable to objection, either for the insufficiency of their preparatory investigation, or the imperfect manner in which they have exhibited its results. Most of them have shown too much deference to ancient traditionstoo much readiness to borrow from previous authors, and too much disposition to substitute vague opinion, or bold assumption, for accurate analysis, reasoning, and method. This is the more to be regretted since, as will hereafter be proved, little dependence can be placed on external testimonies, almost all our knowledge concerning the Gospels being derived from their own internal evidence. The information transmitted by the early Christian writers, or Fathers of the Church, as they are termed, is much scantier and more uncertain than might have been expected, some of them having, moreover, committed gross errors respecting matters of fact, or adopted legendary tales which cannot be believed; and hence these Harmonies, which are chiefly founded on traditional authority, have fallen short of that excellence to which they might otherwise have attained.'

How far the present work is likely to supply the required improvement, may be judged from the description of its contents, which the author may be permitted to supply for himself, as we have tested its

correctness.

In the first place it is original, the whole subject having been re-examined and re-arranged. In the Preliminary Dissertation a large amount of historical and explanatory matter is collected respecting the nature and contents of the several Gospels, their authors, and objects, as well as their relation to each other, and to the remaining books of the New Testament. The principles and rules according to which a work of this kind ought to be conducted, with a view to exclude mere conjecture, and, as far as possible, to attain demonstration, are also discussed and determined. The Greek text, which for such a purpose is obviously preferable to any translation, has been corrected by the aid of all the principal critical editions, from the received text to that of Tischendorf; and in the foot-notes the authorities for every material alteration are annexed. The sacred history is carefully analysed and described; being divided into twelve principal parts, subdivided into nearly fifty sections, and more than seven hundred paragraphs, each of which is numbered, and preceded by a short notice of its subject, and a reference to the source whence it is derived. In collating the four Gospels, the order assigned to them is that in which they are here assumed to have been originally published, namely, Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, and for this decision reasons are assigned. In fixing the order of their contents, two very simple but sufficient rules are observed. All passages containing indications of time or sequence are arranged according to such indications; and all others are retained in their actual connection with those of the former class. When passages in two or more Gospels are in concordance, they are present in the double form of synopsis and diatessaron, separated by an intermediate column, showing from which Gospel, and on what grounds, each portion of the consolidated text is selected. It is evident that

neither of these processes is complete without the other, since the reader cannot easily make use of a synopsis, nor can be assured of the correctness of a diatessaron; but, by means of the two when thus combined, he can peruse with satisfaction the statements of the evangelists, either individually with their several peculiarities and variations, or united in a single and continuous narrative, comprising their best expressions and their fullest details. With a view to enable him more conveniently to examine the order of the harmony, which, as far as can be ascertained, is that of time, an abstract of the arrangement, together with the usual indexes, is subjoined. Chronological tables, and various explanatory diagrams, are likewise provided, and the text is throughout illustrated by numerous Scripture references, which supply the substance of a commentary without its form. It is concluded that all the gospels were in the first instance addressed to Christians, that of Matthew to Jews, and the three others to Gentiles; that the gospels of Luke and Matthew are primary and substantive, those of Mark and John secondary and supplemental, Mark's gospel being chiefly designed to combine and harmonise the two preceding ones. The considerable deviations from the order of time which occur in the gospels of Luke and Matthew have been examined and explained to an extent which, it is presumed, has not before been attempted. The early ministry of Christ in Galilee and Judea, and the commencement of his subsequent special ministry in the former region, are more accurately arranged and dated than has hitherto been done. His farewell progress through the provinces of Palestine, constituting the eighth part of the Harmony, and occupying a large space in the narrative, is for the first time fully traced, and forms one of the principal peculiarities of the present work. The events of the last week of his mortal life, commonly termed the Passion-week, have been carefully adjusted; and the account of his resurrection and its connected incidents, is materially simplified and elucidated.'

The reader will at once perceive that a work like this, adequately executed, must form a valuable addition to our Biblical literature. We think the work is adequately executed, and that it is this addition to our literature. In both the two sources of distinctive character open to a production of this nature-the formation of the text and sequence of parts-Dr. Stroud's Harmony is certainly more original and affords more evidence of thoughtful consideration than any with which we are acquainted; for that of Dr. Robinson, with all its merits, is avowedly little other than an improved edition of Archbishop Newcome's. The alterations in the sequence of events are not and cannot be very numerous; yet there are some instances in which Dr. Stroud differs from many of his predecessors, and a few in which he differs from all of them; and in most of these cases his decision appears to us judicious; as in the very first that occurs, in which he places the appearance of the angel to Joseph before, instead of after, the birth of John the Baptist. The propriety of this is self-evident. There is more that is new and distinctive in the text which has been formed from the four Gospels. Much of this arises from the fact that the author considers the Gospel of St. Luke as the primary narrative, the order being, according to him, Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, the two latter being supplementary to the two former. This fundamental position is not suited for incidental discussion here. It has, however, influenced or guided Dr. Stroud in the formation of his combined text; and whether we receive it or not, it cannot be denied that under this theory he has worked out a harmonised text unequalled for clearness and coherence, unusually free from those harsh dislocations which we painfully witness in the best Harmonies.

The care which characterises this work has been extended to the