2. Proper names from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, are generally written in Greek, with the terminations of that language, as _e. g._ Jesus, John, James, Thomas, Judas, &c., and these terminations are _added_ to the radical letters of the name, which are all retained. It is easy to see that _Caphis_ would become _Caphisus_, while _Cepho_ (Syriac for _rock_) would become _Cephas_, just as _Ehudo_ (Syriac, _Jude_) becomes _Judas_. 3. Still less likely would the name _Caphis_ be to lose a radical in its transfer to the Syriac, where Cephos is represented by _Cepho_, without _s_. 4. The paronomasia exhibited in the Latin, "Tu es _Petrus_, et super hanc _petram_," also appears both in the Greek and the Syriac. 5. The difference of gender between the words _Petrus_ and _petra_, moreover, is preserved in the Syriac and appears in the Greek. 6. The figure of binding and loosing (v. 19.) is one which was common to the three languages, Greek, Chaldee, and Syriac, in all of which it denotes "to remit or retain" sins, "to confirm or abolish" a law, &c. 7. The occurrence of this figure in ch. xviii. 18., where the reference is not special to Peter, but general to all the apostles. (Compare John xx. 23.) 8. The Syriac uniformly translates the name Peter by Cepho (_i. e._ Cephas), except once or twice in Peter's epistles. This at least indicates their view of its meaning. On the whole I see no reason to suppose that Cephas means anything but _stone_; certainly there is much less reason for the proposed signification of _binder_. In John i. 42., the clause which explains the name Cephas is absent from the Syriac version in accordance with the regular and necessary practice of the translators to avoid tautology: "Thou shalt be called _Stone_; which is by interpretation _Stone!_" (See the _Journal of Sacred Literature_ for January last, p. 457., for several examples of this.) There is here surely sufficient reason to account for the omission of this clause, which, it {501} appears, is supported by universal MS. authority, as well as by that of the other versions. B. H. C. The paronomasia of _Kipho_ (=Rock) was made in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, the vernacular language of our Lord and his disciples. The apostle John, writing in Greek (i. 43.), explains the meaning of _Kipho_ ([Greek: Kêphas]) by the usual Greek phrase [Greek: ho hermêneuetai Petros], which phrase was necessarily omitted in the Syriac version, where this word _Kipho_ was significant, in the original sense, as used by our Lord, and therefore needed no such hermeneutic explanation. Had our Lord spoken in Greek, and had the name [Greek: Kêphas] been _idem sonans_ with [Hebrew: KPYS] (Hab. ii. 11.)--which, however, is not the case,--some slender support might have been thereby afforded to MR. MARGOLIOUTH'S argument; but as he admits that our Lord did _not_ speak in the Greek tongue, such argument falls to the ground as void of all probability. T. J. BUCKTON. Lichfield.