APPENDIX II.

THE SYRIAC TRANSLATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

 THERE are three Syriac translations
of the New Testament, which are denominated the Peshito,
the Philoxenian, and the Hierosolymitan versions; and
also two Syriac translations of the Old Testament, which
are known by the designations of the Peshito, and the
Syriac Hexapla. Of the first of these five versions, the
Peshito New Testament, it is here proposed to give a pretty
full account; and then to treat, more summarily, of the
other versions in their order.

THE PESHITO SYRIAC VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THIS VERSION.

 This is not only much older than
the Philoxenian or the later Syriac version, but is very
generally admitted to be the oldest version that has come
down to us, of the New Testament in any language. It is
called by the Syrians the Peshito version, on account
of its style or character. The Syriac verb . . . . signifies
to unfold or spread out that which was folded up, so that
it can be seen in its true form, dimensions, and character.
Hence the participle . . . . signifies spread out, not
involved or folded up, simplex and not duplex; or, as
applied to a translation, explicit, free from ambiguities,
direct, simple, and easy to be understood. And precisely
such is, in fact, the character of this venerable version.*


 * It was therefore a great mistake
of Bertholdt, (in his Einleitung in das Alt. u. Neue Testament,
 18, vol. i. ii. p. 593, ) to suppose, that this version
was called the Peshito, because it was the version in
common use, among the sects of Syrian Christians; thus
making the word Peshito equivalent to the Greek .
. . . ., and the Latin vulgata. The word does not denote
an expansion or extension ad extera, or over a larger
space, but an internal development, an unfolding, which
exhibits the thing in its fair and full proportions.

 The Peshito version embraces
all the canonical books of the New Testament, except the

second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles
of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse; that
is, all the . . . . . . . . . . . . . of Eusebius, together
with one only of the . . . . . . . . . . . viz.,
the Epistle of James. Thus the Peshito Canon embraces
all the books, which were universally admitted to be genuine
in the early ages of the Church; and it excludes all but
one of the books concerning which there was for a time
doubt and uncertainty. It is almost precisely the same
with the Canon derived from the writings of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and others in the first ages of the Church.
And this may be considered as evidence of the high antiquity
of the version. It was made before the New Testament Canon
was fully settled.

THE TIME, PLACE, AND AUTHORS OF THIS VERSION.

 Among the Aramaean Christians
the tradition is universal, and uniform everywhere, that

this version was made at the time when Christianity was
first preached, and when Christian churches were first
established, in Syria and Mesopotamia: and, of course,
that it was made by some one or more of the primitive
Apostles and Evangelists, or by persons who were their
companions and associates. Some name Mark the Evangelist;
others, Thaddeus the reputed Apostle of Mesopotamia; others,
Achaeus or Aghaeus, a pupil and immediate successor of
Thaddeus.
 Anterior to the present century,
most of the Europeans who gave attention to Syriac

learning, so far assented to this Syrian tradition, as
to maintain, that the Peshito version must have been made
either by an Apostle, or by some companion and assistant
of the Apostles. A few, however, men of talents and erudition,
but not versed in Syriac learning, - e. g. Bp. Fuller,
Grotius, and J. J. Wetstein,-maintained that the Philoxenian
was the only Syriac version of the New Testament; and
that, as this version was not made till the sixth century,
of course that must be the date of our Syriac New Testament.
Such reasoning needs no confutation at the present day.
And accordingly, since the middle of the last century,
all the learned men of Europe seem to be agreed, that
the Peshito version was probably in existence in the latter
part of the second century, and certainly in the beginning
of the third. Thus Michaelis, Storr, Adler, Eichhorn,
Hug, Bertholdt, Hoffman, Uhlmann, Horne, Guerike, Roediger,
&c.
 The more recent German writers
content themselves with tracing back the existence of
this version to the latter part of the second century.
But the English, and also the Germans before the year
1800, very generally believed, and argued, that it must
have been made either near the close of the first century,
or early in the second century. Says the Rev. T. H. Horne,
in his Introduction, (vol. i. p. 270. ed. New York, 1844):
" Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, and Dr.
Kennicott, fix its date to the first century; Bauer, and
some other German writers, to the second or third century;
Jahn fixes it, at the least, to the second century; De
Rossi pronounces it to be very ancient, but does not specify
any precise date. The most probable opinion, (he adds,)
is that of Michaelis, (Introduction to New Testament,
vol. ii. P. 1, pp. 29-38,) who ascribes the Syriac version
of both Testaments to the close of the first, or to the
earlier part of the second century; at which time the
Syrian churches flourished most, and the Christians at
Edessa had a temple for divine worship erected after the
model of that at Jerusalem: and it is not to be supposed
that they would be without a version of the Old Testament,
the reading of which had been introduced by the Apostles."

 Those who attempt to trace
back the existence of this version, by means of historical

proofs, tell us, that the Peshito version certainly existed,
and was in common use, in the middle of the fourth century.
For, at that period, Ephraim Syrus composed his voluminous
writings, which abound in quotations and expositions of
the sacred books, as they are found in this version. And
going back of that period, we are able to trace a solid
Christian literature, and a series of well-informed theologians
reaching up to the age of Bardesanes, in the latter part
of the second century. Now such able theologians, and
such a Christian literature, could not have existed without
a knowledge of the Scriptures: and yet, through all this
period, we have no intimation that the Aramaean churches
lacked the holy Scriptures in their vernacular tongue.
We therefore infer that the Peshito version existed, and
was in common use from at least as early as the latter
part of the second century. And this inference seems to
have the support of direct testimony. For Eusebius says,
(H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote
about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel :"-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This language
(as Hug has clearly shown: Einleitung, vol. i. p. 367,
ed. 1826) implies that there was, in the days of Hegesippus,
a Syriac Gospel, and that it was a different book from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews.-And in the Passio
Sancti Procopii Martyris, (annexed by Valesius to the
Hist. Eccles. of Eusebius, lib. viii. c. 1, ed. Amsterdam,
1695. Annotatt, p. 154,) the martyr is said to have been
born at Jerusalem, and to have passed his life at Scythopolis,
where he performed three functions in the church,- " unum
in legendi officio, alterum in Syri interpretatione sermonis,
et tertium adversus daemones manus impositione consummans
;" until his martyrdom, under Diocletian, A. D. 303. The
words Syri interpretatione sermonis, explicitly, make
him the public translator, (of the Scriptures, undoubtedly,)
from the Syriac language into some other, the Greek, most
probably: for we may suppose there were some Greeks in
the Syrian church of Scythopolis, for whose benefit the
Scripture lessons were translated as they were read.
 The arguments for carrying back
the origin of this version to the last part of the first
century and the first part of the second, are the following:-

 1. This accords with the constant
and uniform tradition of all the Aramaean churches, Nestorian,
Monophysite, Melchite, and Maronite; in all of which this
version has been in public use, time out of mind, and
has ever been revered as coeval with the origin of those
churches. Moreover, there is no contradictory tradition
from any quarter; nor does ecclesiastical history afford
any invalidating testimony. All the evidence in the case
is therefore on one side, or stands uncontradicted and
unopposed by any contrary evidence. By what laws of historic
reasoning, then, can the tradition just referred to be
set aside ?
 2. The uncertainty which is found
in the tradition, respecting the precise time, and place,
and author of this version, is good evidence of the truth
of the tradition; for it shows, that this version was
made at so early a period, that the particular circumstances
attending its formation were hid in obscurity.
 This argument may be thus stated:-We
know, that there was an uninterrupted series of learned
writers in the Aramaean churches, from the times of Bardesanes,
who was cotemporary with Irenaeus and Clemens Alex., in
the latter part of the second century,- down to Barhebraeus
in the thirteenth century. Yet not one of them could authenticate
the universal tradition, or trace it to its source, or
correct the minuter details of it. They could only repeat
the generally received fact, that this version was made
when their first churches were planted by the Apostles
and their coadjutors; and then give their conjectures
respecting the precise time, and place, and author of
the version. And the early Greek Fathers, many of whom
lived in Syria and Palestine, were equally in the dark
respecting these points. Now the fair inference from these
facts is, that the translation must have been made in
the very earliest times of the Church, and so long before
the days of the learned ecclesiastical writers,-(that
is, before the times of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Bardesanes,
Clemens Alex., &c.)- that the circumstances of the time,
place, and author of the version could not be ascertained,
and therefore the door was open for different conjectures
respecting them.
 For the due appreciation of this
argument, it should be recollected, that from the termination
of the New Testament narratives to about the middle of
the second century,- (that is, for about 60 or 80 years,)-the
only Christian writers were those called the Apostolic
Fathers; whose writings are few and meagre, and scarcely
throw any light on sacred literature and the occurrences
in the churches. Hence, that early period was, emphatically,
the OBSCURE AGE of the Church, and one which it has baffled
the attempts of learned theologians to explore, from the
times of Eusebius to the present day. After that period,
learned Christian writers began to arise, and to multiply
more and more; so that from that time onward, and especially
after the commencement of the third century, All the more
important occurrences in the Church became tolerably well
known, being mentioned by the cotemporary writers; while
all that occurred in the latter part of the first century,
and in the first half of the second, is almost as little
known as the events before the flood.
 This argument receives confirmation
from the fact, that the very early translation of the
Scriptures into Latin, (which no one calls in question,)
is exactly parallel with this asserted early origin of
the Syriac version. Both versions were supposed to have
been made in the times of the Apostles, or shortly after,
and by an author, or authors, unknown to the subsequent
ages. The chief difference in regard to them is, that
there are said to have been several early Latin versions,
one of which, being superior to the others, obtained the
greatest circulation, and was called the ITALA, whereas
we read of only one early Syriac version, that called
the Peshito. Augustine's declaration concerning those
early Latin versions is well known. He says, (de Doctrina
Christ. 1. ii. c. 11:) "One can easily enumerate those
who translated the holy Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek;
but not so, the Latin translators. For, in those early
times of Christianity, whoever got hold of a Greek MS.,
and thought he possessed some knowledge of both languages,
at once undertook to translate it."-In regard to these
very early versions, both Latin and Syriac, the entire
ignorance of all the learned fathers, in subsequent ages,
as to their authors, and as to the precise time and place
of their composition, arises from the same causes; namely,
the very early period at which the versions were made,
and the scantiness of the records of those times. And
hence the vagueness, or the want of uniformity and consistency
in the details, is the very best internal evidence of
the general truth and authenticity of both traditions.

 3. The character and circumstances
of the first Syrian Christians, and of their teachers,
would both demand and facilitate an early translation
of the New Testament into the common language of the country.
The first converts of that country were, doubtless, to
a great extent, from among Jews. And we know that the
first Christians were, generally, from the humbler walks
of life, or from the common people,- that class of persons
who, in Syria and Mesopotamia, spoke and understood no
language but the Syriac. An early translation of the Scriptures
into this language was therefore exceedingly necessary.
Indeed, it was nearly indispensable for the due instruction
of the new converts, and for qualifying their principal
men to be teachers and guides in the new formed churches.
What modern missionary attempts to propagate Christianity,
and to establish Christian churches, in any unevangelized
country, without at once putting the Bible into the hands
of the common people, in a language they can understand
? -The first preachers of the Gospel in Syria and Mesopotamia,
and the founders of the first Aramaean churches, we may
suppose, were for the most part Palestine Jews. For such
were all the Apostles, the seventy disciples, the seven
Deacons, and among the Evangelists, Mark, Barnabas, Silas,
and perhaps others. But to all the Jews of Palestine,
an Aramaean dialect very similar to the Syriac, was vernacular,
and was the ordinary language of all public addresses
in the synagogues of their country. Hence we may suppose,
that the Gospel was first preached among the Syrians in
the Aramaean language, either in pure Syriac or in the
dialect of the Jews. And if so, the first founders of
the Syrian churches were fully competent, to give them
Syriac translations of the several books of the New Testament,
as soon as they successively arrived in the country. And
we can hardly suppose it possible, that they would neglect
a work so easy of accomplishment, so necessary to lighten
their own labors, and so indispensable to the full establishment
and permanent prosperity of the churches.
 4. The character of the version
itself affords evidence that it was produced in the very
earliest ages of the Christian Church. Its style has all
the simplicity and directness of those sincere and honest-hearted
men who first propagated Christianity. It is, precisely,
what its name Peshito implies-a perfectly explicit and
lucid version, every word of which seems to be the spontaneous
efflux of a warm heart, and of a mind fully master of
its own conceptions. There is no pomp of words, no artificial
constructions or phraseology, nothing that betrays vanity
or ostentation, nothing factitious, elaborate, and studied.
It exhibits no undue veneration for the technical terms
of the new religion, or of the Church and its organization.
Indeed, it seems not to know that there are technical
words and phrases, belonging to the new dispensation.
And although it is the translation of a sacred book, it
seems to have no superstitious reverence for the mere
words, the phraseology, or the grammatical constructions
of the original text. To give the substance of what is
written, and in the plainest, simplest manner possible,
seems to be its sole aim. In these respects it stands
alone among all the ancient versions of the Bible; and
especially is it totally unlike the second Syriac version,
which will be described hereafter. And this fascinating
artlessness of the Peshito version, while it affords strong
evidence of its very early formation, will account for
its permanent and very strong hold on the affections of
all Aramaean Christians in every age of the Church.
 5. If this version was not made
till near the end of the second century, it is utterly
unaccountable that neither any notice of the time, place,
and circumstances of its formation, nor any intimation
whatever of its recent origin, can be found in any cotemporary,
or any subsequent ecclesiastical writer, Syrian, Greek,
or Latin. For if the Aramaean Christians had been destitute
of the holy Scriptures in a language they could understand,
during one hundred and fifty years, and had then first
received the full light of the Gospel from this translation,
surely the publication of it must have produced an astonishing
change in the character and condition of the Aramaean
churches. It must have formed a grand epoch in their history;
and the learned writers of those times, witnessing the
wonderful changes that occurred, could not have failed
to notice them, and to dwell on them with wonder and delight.
And yet no notice is taken of any such occurrences by
any writer of those times, either Syrian or Greek. Surely
this is very strange; and the advocates of this hypothesis
may be challenged to produce a parallel case in the whole
history of the Christian Church. For what other equally
venerated version can be named that was made as late as
A D. 200, and for so numerous a body of Christians, previously
for ages destitute of a vernacular Bible, the formation
of which is not noticed, nor even alluded to, by so numerous
a body of writers, all deeply interested in the momentous
transaction ?
 If these arguments, collectively,
afford satisfactory evidence in the case, then we are
to believe that most of the books called . . . . . . .
. . . . , or the greater part of those forming the
proper Peshito Canon, were translated in the latter part
of the first century, for so early they must have been
well known in Syria, having, been written before the destruction
of Jerusalem, A. D. 70.-The only books forming an exception
are the Gospel and the Epistles of St. John, which, if
written (as many suppose) near the end of the century,
may not have reached Syria in time to be translated before
the commencement of the second century.-The Peshito .
. . . . . . . . . (namely, the 2d Epistle of Peter, the
2d and 3d of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse)
were undoubtedly translated considerably later. Their
style, which differs somewhat from the rest of the Peshito,
and approximates towards that of the Philoxenian, is evidence
of this. Hug, indeed, (Introduction, i. p. 356,) maintains
that these books originally formed a part of the Peshito
Canon, and were afterwards left out of it; while others
maintain that they belong exclusively to the Philoxenian
version. Neither of these opinions is admissible. For
if, according to Hug, they originally belonged to the
Peshito version, it is strange that they should differ
so much from the usual style of the Peshito, and also
that they are found, almost invariably, omitted in the
MSS. of this version. The opinion that they belong to
the Philoxenian version, is equally objectionable, for
the style of these books coincides more with that of the
Peshito than with that of the Philoxenian, though differing
from both. It is, moreover, scarcely supposable, that
these important books remained unknown to the Syrians,
and untranslated by them, until so late as the sixth century.
Besides, they are actually quoted by Ephraim Syrus, in
the middle of the fourth century, or more than 200 years
before the Philoxenian version was produced. (See Hug,
Introduction, vol. i. p. 356, and Michaelis, Introduction,
ii. i. p. 55.) It is therefore probable that they were
translated after the decease of those excellent men who
translated the Peshito canonical books; and that, for
this and other reasons, they were held in less estimation
by the Syrian Christians, and were but rarely inserted
among their canonical books.

THE PLACE OF TRANSLATION.

 Most of those who carry back
the origin of this version to the close of the first,
and the commencement of the second century, regard Antioch
as most probably the place where it was produced: because,
there the first Syrian church was gathered, and chiefly
by the labors of Barnabas and Paul; there also the Apostle
Peter taught; and John, surnamed Mark; and Silas, a companion
of Paul; and there the disciples first bore the name of
CHRISTIANS. That city was the capital of all Syria; and
thither Paul and Peter, and other apostolical men, often
resorted. There the mother church of all Syria long flourished;
and from it, undoubtedly, Christianity was propagated,
not only throughout Syria, but also in Mesopotamia, and
in all the countries in which the Syriac language prevailed.
No place, in that early age, afforded such advantages,
or afforded such inducements, for producing a correct
Syriac version of the Christian Scriptures.
 Michaelis, however, (Introduction,
ii. i. 39,) dissents from this opinion: and he has been
followed by most of the later German writers. He says:
" The common opinion in Europe, that the version was made
at Antioch- was never entertained in Asia :" and "it is
highly improbable in itself: for, Greek being the current
language in all the cities to the west of the Euphrates,
and especially at Antioch, no motive could have existed
for making a translation of the Greek Testament in that
city. Though no tradition were still extant, that the
Syriac version was written at Edessa, it would naturally
occur as the most probable place, it being a city where
the Christian religion was planted in the first century,
was adopted by its sovereigns, who erected churches with
all the magnificence of heathen temples,-was thence early
and widely propagated in the eastern parts of Asia;-and
a city, not only whose language was Syriac, but which,
during many ages, was the eastern metropolis of the Christian
world."-Again he says, (p. 74,) " Syria had an established
church at an earlier period than any country in Europe,
for the kings of Edessa were converted to Christianity
before the middle of the first century, and the ceremonies
of the Church were attended with solemnity and pomp. When
a religion is thus publicly introduced, the first care
is to procure an authentic version of the sacred writings
for the public service."-But, surely, it is assuming a
great deal, to affirm, that Greek was so far the current
language of all Syria west of the Euphrates, and was so
universally understood by the common people, that no translation
of the Scriptures into Syriac was there needed. (See Dr.
E. Robinson's Biblical Repository, vol. i. pp. 309-363,
Andover, 1831.) And, although we admit that Christianity
early gained a footing in Osrhoena, and particularly at
Edessa, yet there is so much uncertainty about the conversion
of Abgarus, and his making Christianity the religion of
the state, in the first century, and so little evidence
of the frequent resort of Apostles and apostolical men
to that city, or that it was really " the eastern metropolis
of the Christian world," till far into the second century,-that
we may suitably hesitate on this subject. In our view,
Antioch has as strong claims as Edessa, to be regarded
as the birthplace of the Peshito, provided it originated
from Apostles or apostolical men, and was written as early
as the first century.

THE VALUE OF THE PESHITO VERSION.

 The great value of this translation
depends on its high antiquity, on the competence and fidelity
of the translators, and on the near affinity of its language
to that spoken by our Lord and his Apostles. In all these
respects it stands pre-eminent among the numerous versions
of the New Testament.
 On this subject we will here
give the published statements of various learned men who
have devoted particular attention to this unrivalled version.

 JAMES MARTINI, a Professor at
Wittemberg, in his elaborate Preface to the Syriac New
Testament, edited by Trostius, in 1610, says: " Let those
who speak lightly of this version know, that the Syriac,
if not the very language in which CHRIST himself conversed
with his Apostles, approaches very nearly to the vernacular
tongue of our Saviour and his companions, and that into
it the recent books of the New Testament were the first
of all translated, and that, too, at the very time when
the Apostles, (those divine teachers whom Christ himself
had educated, and who were enlightened and instructed
by the Holy Spirit,) were laying the first foundation
of the Christian church among the nations. I admit that
it is a version, but it is the first and most ancient
of all versions. It is a version, I say, but one to be
preferred before all others, as being more authentic and
more correct. It is a version, I say again, but made either
by some one of the Evangelists, or certainly by one of
those who had the Apostles present with them at Antioch,
whom they could consult and hear speak on many of the
obscurer passages. And therefore to this version only
can we safely go, when any obscurity or difficulty occurs
in the original Greek. This only can be safely consulted
and relied upon, whenever there is doubt respecting the
import or the rendering of any passage. By this only is
the Greek text illuminated and correctly explained. For
the authority of this version very nearly approximates
(proxime accedit) to that of the Greek original."
 WOLFGANG FRANCIUS, a colleague
of Martini, in his Treatise on Hermeneutics,
(p. 46,) says: "This version, all the learned pronounce
and declare to be the purest of all versions: and, doubtless,
it was so exactly transferred by the holy men, because
Christ spoke and discoursed in the Syriac language: so
that we cannot doubt, that the Apostles and the apostolical
men carefully inquired after and laid up the very words
of Christ, and, with a holy veneration, endeavored to
record them in this version."- And (p. 38) he says: "Among
all the versions of the New Testament, that which holds
the first rank, and is the most exact, felicitous, and
divine, is certainly the Syriac, which, undoubtedly, was
most faithfully handed down by apostolical men, who remembered
well the recently uttered words of Christ and his Apostles,
and understood their meaning. For CHRIST himself used
this language."
 EMANUEL TREMELLIUS, in the Preface
to his Syriac New Testament, A. D. 1568, says: "It is
entirely consonant with truth, that this version was formed
at the very commencement of the Christian church, either
by the Apostles themselves or by their disciples: unless
we would suppose that in writing they had regard only
to strangers, and cared little or nothing for their own
countrymen."
 BRIAN WALTON, in the Prolegomena
to his Biblia Polyglotta, (p. 92,) says: "The Syriac version
of the New Testament exhibits the native aspect, (faciem
nativam,) of the original text, and confirms its integrity.
For it follows the Greek text for the most part, . . .,
strictly. For, the New Testament being written in Greek,
by men whose vernacular language was Syriac, everywhere
savors of Syriasms. Hence, Ludovicus de Dieu (in his Harmonia
trium Linguarum) affirms, that the true import of the
phraseology of the New Testament can scarcely be learned,
except from the Syriac. For no one will say that the phraseology
of the Evangelists and Apostles is pure Greek: and it
would be easier for Europeans to imitate the elegance
of Plato and Aristotle, than for Plato and Aristotle to
explain to us the New Testament, because the holy men
conceived in Syriac, that which they wrote in Greek, injecting,
the force of their vernacular tongue into foreign words."
After accounting for some diversity in the orthography
of certain Syriac words, such as Golgotha, Aceldama, Mammona,
&c., in the Greek and Syriac New Testaments, by saying,
that the Peshito of both Testaments is written in the
Antiochian dialect, and not in the dialect of Jerusalem,
he concludes thus: " From these most ancient versions
we infer, that this (the Syriac) language is of the highest
importance, because the writers of the New Testament,
to whom this language was vernacular, first preached the
divine oracles in it to the Jews, and to the nations around
them, and afterwards wrote them out in Greek, yet retaining
everywhere the spirit (gustum) of the Syriac. Nay, it
was vernacular to the Lord and Saviour himself; He drew
it in with his mother's milk: and in it, the only-begotten
Son of God revealed to the world the will of God, and
the express promises of eternal life. This language, He
consecrated by his holy lips; in this language, He taught
the doctrines of the Gospel; in it, He offered his prayers
to the Father, laid open the mysteries hidden from the
world, and heard the voice of the Father coming from heaven:
so that we may say,

 <FB>
" Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei."<Fb>

And, as a poet has said of a Syrian lexicographer,


<FB>" Nos docet hic unus, Numinis ore loqui."<Fb>

Moreover, this is the language of the Christian doctors
through nearly all the East, as appears from the Liturgies
and Divine Offices almost everywhere performed in it."

 REV. EZRA STILES, D.D., Pres.
of Yale College, in his Inaugural Oration, says: " Kindred
with this, [the Hebrew,] or rather a bath-kol, and daughter-voice,
is the Syriac, in which the greater part of the New Testament
(I believe) was originally written, and not merely translated,
in the Apostolic age.... The Syriac Testament, therefore,
is of high authority; nay, with me, of the same authority
as the Greek."
 The opinion of Dr. Stiles, that
the greater part of the books of the New Testament were
originally written in Syriac, and not merely translated,
is far from being so strange as to have no other advocate.
Many have believed that Matthew's Gospel and the Epistle
to the Hebrews, if not also some other books, were originally
written in Hebrew or Jewish Aramaean. And J. A. Bolten
(in his German Translation of the Epistles, with Notes,
Altona, 1800, 2 vols. 8vo.) maintains, that nearly all
the Epistles must have been first composed by the Apostles
in Aramaean, their native tongue, and then committed by
them to some of their Grecizing companions, (e. g. Titus,
Timothy, Tertius, Sosthenes, &c.,) by whom they were translated
into Greek before their publication. And Bertholdt (Einleitung,
 46, vol. i. p. 148-154) accedes to, and defends, this
opinion. And he thinks that, after due time for reflection,
the learned world will generally come into it. Such an
hypothesis does not militate at all against the authority
of the original Greek, because it supposes the Greek translation
to have been made by the special direction of the Apostles,
and to have been inspected, and fully approved by them.
But it does show us that the Syriac version may be something
more than a mere translation, and may have nearly, or
quite equal authority, with the Greek.
 JOHN D. MICHAELIS, in his Introd.
to the New Testament, (translation of Marsh, ed. London,
1802, vol. ii. P. I. p. 40, &c.,) says: " The Peschito
is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that
I have ever read; that of Luther .... holding the second
rank. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted,
not excepting Ephraim and Bar-Hebraeus, its language is
the most elegant and pure; not loaded with foreign words,
like the Philoxenian version and other later writings,
and discovers the hand of a master in rendering those
passages where the two idioms deviate from each other.
It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but
is written with the ease and fluency of an original: and
this excellence of its style must be ascribed to its antiquity,
and to its being written in a city that was the residence
of Syrian kings.... It is true that the Syriac version,
like all human productions, is not destitute of faults,
and (what is not to be regarded as a blemish) differs
frequently from the modern mode of explanation. But I
know of none that is so free from error, and none that
I consult with so much confidence, in case of difficulty
and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where
the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray any weakness
or ignorance in the translator and though in many other
translations, the original is rendered in so extraordinary
a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version
must ever be read with profound veneration." After a few
sentences, Michaelis adds: "The affinity of the Syriac
to the dialect of Palestine, is so great as to justify,
in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator
has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the
very language in which he spoke.... The difference between
the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the
Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode
of pronouncing; and if a proper use had been made of this
advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable
commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages
would be made clear, if the words were still on record
which Jesus spoke with his disciples in the Aramaean language.
But the translator appears not to have been fortunate
in rendering passages of this nature.... This circumstance
alone affords sufficient evidence that the Syriac version
was not written by one of Christ's immediate disciples."-(Ibid.
p. 44.) " The Syriac version .... leads us sometimes to
just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient,
e. g. Matt. vi. 7; John, xvi. 2; Rom. ix. 22; and xiii.
3; and confirms some ancient rites in which we are deeply
interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor.
xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual
word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no
assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac
version may be of singular service, as the translator
was probably acquainted with the language of common life,
as well as the language of books; and is, at least, of
equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages."-(p.
45.) "The chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac
version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism.
Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common
reading in passages of importance, must recommend the
use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself
rewarded for his trouble.... The difference between the
Syriac version and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts,
is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural
to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate
in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of
which were written above four hundred years later, and
are mostly the productions of countries remote from Syria."


MANUSCRIPTS OF THE PESHITO NEW TESTAMENT.

 In his Novi Test. Versiones Syriacae,
Hafn. 1789, 4to., J. G. C. Adler divides the manuscripts
of the Peshito New Testament into two classes, the Jacobite
and the Nestorian, the former written in Mesopotamia,
Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, the latter written in Persia
and in the East Indies; but there is very little difference
between the texts of the two. Most of the copies of both
omit the 2d Epistle of Peter, the 2d and 3d Epistles of
John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. They likewise
generally omit the story of the Adulteress, John, vii.
53 to viii. 11; and the disputed text, 1 John, v. 7; and
also Luke, xxii. 17, 18.
 The Nestorian manuscripts arrange
the books of the New Testament in an order peculiar to
themselves. After the Four Gospels, which they commonly
put into a separate volume, and denominate the GOSPEL,
they arrange the other books, which they call the APOSTLES,
in the following order: (1) the Acts; (2) the three Catholic
Epistles, (1st Epistle of Peter, 1st Epistle of John,
and the Epistle of James); (3) the Fourteen Epistles of
Paul, in the same order as in our Bibles.
 Both the Jacobites and the Nestorians
divide all these books into LESSONS for public worship,
and in such a manner, that the whole are read over once
a year. The Lessons from the Gospels are 248; and those
from the Acts and Epistles are 245. The length of the
Lessons varies, according to the solemnity of the days
for which they were appointed, and the connection and
sense of the passages. The average length of the Lessons
is about 15 &
1/4 of our verses, or half the average length of our chapters,
Besides this division into Lessons for the public worship,
there is a division into Chapters or Paragraphs, according
to the sense. One Nestorian manuscript divides these books
in 165 Chapters; each, on an average, being equal to one
and a half of our chapters. Another, a Jacobite Codex
Evengeliorum, divides the Four Gospels into 1389 short
Chapters or Paragraphs, averaging less than three verses
each.
 Till recently, the greatest collection
of Syriac manuscripts was to be found in the Vatican Library
at Rome, of which Asseman has given a good account in
his Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementina Vaticana. But others
were to be found at Florence, Milan, Paris, Vienna, Oxford,
and elsewhere. Adler (in the work above mentioned) gives
account of fourteen Peshito manuscripts of the New Testament,
eight of them Jacobite, and six Nestorian. Of the eight
Jacobite, seven contained only the Four Gospels, and the
eighth only the Acts and Epistles. Of the six Nestorian,
three contained all the books of the proper Peshito Canon;
one contained only the Four Gospels; and two contained
only the Epistles of Paul. The dates of these fourteen
manuscripts ranged from A. D. 548, down to the Reformation.
Those written before A. D. 800, were all in the Estrangelo
character. Those of later date, if Jacobite, slide more
and more into the cursive character terminating at last
in the modern Syriac letters. The Nestorian manuscripts
since A. D. 800, are written in the character still in
use among the Nestorian Christians, a modified form of
the Estrangelo, differing considerably from our printed
Syriac.
 Dr. Buchanan, who travelled extensively
among the Syrian Christians of India, in the years 1806
and 7, "discovered and obtained," (says Dr. Horne,) "numerous
ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures, which are now deposited
in the public library at Cambridge. One of these, which
was discovered in a remote Syrian church near the mountains,
is particularly valuable. It contains the Old and New
Testaments, engrossed with beautiful accuracy in the Estrangelo
character, on strong vellum, in large folio, and having
three columns in a page." "In the opinion of Mr. Yeates,
who has published a collation of the Pentateuch, it was
written about the seventh century." Mar Johanan, the Bishop
of Gavalan in Oroomiah, who visited this country a few
years since, brought with him a Syriac New Testament,
written on vellum, in the Nestorian character, and forming
a very thick 4to. volume. Its date is not ascertained,
but from the character of the writing, it is probably
not very ancient. This, and some other Syriac manuscripts,
are lodged in the Missionary Rooms of A. B. For. Miss.
at Boston. The Library of the American Oriental Society,
at Boston, likewise contains some Syriac manuscripts.

 The " London Quarterly Review,"
for December, 1845, has an article on Valuable Manuscripts
recently brought to England from the Monasteries of Egypt.
This treasure was first discovered by Lord Prudhoe, in
1828, and has since been almost wholly bought up and transported
to England. The manuscripts are in Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac,
and Arabic. Their ages vary from A. D. 411 downwards.
A manuscript, dated A.D. 464, of the Syriac Peshito Pentateuch,
is the oldest biblical manuscript. There are about thirty
volumes of this version of portions of the Old Testament,
dated about the sixth century. Of the Peshito New Testament,
there are forty manuscripts, of about the same date. The
age of these, and the authority of this version, will
make them of great value to critical students of the Bible.
Among other works in this collection, there is said to
be "the Recension of the Old and New Testament, by Mar
Jacob, Bishop of Edessa" (in the seventh century.) Besides
these biblical works, in this rich collection there is
a large number of theological productions, of the same
ancient times.

EDITIONS OF THE PESHITO NEW TESTAMENT.

 The first edition was printed
at Vienna, in Austria, A. D. 1555, at the expense of the
Emperor Ferdinand I., prompted by his Chancellor, Albert
Widmansted. It was intended for distribution among the
Jacobite Christians in the East, whose Patriarch, in the
year 1552, sent Moses of Marden as his envoy to Europe,
for the twofold purpose of cementing a union with the
See of Rome, and procuring the printing of the Syriac
New Testament for the use of his people. Moses of Marden
brought with him a manuscript copy, prepared in the East;
and likewise superintended the press. One other manuscript,
containing the Four Gospels, was also consulted. The edition
was neatly and accurately printed in 4to., containing
the simple text, and embracing all the Books of the New
Testament, except the 2d Epistle of Peter, the 2d and
3d of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. It
also omitted the story of the Adulteress. As this edition
was nearly all sent to the East, copies of it are rare
in Europe.
 2. In 1568, Emanuel Tremellius
republished, at Heidelberg, in folio, the edition of Vienna,
in Hebrew characters, and accompanied it with a Latin
translation made by himself. He likewise had a Syriac
manuscript, but he made little use of it.
 3. In 1571, Guy le Fevre de la
Boderie, (Boderianus,) reprinted the same text, both in
Syriac and Hebrew letters, accompanied with a Latin translation,
in the third volume of the Antwerp Polyglott Bible. Boderie
also had a Syriac manuscript, brought from the East by
William Postell, from which he drew some various readings.

 4 and 5. The fourth and fifth
editions were in Hebrew letters, and without points, printed
at Antwerp, by Plantin, in 1573 and 1575; the first in
8vo. the other 18mo.
 6. In 1584, La Boderie reprinted,
at Paris, 4to., the Syriac text in Syriac letters, with
an interlineary Latin translation.
 7. In 1579, Elias Hutter inserted
Tremellius Hebrew-Syriac text in his Polyglott New Testament,
and supplied the deficient Books by Syriac of his own
making.
 8. In 1621, Martin Trost, at
Kothen, in Anhalt, reprinted the Syriac text of the Vienna
edition, in fair Syriac types, with a Latin translation;
1 vol. 4to.
 Hitherto, the 2d Epistle of Peter;
the 2d and 3d of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse,
had not been printed from manuscripts. But in 1627, Lewis
de Dieu published, at Leyden, the Apocalypse, from a manuscript
brought from India, which had been the property of Scaliger;
and in 1630, Edward Pocock published, also at Leyden,
the four lacking Epistles, from a manuscript in the Bodleian
library at Oxford. And since that time, the editions of
the Peshito New Testament have contained all the books
that compose the New Testament Canon.
 9. In 1645, the Peshito New Testament
was inserted in the Paris Polyglott, copied from the Antwerp
Polyglott, and enlarged by the insertion of the wanting
Epistles and the Apocalypse; the whole being revised and
corrected by Gabriel Sionita.
 10. In 1653, the London Polyglott
republished the entire Syriac New Testament from the Paris
Polyglott, and added, for the first time, the history
of the Adulteress, from a manuscript belonging to Archbishop
Usher.
 11. In 1664, Giles Gutbir published
his Syriac New Testament at Hamburg, in a moderate sized
12mo. volume, for common use. His text is that of Trost,
with some amendments, and is followed with a list of various
readings, chiefly derived from the printed editions. This
is a cheap edition and very common, and it would be a
good edition, if the typography were what it should be.
It is generally accompanied with a good compendious Lexicon
to the Syriac New Testament.
 12. In 1684, Christian Knorre
reprinted, in 12mo., at Salzbach, Plantin's edition of
1573, in Hebrew letters.
 13. In 1713, the Congregatio
de Propaganda Fide, at Rome, printed the New Testament,
Syriac and Arabic, in 2 vols., folio, for the use of the
Maronites.
 14. In 1708, John Leusden and
Charles Schaaf published at Leyden their excellent edition,
Syriac and Latin, in large 4to., with a copious list of
the various readings in different editions. This edition
was reprinted by Schaaf in 1717. He also published, with
both editions, his highly esteemed Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale
in Novum Test. Syr., in large 4to.
 15. In 1713, the Schaafian text
was inserted in the Biblia Quadralinguia of Christian
Reineccius, Leyden, folio.
 16. In 1805, Richard Jones republished,
at Oxford, in 4to., the Schaafian text, corrected by two
Syriac manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, and by the
Commentary of Bar-Hebraeus, existing in the same library.

 17. In 1816, the British and
Foreign Bible Society published at London, (Richard Watts,
printer,) a very beautiful edition of the Syriac text,
corrected by manuscripts, in 552 pages, 4to., intended
for distribution in India. " This edition" (says Mr. Horne)
" was corrected for the press, as far as the Acts of the
Apostles, by the late Rev. Dr. Buchanan, and was completed
by Rev. Samuel Lee, D.D., Professor of Arabic in the University
of Cambridge."
 18. In 1826, the British and
Foreign Bible Society reprinted their edition of 1816,
in a fair, but smaller type, in 360 pages, 4to. This edition
was, probably, superintended by Professor Lee.
 19. Lastly : In 1846, the Missionaries
of the A. B. C. F. M., at Oroomiah, in Persia, having
completed their translation of the New Testament into
the vernacular dialect of the modern Nestorians, printed
it, with the Syriac text, in parallel columns, and both
in the modern Nestorian character, with a marginal notice
of all the deviations of the Syriac from the Greek text:
printed at Oroomiah, in one vol., large 4to. The Syriac
text of this edition appears to coincide with that of
the British and Foreign Bible Society.
 It has often been regretted,
that the editors of the Peshito New Testament have taken
so little pains to collate manuscripts, and to obtain
a correct text. They have, for the most part, followed
the editio princeps, with some changes in the vowel points,
and have admitted but few changes of words on the authority
of manuscripts. The received text, it is said, appears
to have been derived chiefly from the Nestorian family
of manuscripts, and needs a thorough collation, especially
with manuscripts of the Jacobite family.

THE PHILOXENIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

ITS ORIGIN.

 The history of this version is
given in the Syriac Indorsements on its manuscripts. One
of the fullest of these Indorsements is subjoined to a
manuscript of the Four Gospels, in the Bibliotheca Angelica
of the Augustinians at Rome. It may be thus rendered in
English:-" This Book has been collated with two approved
manuscripts.-This Book of the Four Holy Evangelists was
translated from the Greek tongue into Syriac, with much
accuracy and great labor; and first, in the city of Mabug
(......), in the days of the holy PHILOXENUS, Confessor,
and Bishop of that city. It was afterwards collated, with
much care, by me, THOMAS, a poor sinner, with two highly
approved and correct Greek copies, at Antonia, of the
great city Alexandria, in the Monastery of St. Anthony.
Its completion will, surely, conduce to the benefit of
my sinful soul, and of the many who love and desire to
know and preserve this accuracy in the sacred books. It
was written and collated, at the place above named, in
the year 927 of Alexander, in the 4th Indiction. But,
how much labor and anxiety I had, in this and the other
[books], the Lord only knoweth, who will recompense every
man according to his works in the day of his righteous
judgment.'' -The Indorsements on two other manuscripts,
as cited by Adler, are substantially the same with this,
although more concise. Instead of the two first sentences,
they simply say:-" This is the Book of the Four Holy Evangelists,
which was translated from the Greek tongue in the year
of Alexander the Macedonian, 819, in the days of the holy
Mar PHILOXENUS," &c.
 From these Indorsements, it appears
that this translation was made at MABUG, or Menbij, as
it is called in Arabic, the Hierapolis of the Greeks,
a city of Syria, near the Euphrates, and the See of both
a Nestorian and a Jacobite Bishop: and that it was made
in the year 819 of Alexander, that is, A. D. 508, and
in the days of Philoxenus, the Bishop of Mabug. It is
not said that it was made by Philoxenus, but only in his
days. This Philoxenus, otherwise called Xenaias, was the
Monophysite Bishop of Mabug, from A. D. 488 to A. D. 518,
(see Asseman's Bibliotheca Orient. tom. ii. p. 10-46 ;)
but he did not sit quietly on his throne. Being a warm
partisan of Peter Fullo, he was in sharp conflict nearly
all his life, and he could have had but little leisure
for biblical studies. The persecutions he suffered, procured
for him the title of Confessor among his own sect. According
to Moses Aghaeus, (in Asseman's Bibliotheca Orient. tom.
ii. c. 10,) one POLYCARP, a rural Bishop under Philoxenus,
made this translation; and dedicated it, in the year specified,
to Philoxenus, by whom he had been prompted to undertake
the work. And hence this version is often called the Translation
of Polycarp.
 It further appears, from these
Indorsements, that about 100 years after this version
was made by Polycarp, one Thomas, a monk, at Antonia,
a quarter in the city of Alexandria, and in the monastery
of St. Anthony, in that city, revised and re-wrote this
translation, collating it with two (or some indorsements
say, three) highly approved Greek manuscripts. This was
in the year of Alexander 927, or A. D. 616. Who this Thomas
was, and when and where he lived, we learn from Bar-Hebracus'
Chronicon, (year of the Seleucidae 927, or A. D. 616.)
Bar-Hebraeus there says:- "About this time flourished
Thomas Harclensis, (i. c. Thomas of Harkela, or Harkla,
. . . , an obscure village in Palestine,) a monk of the
monastery of Taril; who, in his childhood, learned Greek
in the Kenserine monastery, and was afterwards Bishop
of Mabug. Being, persecuted by Domitian, the Meletian,
he went to Egypt, and resided in Antonia of Alexandria,
in the holy monastery of the Antonies; where, with praiseworthy
diligence, he restored, by a very exact and accurate emendation,
the holy Codex of the Gospels, and the other Books of
the New Testament, after the first version of them by
the procuration of Philoxenus, of Mabug."-From this statement,
and from an inspection of the manuscripts, it appears,
that Thomas Harclensis corrected the text of Polycarp's
translation; added various readings, derived from his
collation of Greek manuscripts; and subjoined other marginal
notices, especially the division into Lessons for the
public worship through the year. That he did not materially
alter the text of Polycarp, Adler infers from a manuscript
that he examined at Florence, which had none of the marginal
notes and indorsements of the Harclension recension, yet
contained almost precisely the same text; whence he concluded,
that it was copied from an ancient manuscript of Polycarp's
version, written before its revision by Thomas Harclensis.

 Such is the origin of the so
called Philoxenian version. It is the translation of Palycarp,
as revised, and furnished with marginal notes, by THOMAS
HARCLENSIS. It was exclusively of Jacobite origin; and
it never obtained currency among the other oriental sects.
Yet it was not made for any sectarian purposes; nor in
hostility to the Peshito version. The sole aim of its
author and reviser, was, to produce a Syriac version,
which should more perfectly resemble the Greek original
as it existed in their times.-It embraces all the books
of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. The history
of the adulteress, is also wanting; but not so, the 2d
Epistle of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, and the Epistle
of Jude; which are here found in the same style with the
other books, and differing from the style of the same
Epistles in the Peshito version.

CHARACTER AND VALUE OF THIS VERSION.

 The prominent characteristic
of the Philoxenian version, is extreme servility, even
to the habitual sacrifice of the purity and propriety
of the Syriac language. It generally copies the Greek
phraseology, so exactly, that it would often not be difficult
to translate it back again into the identical words of
the original. As the Syriac has no Article, the definite
Article of the Greek is often expressed by the Syriac
pronouns for he, she, and they. The Greek expletives,
which could not be expressed in Syriac, are sometimes
transcribed in the translation. Greek compounds are awkwardly
expressed, by two or more words in strange combination.
Greek diminutives are imitated in the Syriac. The Greek
construction is followed, as closely as possible, without
regard to the laws of Syriac construction. And in all
the proper names, even those of Hebrew origin, the Greek
orthography is imitated in Syriac letters, though subversive
of every trace of the etymology, and perverting the true
pronunciation. Even the case endings of these names are
retained; which could only serve to puzzle the brains
of a Syrian who did not understand Greek.
 Of the value of this translation,
J. D. Michaelis, (in his Introduction to the New Testament,
vol. ii. P. 1. p. 67, &c., ed. Marsh,) says: " The intrinsic
worth of the Philoxenian version, admits no comparison
with that of the Peshito. The style is much inferior,
and more difficult to be understood; the version is less
accurate; and the translator was less acquainted with
the Greek. It is neither so valuable to a divine, for
the purpose of instruction in the Christian religion;
nor to the learned expositor, as a means of explaining
difficult and doubtful passages. But the version is not
devoid of value, and is of real importance to a critic,
whose object is to select a variety of readings, with
the view of restoring the genuine text of the Greek original.
For he may be fully assured, that every phrase and expression
is a precise copy of the Greek text, as it stood in the
manuscript from which the version was made. But it is
not prior to the sixth century; and as the Peshito was
written either at the end of the first, or at the beginning
of the second century, it is of less importance to know
the readings of the Greek manuscript, that was used in
the former, than those of the original employed in the
latter."

EDITIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE PHILOXENIAN VERSION.

 No portion of this version was
printed prior to the year 1778. Of course, up to that
time, the learned had not the means of examining it, and
ascertaining its true character. The Rev. Gloucester Ridley,
LL.D., Prebend of Salisbury, about the middle of the last
century, received a copy of the entire version, brought
from Amida in Mesopotamia, by a Mr. Palmer. Ridley immediately
applied himself to the study of Syriac: and in 1761, published
a learned Dissertation, de Syriacarum Novi Testamenti
Versionum Indole et Usu; in which he gave the first good
account of both translations, and a full description of
the Philoxenian. He also prepared for the press, a copy
of the four Gospels, transcribed from his Amidan manuscript,
and collated with another found at Oxford. But he did
not live to see it published. It was printed at Oxford,
Syriac and Latin, with critical notes &c., by Joseph White,
Professor of Arabic, in 1778, 2 vols. in 1, 4to. Professor
White then proceeded to prepare the remainder of the work
for the press; and published the book of Acts and the
seven Catholic Epistles, in 1799; and the fourteen Epistles
of Paul, in 1803, uniform with the previous volumes. The
whole is ordinarily bound in two large vols. 4to. This
edition, so far as I have learned, is the only one ever
printed.-The Manuscripts of this version are less numerous
than those of the Peshito. Adler examined six manuscripts
of the Gospels; and he learned the existence of some others,
containing the Epistles. Perhaps some of the forty manuscripts
of the New Testament, lately brought from Egypt, will
be found to belong to this version.

OTHER SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

 Besides the manuscripts of the
Peshito and Philoxenian versions, Adler found in the Vatican
at Rome, one manuscript of the four Gospels, in a translation
different from either. It is more servile and inelegant
than the Peshito; but is not so servile as the Philoxenian.
Its idiom also differs from both; for it is not pure Syriac,
but is a species of Chaldee, or Jewish Aramaean: and the
characters in which it is written, approximate to the
Hebrew. Adler supposed it was made by some Jewish Christian
about the fourth century. And as it is written in Jewish
Aramaean, and not Syriac, he called it the HIEROSOLYMITAN
VERSION. It has never been published, and is not considered
of any great value.
 What some have called the KARKAPHENSlON
VERSION, is found not to be a new version, but merely
a recension of the Peshito Old and New Testaments, made
near the close of the tenth century, by a Jacobite monk
named David, residing in the monastery of St. Aaron, on
Mount Sigari, in the northeastern part of Mesopotamia.
Dr. Wiseman, in his Horae Syriacae, (Rome, 1828, Svo.,)
has carefully investigated the history and character of
this recension, and he pronounces it to be the Peshito
text, with merely a change in the orthography of proper
names, and of Graeco-Syriac words, conformably with the
orthography of the Philoxenian version. He also declares
it to be of Monophysite or Jacobite origin. Dr. Lee, however,
defends the old opinion, that it was intended for use
among the Nestorians.

SYRIAC TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

 PASSING on to the Old Testament,
we there find two distinct translations of nearly the
whole, as we before found two of the New Testament. One
of these is likewise called the Peshito, and is very ancient.
The other is more modern, resembles the Philoxenian, and
bears the name of the Syriac Hexapla.

THE PESHITO SYRIAC OLD TESTAMENT.

ITS ORIGIN AND CHARACTER.

 This version, as appears from
internal evidence, was made directly from the Hebrew,
and before the Masoretic points came into use. It is quoted
and commented on by Ephraim Syrus, in the fourth century;
was received by all the Aramaean Christians, of whatever
sect, and is held by them all in high estimation at the
present day. They have a tradition, that it is of the
same age with the Peshito New Testament, and that it was
made in the days of Thaddeus, the Apostle of Mesopotamia.
The learned also of modern times, suppose it to be at
least as old as the Peshito New Testament, placing its
formation in the latter part of the first century, or
early in the second. From some diversity in the mode of
translating the different books, it is supposed not to
have been the work of one man: and from certain peculiarities
of diction, and from other considerations, it is concluded
that the translators were Christians. It is universally
pronounced a judicious and faithful translation. Dathe
regarded it as a sure guide to the true state of the Hebrew
text, in the second century: and both Dr. Kennicott and
De Rossi derived from it many valuable readings. " Indeed,"
(says Mr. Horne, Introd. vol. i. p. 270,) " De Rossi prefers
it to all the other ancient versions, and says that it
closely follows the order of the sacred text, rendering
word for word, and is more pure than any other." After
comparing a large portion of the Syriac Pentateuch with
the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate, the
impression on our own mind is, that the Syriac does not
yield precedence, in accuracy or fidelity, to either of
the other two versions; while in its style, it is much
more easy and natural. It is, undoubtedly, more servile
than the Peshito New Testament, and throws less light
on the true meaning of the original; yet, on the whole,
it is a noble version.-It embraces all the books of the
Old Testament; but it arranges them in a different order.
First comes the Pentateuch; then the book of Job; then
Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books
of Kings, and the two books of Chronicles; then the Psalms,
Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes; then Ruth and the Canticles;
then Esther; then Ezra and Nehemiah; then Isaiah, followed
by the twelve minor Prophets; then Jeremiah, followed
by Lamentations; then Ezekiel; and lastly, Daniel.-Most
of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament are extant
in Syriac; and several of them are found in the Peshito
Codices of the canonical books: but I have not the means
of ascertaining their character as translations. According
to Mr. Horne, four of them, viz.: Tobit, Judith, the third
book of Maccabees, and the Story of Bel and the Dragon,
were translated from the Greek. Five others are said to
be found in Syriac, viz.: Ecclesiasticus, Susanna, Baruch,
and the second and fifth books of Maccabees. But I have
not learned from what language they were translated.

EDITIONS OF THE PESHITO OLD TESTAMENT.

 (1.) The first edition was that
in the Paris Polyglott, printed A. D. 1645. The manuscript
from which this was printed was imperfect, and Gabriel
Sionita supplied its deficiencies with translations of
his own, from the Latin Vulgate. He also annexed the vowel
points to the Syriac of the manuscript. (2.) Walton's
Polyglott, A. D. 1657, also contained the Peshito Old
Testament, derived from four manuscripts, and from the
text of the Paris Polyglott. This edition, therefore,
is purged from the factitious additions of Gabriel Sionita.
(3.) In 1823, the British and Foreign Bible Society printed,
at London, all the canonical books of the Old Testament,
in this version; 1 vol. 4to. pp. 705. In this edition,
which was intended for circulation among Eastern Christians,
the vowel points are not added, except to the proper names,
and to here and there an ambiguous word. Prof. Lee, who
prepared the work for the press, made use of three manuscripts.
One of them, of great value, was brought by Dr. Buchanan
from India; and this was collated by Dr. Lee very carefully.
Another belonged to the late Dr. Adam Clarke. The third
was a Syriac Pentateuch, which Prof. Lee found in a college
library at Oxford. This is the edition which I use.-These,
so far as I know, are the only editions of the entire
Old Testament in this version. Of the book of Psalms only,
there have been six editions; the last and best by Dathe,
1768, 8vo. Of the Pentateuch there has also been a separate
edition, by Kirsch, 1787, 4to.- Of the manuscripts of
this version I can say little more than has already been
incidentally mentioned. Among those manuscripts lately
brought from Egypt, it is said, there is a Peshito Syriac
Pentateuch, dated in the year A. D. 464, besides thirty
other volumes of this version, containing portions of
the Old Testament, and dated about the sixth century.


THE SYRIAC HEXAPLA.

 Of this version I have heard
of only two manuscripts, and one of them containing only
a single book. These manuscripts lay hidden at Milan and
Paris, or rather were overlooked and not carefully examined,
until after the middle of the last century. They contain
a Syriac translation of the corrected Greek text of the
Septuagint version in Origen's HEXAPLA, with all its marginal
notes and various readings, and hence its name, the Syriac
Hexapla. From the indorsements on the manuscripts of the
Syriac Hexapla, we gather the following facts. The Greek
Hexapla of Origen was left by him at Caesarea in Palestine,
and fell into the hands of Eusebius, the ecclesiastical
historian, who was bishop of Caesarea; and Eusebius, aided
by his friend Pamphylus, early in the fourth century,
extracted from this Hexapla a corrected Greek text of
the Septuagint, with all its marginal readings and glosses.
Of this Eusebian text, with such a margin, a copy, indorsed
by Eusebius himself, was found at Alexandria, in the beginning
of the seventh century; and Athanasius, at that time the
Jacobite Patriarch of Alexandria, caused one Mar Paulus,
a monk and bishop, to translate that Greek copy into Syriac,
retaining all its marginal readings and glosses. This
task Mar Paulus accomplished, at Alexandria, in the year
A. D. 616.

TRANSLATIONS OF SOME OF THE SYRIAC INDORSEMENTS.

 The third Indorsement to the
second book of Kings. " And (now) this (book) of the four
kingdoms, [this second book of Kings,] is added (to this
volume), being translated from the Greek into Syriac."
And this, here present, is from the Heptapla Codex, which
has seven compartments, and which belongs to the library
of Caesarea, in Palestine; and from which, likewise, the
interpretations [fragments of versions, or the various
readings] are annexed. And it was collated carefully,
with the Codex of seven compartments, there being at the
end of it this inscription:-" Fourth Book of the Kingdoms
according to the seventy: and I, Eusebius, have carefully
corrected it, Pamphylus having commenced the correction."-
Immediately after, follows the fourth Indorsement, thus:-"This
book is translated from the Greek tongue into Syriac,
from the version of the Seventy -Two, by the religious
monk, MAR PAULUS, Bishop of the Faithful, in the great
city of Alexandria, by the injunction and solicitude of
the holy and blessed ATHANASIUS, Patriarch of the Faithful,
in the monastery of Mar Zacchaeus Callinicensis, while
they resided at Alexandria, in the days of the religious
Mar Theodorus, Prefect of the house of his monastery;
in the year DCCCCXXVIII., in the fifth Indiction, [that
is, in the year of the Greek, 928, or A. D. 617.] Whoever
reads, let him pray for the religious MAR THOMAS, Deacon,
and Syncellus of the holy and blessed Patriarch, MAR ATHANASIUS,
who labored and was at pains; and for the others who toiled
and labored with him, that God may grant them the salvation
of their souls, on account of their labor and pains, through
the prayers of his [God's] Mother, and of all saints."-At
the end of most of the other books are Indorsements of
much the same general import: thus, at the end of the
Book of Isaiah, there is the following:-" End of the Prophecy
of Isaiah. This is annexed (to the other books), from
the Codex of EUSEBIUS and PAMPHYLUS, which also they corrected
from the Bibliotheca of ORIGEN."_ See also the Indorsements
at the end of the twelve minor Prophets, at the end of
the Book of Proverbs, end of the Book of Canticles, and
of the Book of Ecclesiastes. In all these places, it is
stated that the Syriac translation was made from a Codex,
set forth by Eusebius and Pamphylus, from the Bibliotheca
of Origen, containing various readings and marginal notes.


PUBLICATION OF THE SYRIAC HEXAPLA.

 Both manuscripts of the Syriac
Hexapla are written in the Estrangelo character; and are
apparently ancient. That of Paris contains only the 4th
[2d] Book of Kings: and it was first brought into notice
in 1770, by Paul Jacob Bruns. That in the Ambrosian library
at Milan, contains nearly or quite all the Old Testament.
To this valuable manuscript, John Baptist Branca, a doctor
in the Ambrosian college, directed the attention of Dr.
Kennicott and of J. P. Bruns, while on a visit to Milan,
about the year 1767. A few years after, J. J. Bjornthal,
of Sweden, visited Milan, examined the manuscript, sent
some specimens of it to England and Sweden, and also published
a description of it. De Rossi then became interested in
it, and in 1778, published the first Psalm as a specimen,
accompanied by a full account of the manuscript. In the
same year, Matthew Norberg, of Sweden, visited Milan,
and took a copy of a large part of it: and in the year
1787, he published at Lund, in 4to., the books of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, from his copy. The next year, Cajetan Bugatus,
of Milan, published the book of Daniel, Syriac and Latin,
4to. He also commenced the publication of the book of
Psalms, about the same time; but it was not carried through
the press till 1820. In the mean time, Bruns had procured
a copy of the Paris manuscript. But neither he nor Norberg,
met with sufficient encouragement to proceed with the
publication of their copies. They left their manuscripts
in the hands of Eichhorn; who at length transferred them
to Henry Middledorpf, a professor in the university of
Breslau, in Silesia; and he published so much of these
transcripts, as had not before been published,-(viz. the
4th [2d] book of Kings, Isaiah, the twelve minor Prophets,
Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes,)-in
one large vol. 4to., Berlin, 1835; with a learned Preface,
containing the facts above stated. The following books,
we suppose, have never been published, viz.: the entire
Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, first and second of
Samuel, first of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther.
 This Syriac version adheres very
closely to the Greek; and therefore will aid us, so far
as it extends, in ascertaining what text of the Septuagint
was approved by Origen, and by Eusebius and Pamphylus.
It may also help us to recover some of the deviations
from the Septuagint, in the several Greek versions collated
by Origen. Of course, for criticism of the Septuagint
Greek text, it is of great value. But for the interpretation
of the Scriptures, it cannot be of much use, on account
of its servility, and its adherence to the Septuagint.
As a translation, it is very like the Philoxenian New
Testament: which Thomas Harclensis was revising at Alexandria
at the very time, when Mar Paulus was producing this version.
As the Peshito New Testament is far more valuable, for
exegetical purposes, than the Philoxenian version; so
the Peshito Old Testament which is a faithful translation
from the Hebrew, must be far more valuable to an interpreter,
than the Syriac Hexapla, which is a servile translation
from the Septuagint Greek.

<FB>THE END.<Fb>
