Postscript. —The article Syriac VERSIONS waa already in tj'pe when two publications came to liand, which are of primary importance not only for the Syriac Versions, but also for the Text of the Greek Testament ; therefore this is the fit place to add a word on them. The one is a sliort study, the other a bulky edition. They are S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Go-ipd, col- lected and arranged by F. Crawford Burkitt (Cam- bridge, 1901, 2'exts and Studies, vii. 2) ; and Tetra- euantjelium sanctum juxta Simplicem Syronun Versionem ad (idem Codicum, Massor®, Editionum denuo recognitum. Lectionum supellectilem quam conquisiverat Pliilippus Edwardus Pusey, A.M., olim ex a;de Christi, auxit, di^essit, edidit Georgiua Henricus Gwlliam, S.T.B., Collegii Hertfordiensis socius. Accedunt Capitulorum Notatio, Concordi- arum Tabuloe, Translatio Latina, Annotationes (Oxonii, 1901, xvi. 608 pp. 4°).
By a minute examination of St. Ephraera's quota- tions from the Gospel— note the s(«j/»/«r— Burkitt not only proves his statement quoted above (p. 647), that we can never trust a biblical quotation (in the Roman edition of Ephraera's works) wliere it agrees with the Peshitta, but shows positively that his quotations from the Gospel ' afford no proof oj the use, of tlie Peshitta, the Syriac Vulgate.' On the other hand, there are marked ditl'erences be- tween Ills quotations and the text contained in the Curetonian MS and Sinaitic palimpsest : ' these dilt'erences suggest that it was not the Old Syriac Version of the Four Gospels, the Evangelion da- Mcplmrrlshe, that St. Ephraem was using, but the Diatcssaron.' This suggestion the present writer also is inclined to accept, and there is no longer any hindrance to our accepting the third suggestion, that the great event, the production and introduction of the Peshitta, ' took place soon after 411 A.D. under the auspices of Rabbula, who liad been in that year appointed bishop of Edessa,' and that the words of his biographer quoted above (p. 646) contain ' a description of the making and production of the Syriac Vulgate.'
It is clear that in this case the Peshitta ceases to be the queen of the NT versions, and loses especi- ally the importance which it had for the upholders of the Textus Rcceptus, whose 'sheet-anchor' it was (see above, p. 646"). One of their fundamental argu- ments used to be: the theory of WH cannot be right ; for what WH declare to be a late Syrian recension is attested already by the Peshito ; and the Peshito was in use already by Ephraem, nay, is a work of the 2nd cent. Nevertheless, all biblical scholars, and not the Syriacists only, will be thankful to have at last, through the labours of the late Ph. E. Pusey and his suc- cessor in the work, for the Gospels at least, in the edition mentioned above, the most solid ground they can wish for. Fortij MSS of the highest age, mostly from the 5th or 6tli cent., have been collated —MS 4 was written between 530 and 540, No. 40 is dated from 548, No. 26 from 586, No. 32 from 61.'>, No. 39 from 634 ; neither for the Greek nor for the
THADD^US
THADD^.US
741
Latin M.SS have we a similar exactness in date. Tlie result is, on the wliole, a verj' thorough cor- roboration of the printed text ; but this does not diminish our tliaukfulness for the new edition. For wliile hitlierto we were not sure about the ba-sis of the texts in our liands, we have now the firmest foundation. And there are not wanting passages where the printed text finds no witness in any of the MSS collated by Pusey-tjwilliani. They do not afl'ect, so far as the [iresent writer is yet aware, the Greek text, but only tlie Sy riac word- ing ; cf. Mt 5" e" 7". But we must first be sure of tlie Syriac text before we can proceed, and this end is reached by the edition of rusey-Gwilliam, which, it is to be hoped, will give a new stimu- lus to studies concerning the text of the four Gospels.
If one word may be added about the best method to be pursued in tliese studies, it would seem best first to single out those sections which were con- tained in Tatian's Diatessaron, and to study their language, in all extant Syriac texts ; then to com- pare their language with that of the rest of the Gospels. In this way it ought to be possible to get an answer to the fundamental question, whetlier Tatian made use of a pre-existing Syriac Version of the Gospels, or whether our Syriac Gospels are based on Tatian. To quote one ex- ample : all our Syriac texts (sin, cur, pesh, to- gether with the Ethiopic Version and the Arabic Tatian) arrange the gifts of the Magi (Mt 2") in the order 'gold and lujrrh and frankincense'; so also the Sj'riac translation of the Protevangclium Jacob* ('21'). Epiplianius (p. 1085 D, where he reads ^I'oiftu' tm inipas airrOii/, adding the strange Btatement ^ tovs fiTicravpov's, ws ^x^' ^*'*'^ '^^^ i-vri- yf>d<f>uv), has the order ' mj'rrh and fr.ankincense and gold.' Is the agreement in the Syriac (Arabic, Ethiopic) texts accidental, or does it go back ultimately to Tatian ? Eb. Nkstle.
THADDJEUS.— The name in Mt 10'(AV'Leb- baeus, whose surname wjis Tliaddunis'; KV only ' Thaddieus ') and Mk 3" of the apostle who is called by Luke (6'°, Ac 1") 'Judas of James.' In Matt, most critics now read only QaSSaios (Lach- mann, Tregelles, WH [who quote this reading, § 3U4, as proof for the unique exi ellence of Nli], Kevisers, Weiss, with XB sah vg ; Evang. Ebionit.), others only Ae^^aiot (Alford, Tischendorf, Blass, with U 12-2 k Origen ; ' Western ' reading) ; the TR (AV) combined both readings, Ae/S/Saiot 4 in- xXriOels OaSSaTos (cf. e.g. Constit. Apost. vi. 14, viii. '25, where in a marginal note the names are reversed : eaooaios A xal At/S^oios i iTriKaXov/ufO! 'lovSas ZTjXumjr) ; some Old Latin MSS, finally, have Jvc/a.i Zehdes, a reading w hich found its way into the Chrunicon of the year 354 and the Roman Canon of 382 ('Judce ^lotis apostoli epistula nnu').