2. Bate. — This translation from the Hebrew has al- ways been the ecclesiastical version of the Syrians; and when it is remembered how in the 5th century dissensions and divisions were introduced into the Syr- ian churches, and how from that time the Monophy- sites and those termed Nestorians have been in a state of unhealed opposition, it shows not only the antiquity of this version, but also the deep and abiding hold which it must have taken on the mind of the people, that this version was firmly held fast by both of these opposed parties, as well as by those who adhere to the Greek Church, and bj- the Maronites. Its existence and use prior to their divisions is sufficiently proved by I'^phrem alone. But how much older it is than that deacon of Edessa we have no evidence. From Bar-He- brffius (in the 13th century) we learn that there were three opinions as to its age : some saying that the ver- sion was made in the reigns of Solomon and Hiram; some that it was translated by Asa, the priest who was sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria; and some that the version was made in the days of Addai the apostle and of Abgarus, king of Osrhoene (at which time, he adds, the Simple version of the New Test, was also made) (Wiseman, Ho?-a3 Syriacce, p. 90). The first of these opinions, of course, implies that the books written before that time were then translated ; indeed, a limi- tation of somewhat the same kind would apply to the second. The ground of the first opinion seems to have been the belief that the Tyrian king was a convert to the profession of the true and revealed faith held by the Israelites ; and that the possession of Holy Scripture
SYRIAC VERSIONS
lU
SYRIAC VERSIONS
in the Syriac tongue (which they identified with his I own) was a necessary conse(iuence of this adoption of i the true belief: this opinion is mentioned as having been held by some of tlie Syrians in the Oth century. The second opinion (which does not appear to have been cited from any Syriac writer prior to Bar-IIebrie- us) seems to have some coiniection with the formation of the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch. As that version is in an Aramiean dialect, any one who sup- posed that it was made immediately after the mission of the priest from Assyria might say that it was then lirst that an Aramwan translation was executed ; and this might afterwards, in a sort of indefinite manner, have been connected with what the Syrians themselves used, James of Edessa (in the latter half of the 7th centur}-) had held the third of the opinions mentioned by Bar-Hebraeus, who cites him in support of it, and accords with it.
It is highly improbable that any part of the Syriac version is older than the advent of our Lord, those who placed it under Abgarus, king of Edessa, seem to have argued on the theory that the Syrian people then received Christianity ; and thus they supposed that a version of the Scriptures was a necessary accom- paniment of such conversion. All that the account shows clearly is, then, that it was believed to belong to the earliest period of the Christian faith among them : an opinion with which all that we know on the subject accords well. Thus Ephrem, in the -Ith century, not only shows that it was then current, but also gives the impression that this had even then been long the case. For in his commentaries he gives explanations of terms which were even then obscure. This might have been from age: if so, the version was made comparatively long before his days; or it might be from its having been in a dialect ditferent from that to which he was ac- customed at Edessa. In this case, then, the translation was made in some other part of Syria; which would hardly have been done unless Christianity had at such a time been more diffused there than it was at Edessa. The dialect of that city is stated to have been the purest Svriac ; if, then, the version was made for that place, it would no doubt have been a monument of such pijrer dialect. Probably the origin of the Old Sj'riac version is to be compared with that of the Old Latin [see Vul- gate] ; and it probably differed as much from the pol- ished language of Edessa as did the Old Latin, made in the African province, from the contemporary writers of Rome, such as Tacitus. Even though the traces of the origin of this version of the Old Test, be but few, yet it is of importance that they should be marked ; for the Old Syriac has the peculiar value of being the first ver- sion from the Hebrew original made for Christian use, and, indeed, the only translation of the kind before that of Jerome which was made subsequently to the time when Ephrem wrote. This Syriac commentator may have termed it " our version" in contrast with all others then current (for the Targums were hardly versions), which were merely reflections of the Greek and not of the Hebrew original.
3. Oriyin. — The proof that this version was made from the Hebrew is twofold: we have the direct state- ments of Ephrem, who compares it in places with the Hebrew, and speaks of this origin as a fact; and who is confirmed ( if that were needful ) by later Syrian writers; we find the same thing evident from the in- ternal examination of the version itself. Whatever in- ternal change or revision it may have received, the He- brew groundwork of the translation is unmistakable. Such indications of revision must be afterwards briefly specified.