From Ephrem having mentioned translators of this version, it has been concluded that it was the work of several: a thing probable enough in itself, but which could hardly be proved from the occurrence of a casual phrase, nor yet from variations in the rendering of the same Hebrew word; such variations l^eing found in al-
most all translations, even when made by one person — that of Jerome, for instance; and which it would be al- most impossible to avoid, especially before the time when concordances and lexicons were at hand. Varia- tions in general phraseologj' give a far surer ground for supposing several translators.
It has been much discussed whether this translation were a Jewish or a Christian work. Some, who have maintained that the translator was a Jew, have argued from his knowledge of Hebrew and his mode of render- ing. But these considerations prove nothing. Indeed, it might well be doubted if in that age a Jew would have formed anything except a Chaldee Targum ; and thus diffuseness of paraphrase might be expected in- stead of closeness of translation. There need be no rea- sonable objection made to the opinion that it is a Chris- tian work. Indeed it is difficult to suppose that, before the diffiision of Christianity in Syria, the version could have been needed.
4. History. — The first printed edition of this version was that which appeared in the Paris Polyglot of Le Jay in 1645 ; it is said that the editor, Gabriel Sionita, a Ma- ronite, had only an imperfect MS., and that, besides er- rors, it was defective as to whole passages, and even as to entire books. This last charge seems to be so made as if it were to imply that books were omitted besides those of the Apocrypha, a part which Sionita confessed- ly had not. He is stated to have supplied the defi- ciencies by translating into Syriac from the Vulgate. It can hardly be supposed but that there is some exag- geration in these statements. Sionita may have filled up occasional liiatus in his MS.; but it requires very definite examination before we can fully credit that he thus supplied whole books. It seems needful to believe that the defective books were simply tliose in the Apoc- rypha, which he did not supply. The result, however, is, that the Paris edition is but an infirm groundwork for our speaking with confidence of the text of this ver- sion.
In Walton's Polyglot, 1657, the Paris text is reprint- ed, but with the addition of the apocryphal books which had been wanting. It was generally said that Walton had done much to amend the texts upon IMS. author- ity ; but the late Prof. Lee denies this, stating that " the only addition made by Walton was some apocryphal books." From Walton's Polyglot, Kirsch, in 1787, pub- lished a separate edition of the Pentateuch. Of the Syriac Psalter there have been many editions. The first of these, as mentioned by Eichhorn, appeared in 1610; it has by the side an Arabic version. In 1625 there were two editions ; the one at Paris edited by Ga- briel Sionita, and one at Leyden by Erpenius from two JISS. These have since been repeated; but anterior to them all, it is mentioned that the seven penitential Psalms appeared at Rome in 1584. An English Trans- lation of the Psalms of David was made from the Pe- shito by A. Oliver (Bost. 1861),
In the punctuation given in the Polyglots, a system was introduced which was in part a peculiaritj' of Ga- briel Sionita himself. This has to be borne in mind by those who use eitlier the Paris Polyglot or that of Wal- ton ; for in many words there is a redundancy of vow- els, and the form of some is thus exceedingly changed.
Wlien the British and Foreign Bible Society proposed more than fifty years ago to issue the Syriac Old Test, for the first time in a separate volume, the late Prof. Lee was employed to make such editorial preparations as could be connected with a mere revision of tlie text, without any specification of the authorities. Dr. Lee ct)llated for the purpose six Syriac MSS. of the Old Test, in general, and a very ancient co]iy of the Penta- teuch ; he also used in part the commentaries of Ephrem and of Bar-Hebra?us (see the Class. Journal, 1821, p. 245 sq. ), From these various sources he constructed his text, with the aid of that found already in tlie Pol- yglots. Of course the corrections depended on the edi- tor's own judgment; and the want of a specification of
SYPJAC VERSIONS
115
SYPJAC VERSIONS
the results of collations leaves the reader in doubt as to what the evidence may be in those places in which there is a departure from the Poh'glot text. But tlioutjli more information might be desired, we have in the edition of Lee (Loud. 1823) a veritable Svriac text, from Syriac authorities, and free from the suspicion of having been formed in modern times by Gabriel Sio- nita's translating portions from the Latin.
But we now have in the MS. treasures brought from the Nitrian valleys the means of far more accurately editing this version. Even if the results should not ap- pear to be striking, a thorough use of these MSS. would place this version on such a basis of diplomatic evi- dence as would show positivelj' how this earliest Chris- tian translation from the Hebrew was read in the Gth or 7th centur}^, or possibly still earlier : we could thus use the Syriac with a fuller degree of confidence in the criticism of the Hebrew text, just as we can* the more ancient versions of the New Test, for the criticism of the Greek.