In the beginning of 1849 the Rev. John Rogers, canon of Exeter, published Reasons tphy a New Edition of the Peschito, or Ancient Syriac Version of the Old Testa- ment, should he published. There was a strong hope ex- pressed soon after the issue of Canon Rogers's appeal tliat the work would be formally placed in a proper manner in the hands of the Rev. \Vm. Curcton, and thus be accomplished under his superintendence at the Oxford University press. Canon Rogers announced this in an Appendix to his pamphlet. This, however, has not been effected.
The only tolerable lexicon for the Old.-Test. Peshito is Michaelis's enlarged reprint of Castell (Gott. 1878, 2 pts. 8vo), for Bernstein did not live to publish more than one part of his long-expected lexicon. See Syri- ac Language.
5. Identity. — But, if the printed Syriac text rests on by no means a really satisfactory basis, it may be asked. How can it be said positively that what we have is the same version substantially that was used by Eph- rcm in the 4th century? Happily, we have the same means of identifying the Syriac with that anciently used as we have of showing that the modern Latin A'ulgate is substantially the version executed by Je- rome. We admit that the common printed Latin has suffered in various ways, and j'et at the bottom and in its general texture it is undoubtedl}' the work of Je- rome : so with the Peshito of the Old Test., whatever errors of judgment were committed by Gabriel Sionita, the first editor, and however little has been done bj^ those who should have corrected these things on MS. authority, the identity of the version is too certain for it to be thus destroj'ed, or even (it may be said) materi- ally obscured.
From the citations of Ephrem, and the single words on which he makes remarks, we have sufficient proof of the identity of the version ; even though at times he also furnishes proof that the copies as printed are not exactly as he read. (See the instances of accord- ance, mostly from the places given by Wiseman, Hor. Syr. p. 122, etc., in which Ephrem thinks it needful to explain a Syrian word in this version, or to discuss its meaning, either from its having become antiquated jn his time, or from its being unused in the same sense by the Syrians of Edessa.)
The proof that the version which has come down to us is substantially that used by the Syrians in the 4th century is, perhaps, more definite from the comparison of words than it would have been from the comparison of passages of greater length; because in longer cita- tions there always might be some ground for thinking that perhaps the MS. of Ephrem might have been conformed to later Syriac copies of the sacred text; while, with regard to peculiar words, no such sus- picion can have any place, since it is on such words still found in the Peshito that the remarks of Ephrem are based. The fact that he sometimes cites it differ-
ently from what we now read only shows a variation of copies, perhaps ancient, or perhaps such as is found merely in the printed text that we have,
6. Relations to other Texts. — It may be said that the Syriac in general supports the Hebrew text that we have: how far arguments may be raised upon minute coincidences or variations cannot be certainly known until the ancient text of the version is better establish- ed. Occasionally, however, it is clear that the Syriac translator read one consonant for another in the He- brew, and translated accordingly ; at times another vo- calization of the Hebrew was followed.
A resemblance has been pointed out between the Syriac and the reading of some of the Chaldee Tar- gums. If the Targum is the older, it is not unlikely that the Syriac translator, using every aid in his pow- er to obtain an accurate knowledge of what he was ren- dering, examined the Targums in difficult passages. This is not the place for formally discussing the date and origin of the Targums (q. v.j; but if (as seems al- most certain) the Targums which have come down to us are almost without exception more recent than the Syriac version, still they are probably the successors of earlier Targums, which by amplification have reached their present shape. Thus, if existing Targums are more recent than the Syriac, it may happen that their coincidences arise from the use of a common source — an earlier Targum.
But there is another point of inquiry of more impor- tance : it is, how far has this version been affected by the Sept.? and to what are we to attribute this influ- ence? It is possible that the influence of the Sept. is partly to be ascribed to copyists and revisers; while, in part, this belonged to the version as originally made. For, if a translator had access to another version while occupied in making his own, he might consult it in cases of difficulty; and thus he might unconsciously follow it in other parts. Even knowing the words of a particular translation may affect the mode of ren- dering in another translation or revision. Thus a tinge from the Sept. may easily have existed in this version from the first, even though in whole books it may not be found at all. But when the extensive use of the Sept. is remembered, and how soon it was super- stitiously imagined to have been made by direct inspi- ration, so that it was deemed canonically authoritative, we cannot feel wonder that readings from the Sept. should have been, from time to time, introduced ; this may have commenced probably before a Syriac version had been made from the Hexaplar Greek text; because in such revised text of the Sept. the additions, etc., in which that version differed from the Hebrew would be so marked that they would hardly seem to be the au- thoritative and genuine text. (See the article follow- iug.)