Though we liave no certain data as to the origin of this version, it is probable on every ground that a Syr- iac translation of the New Test, was an accompaniment of that of the Old ; whatever therefore bears on the one, bears on the other also.
2. IJistory, — There seem to be but few notices of the old Syriac version in early writers. Cosmas Indico- pleustes, in the former half of the 6th century, inci- dentally informs us that the Syriac translation does not contain the Secoml E|)istle of Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. This was found to be correct when, a thousand years afterwards, this ancient translation became again known to Western scholars. In 1552, Moses of Mardin came to Rome to pope Julius III, commissioned by Ig- natius, the Jacobite (Monophysite) patriarch, to state his religious opinions, to eftect (it is said) a union with the Romish Church, and to get the Syriac New Test, printed. In this last object Moses failed both at Rome and Venice. At Vienna he was, however, successful. Widmanstadt, the chancellor of the emperor Ferdinand I, had himself learned Syriac from Theseus Ambrosius many years previously; and through his influence the emperor undertook the charge of an edition which ap- peared in 1555, through the joint labors of Widman- stadt, Moses, and Postell. Some copies were afterwards issued with the date of 1562 on the back of the title.
In having only three Catholic epistles, this Syriac New Test, agreed with the description of Cosmas ; the Apocalypse was also wanting, as well as the section John viii, 1-1 1 ; this last omission, and some other points, were noticed in the list of errata. It also wants some words in Matt, x, 8 and xxvii, 35 ; two verses in Luke xxii — viz. 17, 18 ; and 1 John v, 7, all which are absent from Syriac MSS. In 2 Cor. v, 8 it has in the leaven of purity, which is found in Nestorian sources alone; but it has the usual reading in Heb. ii, 9, not the Nestorian one xoipi'c ^iov. The editors appear to have followed their MSS. with great tidelity, so that the edition is justly valued. In subsequent editions endeavors were made conjecturally to amend the text by introducing 1 Joiui V, 7 and other portions which do not belong to this translation. One of the principal editions is that of Leusden and Schaaf ; in this the text is made as full as possible by supplying every lacuna from any source ; in the punctuation there is a strange peculiarity, that in the former part Leusden chose to follow a sort of Chal- dee analogy, while, on his death, Schaaf introduced a regular system of Syriac vocalization through all the rest of the volume. The Lexicon which accompanies this edition is of great value. This edition w-as first issued in 1708 : more copies, however, have the date 1709; while some have the false and dishonest state-
ment on the title-page, "SecMnda editio a mendis pur- gata," and the date 1717. The late Prof. Lee published an edition in 1816, in which he corrected or altered the text on the authority of a few MSS. This is so far in- dependent of that of Widmanstadt. It is, however, very far short of being really a critical edition. In 1828 the edition of iMr. William Greentield (often re- printed from the stereotype plates), was published by Messrs. Bagster; in this the text of Widmanstadt was followed (with the vowels fully expressed), and with certain supplements within brackets from Lee's edi- tion. For the collation with Lee's text Greenfield was not responsible. There are now in Europe excellent materials for the formation of a critical edition of this version: it may, however, be said that, as in its first publication the MSS. employed were honestly used, it is in the text of Widmanstadt in a far better condition than is the Peshito Old Test. The best lexicon, which also serves for a concordance, is Schaaf's (1709, 4to), The Peshito has been translated into English by Ethe- ridge (1846, 1849, 2 vols. 12mo); and better by Mur- dock (in 1 vol. 8vo, N. Y. 1851).
3. Character. — This Syriac version has been various- 1}' estimated : some have thought that in it they had a genuine and unaltered monument of the 2d, or per- haps even of the 1st century. They thus naturally upheld it as almost co-ordinate in authority with the Greek text, and as being of a period anterior to any Greek copy extant. Others, finding in it indubitable marks of a later age, were inclined to deny that it had any claim to a very remote antiquity. Thus La Croze thought that the commonly printed Syriac New Test, is not the Peshito at all, but the Philoxenian executed in the beginning of the 6th century. The fact is, that this version as transmitted to us contains marks of an- tiquity, and also traces of a later age. The two things are so blended that, if either class of phenomena alone were regarded, the most opposite opinions might be formed. The opinion of Wettstein was one of the most perverse that could be devised : he found in this ver- sion readings which accord with the Latin; and then, acting on the strange system of criticism which he adopted in his later years, he asserted that any such accordance with the Latin was a proof of corruption from that version : so that with him the proofs of an- tiquity became the tokens of later origin, and he thus assigned the translation to the 7th century. With him the real indications of later readings were only the marks of the very reverse. Michaelis took very oppo- site ground to that of Wettstein; he upheld its antiquity and authority verj' strenuously. The former point could be easily proved, if one class of readings alone were considered; and this is confirmed by the contents of the version itself. But. on the other hand, there are difficulties, for very often readings of a much more re- cent kind appear; it was thus thought that it might be compared with the Latin as found in the Codex Brixianus, in which there is an ancient groundwork, but also the work of a reviser is manifest. Thus the judgment formed by Griesbach seems to be certainly the correct one as to the pecidiaritj' of the text of this version. He says (using the terms proper to his system of recensions) : "Nidli harum recensionum Syriaca ver- sio, prout quidem typis excusa est, similis, verum nee ulli prorsus dissimilis est. In multis concinit cum Al- cxandrina recensione, in pluribus cum Occidentali, in nonnidlis etiam cum Constantinopolitana, ita tamen ut (|uiB in banc |)osterioribus demum seculis invecta sunt, plerique repudiet. Dicersis ergo temporihus ad Grcecos codices plane diversos iterum iterumque recorjnita esse videiur" (^Nov. Test. Proleg. Ixxv). In a note Gries- bach introduced the comparison of the Codex Brixia- nus, "Illustrari hoc potest codicum nonnullorum Lati- norum exemplo, qui priscam quidem versionem ad Oc- cidentalem recensionem accommodatam representant, sed passim ad juniores libros Gr^cos refictam. Ex hoc (jenere est Brixianus Codex Latinus, qui iion rare a