Eidley published in 1761 an account of the MSS. in his possession, and a notice of this version. He had intended to edit the text : this was, however, done by White, at different times from 1778 to 1803. After the publication of the Gospels, the researches of Adler brought more copies into notice of that part of the Har- klean text. From one of the MSS. in the Vatican, John's Gospel was edited h\ Bernstein in 1851. It will be noticed that this version differs from the Peshito in containing all the seven Catholic epistles.
2. Character. — In describing this version as it has come down to us, the text is the first thing to be consid- ered. This is characterized by extreme literality : the Syriac idiom is constanth' bent to suit the Greek, and everything is in some manner expressed in the Greek phrase and order. It is difficult to imagine that it could have been intended for ecclesiastical reading. It is not independent of the Peshito, the words, etc., of which are often employed. As to the kind of Greek text that it represents, it is just what might have been expected in the 6th century. The work of Thomas in the text itself is seen in the introduction of obeli, by which pas- sages which he rejected were condemned ; and of aster- isks, with which his insertions were distinguished. His model in all this was the Hexaplar Greek text. The MSS. which were used by Thomas were of a different kind from those employed in making the version; they represented in general a much older and purer text. The margin of the Harklean recension contains (like the Hexaplar text of the Sept.) readings mostly, appar- ently, from the Greek MSS. used. It has been ques-
SYRIAC VERSIOXS
120
SYRIAC VERSIONS
tioned whether these readings are not a comparison with the Peshito; if any of them are so, they have probably been introiUiceil since the time ofThomas. It is probable that the I'iiiloxenian version was very lit- eral, but that the slavish ailajitation to the Greek is the work ofThomas; and that his ttxt thus bore about the same relation to that of I'hiloxenus as the Latin Bible of Arias Montanus does to that of his predecessor Pag- iiinus. For textual criticisin this version is a good au- thority as to the text of its own time, at least where it does not merely follow the Peshito. . The amplifications in the margin of the book of Acts bring a IMS. used by Thomas into close comparison with the Codex Beza?. One of the MSS. of the Gospels sent to Ridley contains the Harklean text, with some revision by Bar-Salibi.
The marginal readings are probably the most valua- ble part of the version in a critical view. One of the (xreek JISS. compared by Thomas had considerable af- tinity to D in the Gospels and Acts. Of 180 marginal readings, about 130 are foinid in 15, C, D, L, i, 33, 69, etc. With D alone of MSS. it harmonizes nineteen times in the Gospels; with D and B seven times. With the Alexandrian, or A, alone, it agrees twice, but with it and others, D, L, eight times. With the Vatican, or B, alone, it harmonizes twice, but with it and others four times (see Adler, p. 130, 131).
D. Syriac Versions of Portions Wanting in the Peshi- to.— (I.) The Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third of John, and that ofJude. — The fact has already been noticed that the old Syriac version did not con- tain these epistles. They were published by Pococke in 1G30 from a MS. in the Bodleian. The version of these epistles so often agrees with what we have in the Harklean recension that the one is at least de- pendent on the other. The suggestion of Dr. David- son {Biblical Criticism, ii, 19(J) that the text of Pococke is that of Philoxenus before it was revised by Thomas seems most probable. But, if it is objected that the translation does not show as great a knowledge of Greek as might have been expected in the translation of the rest of the Philoxenian, it must be remembered that here he had not the Peshito to aid him. In the Paris Polyglot these epistles were adtled to the Peshito, with which they have since been commonly printed, although they have not the slightest relation to that version.
(II.) The Apocali/pse. — In 1627 De Dieu edited a Syr- iac version of the Apocalypse from a IMS. in the Ley- deu library, written by one " Caspar from the land of the Indians," who lived in the latter part of the 16th century. A MS. at Florence, also written by this Cas- par, has a subscription stating that it was copied in 1582 from a MS. in the writing of Thomas of Harkel in 622. If this is correct, it shows that Thomas by him- self would have been but a poor translator of the New Test. But the subscription seems to be of doubtful authority; and, until the Rev. B. Harris Cowper drew attention to a more ancient copy of the version, we might well be somewhat uncertain if this were really an ancient work. It is of small critical value, and the MS. from which it was edited is incorrectly written. It was in the IMS. which Abp. Usher sent as a present to De Dieu in 1631, in which the u-hole of the Syriac New Test, is said to have been contained (of what ver- sion is unknown), that having been the only complete MS. of the kind described; and of this MS., in compar- ison with the text of the Apocalypse printed by De Dieu, Usher says, " the Syriac lately set out at Leyden may be amended by my MS. copy" (Todd, Walton, i, 196, note). This book, from the Paris Polyglot and on- ward, has been added to tlie Peshito in this translation. Some have erroneously called this Syriac Apocalypse the Philoxenian, a name to which it has no title: the error seems to have originated from a verbal mistake in an old advertisement of Greenfield's edition (for which he was not responsible), which said " the Apoc- alypse and the Epistles not found in the Peshito are given from the Philoxeniaa version,"