Peshitto of both Testaments is written in the Antiochian dialect, and not in the dialect of Jerusalem, he concludes thus: "From these most ancient versions we infer, that this (the Syriac) language is of the highest importance, because the writers of the New Testament, to whom this language was vernacular, first preached the divine oracles in it to the Jews, and to the nations around them, and afterwards wrote them out in Greek, yet retaining everywhere the spirit (gustum) of the Syriac. Nay, it was vernacular to the Lord and Saviour himself; he drew it in with his mother's milk: and in it the only begotten Son of God revealed to the world the will of God, and the express promises of eternal life. This language He consecrated by his holy lips; in this language He taught the doctrines of the Gospel; in it He offered his prayers to the Father, laid open the mysteries hidden from the world, and heard the voice of the Father coming from heaven: so that we may say,

'Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei.'

And, as a poet has said of a Syrian lexicographer,

'Nos docet hic unus, Numinis ore loqui.'

Moreover, this is the language of the Christian doctors through nearly all the East, as appears from the Liturgies and Divine Offices almost everywhere performed in it."

...

JOHN D. MICHAELIS, in his Introd. to the New Testament, (translation of Marsh, ed. London, 1802, vol. ii. P. I. p. 40, &c.,) says: "The Peschito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read: that of Luther. ... holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraim and Bar-Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure; not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master in rendering those passages where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original: and this excellence of its style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and (what is not to be regarded as a blemish) differs frequently from the modern mode of explination. But I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in case of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray any weakness or ignorance in the translator: and though in many other translations, the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must ever be read with profound veneration.". . . "The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine, is so great as to justify in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke. . . . The difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing; and if a proper use

This

had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spoke with his disciples in the Aramaean language. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature. circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ's immediate disciples."—Ibid. p. 44. “The Syriac version. . . . leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, e. g. Matt. vi. 7; John xvi. 2; Rom. ix. 22; and xiii. 3; and confirms some ancient rites in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was proba bly acquainted with the language of common life, as well as the language of books; and is, at least, of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages."-p. 45. "The chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. . . . The difference between the Syriac version and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the productions of countries remote from Syria."

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE PESHITTO NEW TESTAMENT.

The manuscript used in compiling the first printed edition of the Peshitto New Testament were not more than two for the Gospels, and probably not more than one for the other books. These manuscripts cannot now be identified. Subsequent editions differ from the first but little, and that little generally only by conjectural emendations; though one or two manuscripts have been used-very sparingly-by here and there an editor. In consequence, nearly all of the various readings given in the later editions (except the American) of the Syriac New Testament, are only variants of the several printed editions, recording, for by far the larger part, conjectures merely. But manuscripts of the Peshitto New Testament are very numerous; and not a few of them date from high antiquity. To describe even a fair selection of them would fill about as much space as this entire volume. The chief collections are in the British Museum, at London; the Vatican, at Rome; the Royal Library, at Berlin; the National Library, at Paris; with minor collections in the other chief cities and libraries of England and Italy. Others exist in Oriental libraries, and not a few in the public and private libraries of America. For fuller information on this extensive subject, reference may be had to Joseph Simon Assemani's Bibliotheca Orientalis of the Clementino-Vatican Library, Rome, 1719–1728; Stephen Evodius Assemani's

Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, Rome, 1758-1759; Angelo Mai's Nova Collectio, tom. v., Rome, 1831; S. E. Assemani's catalogue of the Oriental MSS. in the Mediceo-Laurentian Library at Florence; Rosen and Forshall's Catalogue, London, 1838, and William Wright's Catalogue, 1870-1872, of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum; R. Payne Smith's Catalogue of Syriac etc. MSS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1864; the Catalogue (by H. Zotenberg) of Syriac etc. MSS. in the National Library, Paris, 1874; Sachau's Verzeichniss of the Syriac etc. MSS. in the Berlin Royal Library, Berlin, 1885; and W. Wright's article 'Syriac Literature," in the last edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. The older writers, as J. G. C. Adler, author of N. T. V. Syr., Copenhagen, 1789, pay a good deal of attention to the two general classes of New Testament manuscripts viz.: The Jacobite and the Nestorian; the former written in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt; the latter in Persia, but somewhat also in or near Mesopotamia, and in the East Indies. But most of the differences belong to later manuscripts, and are little more than such changes as might be introduced by different voweling, or by the natural infirmity of scribes. The older copies, too, are for the most part written in the Estranghelo character, and unaffected by differences in alphabet or vocalization. The differences between the two, however, were noticed by the native scholars, and formed no small portion of the matter treated in the Jacobite commentaries, and, likewise, a large portion of the subject-matter of certain manuscripts often called the "Syriac Massora," and of the books formerly considered as proving the existence of a "Karkaphensian Version,' but now known to be merely a collection of various readings or corrections. Few manuscripts of the Peshitto-scarcely a dozen-contain in addition the epistles, 2d Peter, zd and 3d John, and Jude. Not more than one or two and those later than the printing of the Syriac New Testament, have added the Apocalypse. None contain the story of the adulteress, John vii. 53 to viii. 11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, nor Luke xxii. 17, 18.//So much of these four passages as is to be found in any Syriac New Testament comes from a Syriac Manuscript written on Mt Lebanon in 1626, and brought thence for Archbishop Ussher, who furnished them from it for Walton's Polyglott. This manuscript was lost for two centuries and a half, but was discovered a few years since by the Rev. Prof. John Gwynn, D. D., in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.

The order of books in the Nestorian manuscripts of the New Testament is the following: the four Gospels in their usual order; Acts, James, 1st Peter, 1st John; the "fourteen " Epistles of Paul, including and ending with Hebrews. The Gospels usually form a volume by themselves, called "The Gospel," and are usually divided, with a marginal numbering, into sections, each section much longer than one of our chapters. The numbering runs separately through each book, and also continuously through the four, giving a double numbering for all the Gospels except the first. The rest of the books, in the order above given, are usually considered another volume, and called "The Apostles." Acts and the above Catholic Epistles are numbered in sections as one book, and Paul's Epistles (with Hebrews) as another.

These section numbers may be seen in the American Missionaries' Testament of 1846.

Besides these sections, the Manuscripts also trequently exhibit the division into Lessons for public worship, which are usually 248 for the Gospel, and 245 for the Apostles. These lessons average in length about 15 of our verses, though varying according to continuity of subject or the solemnity of the day to which they are assigned. They are so arranged and used that the whole New Testament (of the Peshitto books) is read in public service during the year.

The Nestorian New Testament manuscripts have continued the use of the Estranghelo character down nearly to the present day. The Jacobite man. uscripts, since about A. D. 800, slide more into the cursive character, like that of our printed books. Certain late ones abound in vowels and diacritic points, and really bear the character of a critical edition.

EDITIONS OF THE PESHITTO NEW TESTAMENT.

The first edition was printed at Vienna, in 1555, at the expense of the Emperor, Ferdinand I., prompted by the Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt. It was intended for distribution among the Jacobite Christians in the East, whose Patriarch, in the year 1552, sent Moses of Mardin, as his envoy to Europe, for the twofold purpose of cementing a union with the See of Rome, and procuring the printing of the Syriac New Testament for the use of his people. Moses of Mardin brought with him a manuscript copy, prepared in the East; and likewise superintended the press. One other manuscript, containing the Four Gospels, was also consulted. The edition was neatly and accurately printed in 4to., containing the simple text, with the church lessons noted, and embracing all the books of the New Testament, except the 2d Epistle of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. It also omitted the story of the Adulteress. This edition is rare. 2. In 1569, Immanuel Tremellius republished, at Geneva, in folio, the edition of Vienna, in Hebrew characters, and accompanied it with a Latin translation made by himself, also the Greek text. He likewise had a Syriac manuscript, but he made little use of it. Republished at Lyons, 1571.

3. In 1571, Gy le Fevre de la Boderie, (Boderianus,) reprinted the same text, both in Syriac and Hebrew letters, accompanied with a Latin transla· tion, in the third volume of the Antwerp Polyglott Bible. Boderie also had a Syriac manuscript, brought from the East by William Postell, from which he drew some various readings.

4 and 5. The fourth and fifth editions were in Hebrew letters, and with. out points, printed at Antwerp, by Plantin, in 1573 and 1575; the first in 8vo. the other 18mo.

6. In 1584, La Boderie reprinted, at Paris, 4to., the Syriac text in Hebrew letters, with an interlinear Latin translation.

7. In 1599, Elias Hutter inserted Tremellius' Hebrew Syriac text in his Polyglott New Testament, and supplied the deficient Books by Syriac of his own making.

8. In 1621, Martin Trost, at Köthen, in Anhalt, reprinted the Syriac text

of the Vienna edition, in fair Syriac types, with a Latin translation; 1 vol. 4to. Some copies are dated 1622.

Hitherto, the 2d Epistle of Peter; the 2d and 3d of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, had not been printed from manuscripts. But in 1627, Louis de Dieu published, at Leyden, the Apocalypse, from a manuscript now in Leyden, which had been the property of Scaliger; and in 1630, Edward Pococke published, also at Leyden, the four lacking Epistles, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library at Oxford. (They are, however, no part of the Peshitto, but of the Philoxenian Version.) And since that time, nearly all the editions of the Peshitto New Testament have contained these books, thus completing the New Testament Canon.

9. In 1645, the Peshitto New Testament was inserted in the Paris Polyglott, copied from the Antwerp Polyglott, and enlarged by the insertion, from the source just mentioned, of the wanting Epistles and the Apocalypse; the whole being revised and corrected by Gabriel Sionita.

10. In 1657, the London Polyglott republished the entire Syriac New Testament from the Paris Polyglott, and added, for the first time, the history of the Adulteress, from a manuscript belonging to Archbishop Ussher. Republished, with new title, 1698.

11. In 1664, Giles Gutbier published his Syriac New Testament at Hamburg, in a moderate sized 12mo. volume, for common use. His text is that of Trost, with some amendments, and is followed with a list of various readings, chiefly derived from the printed editions. This is a cheap edition and very common, and it would be a good edition if the typography were what it should be. It is generally accompanied with a good compendious Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament. Reprinted many times down as late as 1749. The copies dated 1664 differ in typographical and other details, and the differences are reproduced in the different later editions.

12. In 1684, Christian Knorre reprinted, in 12mo., at Sulzbach, Plantin's edition of 1573, in Hebrew letters. This edition does not contain the antilegomena, i. e.: the epistles of 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and Jude.

13. In 1703, the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, at Rome, printed the New Testament, Syriac and Arabic, in 2 vols., folio, for the use of the Maronites.

14. In 1708, and '9, John Leusden and Charles Schaaf published at Leyden their excellent edition, Syriac and Latin, in large 4to., with a copious list of the various readings in different editions. This edition was re-issued by Schaaf in 1717. He also published, with both editions, his highly esteemed Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale in Novum Test. Syr., in large 4to.

15. In 1713, the Schaafian text, with various readings inserted in brackets in the text, was inserted in the Biblia Quadralinguia of Christian Reineccius, Leyden, folio. Republished, 1747.

16. In 1805, Richard Jones republished, at Oxford, in 4to., the Schaafian text, corrected by, or at least, with a collation of, two Syriac manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, and the Commentary of Bar-Hebraeus, existing in the same library.

17. In 1816, the British and Foreign Bible Society published at London,