SYRIAC VERSIONS. I. The old Syriac version of the Scriptures is often called the Peshito, a word which signifies simple or single, applied to the work to mark its freedom from glosses and allegorical interpretations. The version is simple and literal, unencumbered with allegorising addi tions, or mystical, glossarial expositions. Peshi to is the same as the Chaldee distinguished from the simple and literal, opposed to the allegorical and mystical sense of tbe Jews.
Various traditions about its origin have been current among the Syrians, which partake of the fabulous. Jacob of Edessa, in a passage com municated by Gregory bar Hebrmus, speaks of those translators who were sent to Palestine by the apostle Thaddeus, and by Abgarus king of Edessa' (Wiseman, Hone Syriacce, p. to3). This statement is improbable, notwithstanding the de sire of Havernick to recommend it ; and must be classed with the other accounts, such as that of Jesudad, that a part was translated in the time of Solomon for the use of Hiram and the Tyrians ; or that it was made by Assa the priest, whom the Assyrian sent to the Samaritans. Ephrem the Syrian, in the 4th century, refers to the translation in such a manner as implies its antiquity. It seems to have been generally circulated in his time among the Syrians, and therefore he speaks of it as our version ; which he would scarcely have done had it not obtained general authority. Besides, many expressions in ,it were either unintelligible to this father or very obscure ; and he considered it necessary to explain terms and phrases for the use of his countrymen. Wiseman has given the prin. cipal passages in which Ephrem explains obscure words, and changes them for others (Hone Syriaca, pp. 122-136). Such circumstances are favourable to the idea of an early origin. Yet it was not made in the 1st century, if the N. T. part be con sidered contemporaneous with the O. T. Michaelis is decidedly incorrect on this head. Nor can it be said with probability that it was made in the 2c1 century, except at its very close. The beginning of the 3d is most likely, A. D. 200. The compara tively late origin of the fourth gospel necessitates this conclusion.
With regard to the O. T. part, we incline to the opinion that it was made by Christians. Had it proceeded from Jews, or from a Jew, it would hardly have been so free from the glosses in which that people indulged. It would also have resolved anthropomorphisms as is done in the Septuagint ; and exhibited less awkwardness in rendering the Levitical precepts. Many of the names of unclean animals are wanting in the Syriac of Lev. xi., and
the Hebrew words are often retained, not because the translator did not understand them, but be cause he was negligent (Hirzel, De Pent. vers. Syr. indole quam Peshito vacant comment crit-exeget. p. 127, et seqq.) Besides, the Messianic passages show that no Jew translated them. Yet Simon, and most modern Jews, Frankel (Vorstudien zur Septuaginta, p. 183 ; Cider den Einfiuss der palaest. Exegese, p. 14o), Rapoport (Biccure ha Shanah, Jahrg. 1844, p. 37 ; Erech Millin, p. 254), Graetz (Geschichte der juden, vol. iv. p. 554), and Perles (Illeletemata PeshitthonMna) attribute its origin to Jews. The main argument adduced by Frankel and Rapoport is, that Midrashic ele ments are found in it, which is inconclusive, unless it could be shown that the Christians were free from Jewish influences and modes of interpretation. The necessity or motive for Jews undertaking such a version is not clear, because they had Targumic interpretations or versions which are essentially in the same dialect. Dathe conjectured that the translator was a Jewish Christian, which is pos sible, since the version does present evidences of Jewish influences upon it. But there is no need of resorting to an intermediate opinion of this nature.
Some have thought that the Septuagint was consulted by the authors of the Peshito. There is considerable resemblance between it and our ver sion—not so much in single passages as in its general tenor—and the influence of the Greek is tolerably clear, notwithstanding the attempts of Havernick and Herbst to explain it away. It may be true that in many difficult passages the two versions disag,ree ; that the additions to the text, larger or smaller, which the LXX. have, are want ing in the Peshito, while the latter has additions and omissions of its own ; and that some books are entirely free from the influence of the Greek (see Hirzel, pp. too-124). But the Septuagint may have been used notwithstanding. It is not neces sary that the opinion about the Greek having been used by the Syriac translator should include a general agreement in difficult passages, in inser tions and omissions ; or that the evidence should be as palpable in some books as in others. A priori, it is certainly probable that a tmnslation so much used by Christians at that time should have been consulted. Nor is it easy to resist the con clusion that the person who translated the prophets had the LXX. before him. This fact is percep tible in the Pentateuch ; in the historical and poetic books it is less so.