The character of this version, based upon the Peshito, is extreme literality. It was the trans lator's aim to prevent a syllable of the original from being lost. The Syriac idiom, therefore, has been often sacrificed by rigid adherence to the original Greek. Greek words are used, even the Greek cases appear, the Greek article is imi tated by pronouns, Greek etymology is represented, and Greek constructions are not unusual. In con sequence of this slavish adherence to the original, the style is greatly inferior to that of the Peshito, though its critical use is greater. Judging by the Florentine MS., We should say that Thomas's corrections were neither numerous nor important. He did not make extensive alterations in tbe Philoxenian text.
About the time of Thomas's revisal of Polycarp's version, Paul of Tela made the Hexaplar Syriac from the Septuagint. It is difficult to tell the connection that existed between the two. The one may have executed the version of the O. T. to accompany the new recension of the N. T., or Thomas may have imitated the procedure of Paul.
The marginal readin,gs are probably the most valuable part of the version in a critical view. One of the Greek MSS. compared by Thomas had con siderable affinity to D in the gospels and Acts. Of 'So marginal readings about 130 are found in BCDL i. 33, 69, etc. With D alone of MSS. it harmonises 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 tile Vatican or B alone it harmonises twice, but with it and others four times (see Adler, pp. 13o, 130.
The most complete MS. of the version yet known is one formerly belonging to Ridley, now in the library of New College, Oxford (see Ridley's De Syriacezrunz novi Faderis versionum indole et usu a'issertatio, London 1761). It contains all the books of the N. T. except the Apocalypse, and from the 27th verse of the rth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews to the end. All other MSS. yet known contain no more than the gospels. In 1778 White published the four gospels from Ridley's MS. 4to. In 1799 the Acts and catholic epistles followed ; and in 1603 the Pauline epistles. The editor gave a Latin version and notes.
In 1853 Bernstein published in Svo St. John's Gospel in the Harclean text from a Vatican MS., No. 271, which has neither asterisks, obeli, nor marginal notes ; but it has the vowel-points, to gether with Kushoi and Rucoch. This edition is accompanied by valuable critical remarks contain ing descriptions of some MSS., and comparisons of readings.
VI. In 1858 Dr. Cureton published the Remains of a very ancient Syriac recension of the four gos pels in Syriac, hitherto unknovvn in Europe,' with an English translation and preface, 4.to. The gos pels are arranged thus : Matthew, Mark, John, Luke and many parts are wanting—all Mark's gospel except xvi. 17-2o. It contains only Matt.
22 ; X. 32—XXIii. 25 ; Mark XVI 17-20 ; John i. 1-42 ; iii. 6 ; vii. 37 ; XiV. 10-12, 16-18, 19-23, 26-29 ; Luke ii. 4S-iii. ; vii. 33-xv, 21 ; xvii. 24—xxiV. 44. The editor thinks that it is a very ancient form of the Syriac gospels, not a version altogether independent of the Peshito ; one less revised after Greek MSS. This opinion is substantially correct. It is an older version than the Peshito ; which the author or authors of the latter consulted throughout. There is a consider able resemblance of the one to the other, so that their mutual dependence is clear. Entire verses are contained in both which are identical ; while in others a very slight difference exists. The pas sages in which this agreement is seen are very numerous (see Hermansen's Disputa/le de codice evangel. Syriaco, pp. 22, 23). It is remarkable, too, that the identity of the two appears in some places where both depart from the Greek, and in the use of very rare words, as is exemplified in Luke ix. 5, and in xiii. 9 where is the singular
rendering for EIS Ta I.aXXOP, ....1.44..1.SOL. But their diversities are also striking and numerous. The very method of translation is different, being freer and looser in the Curetonian than the Peshito ; neither so accurate nor so tetse. The editor is mistaken in believing that St. Matthew was made from an Aranixan text representing very nearly the original Hebrew of St. Matthew's Gospel. It is all but certain that the proper original document of the apostle Matthew comprehended little more than the discourses of Jesus; and therefore that 'the Gospel according to the Hebrews' was a copious and free enlargement of it both from tradition and the Greek gospel. Hence we can never hope to get at the original memoirs compiled by St, Matthew through the Syriac version. Abundant proof lies in the recension itself that St. Matthew was trans lated from the Greek, like the other gospels. Thus in Matt. vi. or should bear one, shows that civObEerat was confounded with ElveEcraL ; and in Matt. xxi. 16, I will prepare praise' proceeded from a like exchange of Karnprlaw and Karaprlaw. The weakness of the arguments adduced by Cure ton is apparent. Thus in Matt. xiii. 48 the version has • •Thijoi, the fishes that were good, good or the hest fishes. This is simply a free version of the Greek T K Carl, omitting els itrycia, inserting _fishes, which is not in the Greek, and making good the superlative by repetition. But Cureton supposes that the translator confounded 14.1D, good, with 1'.=.1, into baskets, which is a gratuitous and most improbable conjecture. Again, in Matt. xx. it this version has 01_24 when they saw, for the Greek Xagbvres, which is merely an incorrect translation. But Cureton conjectures very unfortunately that the Greek translator took 1111 from yule. of the Hebrew for lin of 1111N, dropping the N. int,: could not have been used here for XaPdvres, but some other verb. In iii. 17, where the Greek has oiirbs I _arm, the Syriac has thou art, which Cureton accounts for by con jecturing that the Greek translator read rot.: instead of Irl MN, which he rendered oi,r6s lerrto instead of az) st. A translator could not be guilty of such gross ignorance. Nothing can be juster than Hermansen s remark, that the words usually ad duced by the learned editor from the gospels to prove the Aramman original of this Syriac Matthew are miserably twisted to serve a purpose.' There is so much uniformity in the version as to show that it was made by one person, from one language, not from two. And there are marks of antiquity about it which show an age prior to the Peshito. Pro. bably it was a local version made for private rathet than public use ; perhaps in Palestine. It formed the basis of the Peshito, for there is evidence enough of the translators who made the latter having worked upon the basis of this one, but everywhere with the Greek before them. As the Peshito was meant for public use in the churches it is more correctly and competently done. The looseness of rendering, and the incompetence so often seen in this old ver• sion, are less frequent in the later one. The text of the gospels represented in this Syriac MS. is that of the end of the 2d century, when it was made. It often agrees with B C D, and the old Latin version before it was corrected by Jerome, especially its MSS. a b c ; with D most of all. Very seldom does it coincide with A. alone. Thus in Matt. xix. 9 the words Kai .5 broXEXt4.4p7p, -yam+ o-es imnxitrat are omitted, as in D a beff; and to t'he 28th verse a long passage is added which is only in Dab c d. It omits Matt. xvi. 2, 3, with B and two other uncial MSS. ; though the old Italic has them as well as D. In xiii. 53 it has 2oseph with B C the old Italic, Vulgate,, and other authorities.