with the Codex Beze, that Wetstein thought that that copy must have been used in the revision. There is no need to suppose this: all that is clear is, that such interpolations were current in some documents in ancient times.

If this version is cited simply, the text is meant: the margin, or a reading condemned with an obelus, or supplied with an asterisk, has always to be specified as such.

Some readings may be cited from this version, but without any authority attaching to them on that account, because they may be considered to have been retained from the Peshito.

CHAP. XXVI.

THE SYRIAC VERSIONS OF PORTIONS ADDED TO SOME EDITIONS OF THE

PESHITO.

UNDER this head have to be considered:

I. A version of the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and that of Jude.

II. The Syriac version of the Apocalypse.

III. A Syriac version of the narrative contained in John viii. 1-11.

I. It has been remarked above that the Peshito, as originally edited and as found in the known MSS., contains only three of the Catholic Epistles, and that the same thing was specified by Cosmas Indicopleustes in the sixth century.

In 1630 there was published at Leyden, by the distinguished English scholar Edward Pococke, a Syriac translation of these four Epistles, taken from a MS. in the Bodleian. In this edition the text is given both in Syriac and Hebrew characters, and at the foot of the page are the original Greek text, and a Latin version of the Syriac.2 The editor's annotations occupy the end of the volume.

The preface informs us that the MS. in the Bodleian which the editor employed contained the Acts and other Catholic Epistles, together with those introduced in the usual order. Pococke was unable to say when the version was made, or by whom; only he found that a certain Dionysius, who had commented in Syriac on the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, stated, with regard to the second Epistle of Peter, that it was not translated into Syriac with the books which were rendered in ancient times; and that thus

1 "Probably that which is now marked in the Bodleian Library A. 2909. 126., and described by Uri in his Catalogue of the Bodleian MSS. p. 5. No. 19. among the Syriac MSS.; for this is the only Syriac MS. in the Bodleian Library which corresponds to Pococke's description." Marsh, Notes to Michaelis, ii. 543.

In all these particulars the plan and form of De Dieu's edition of the Apocalypse, which had appeared three years before, also at Leyden, was closely followed. This edition by De Dieu will be presently described.

they were not found except in the translation of Thomas the bishop, called Harclensis, from Harkel, the name of his city.

Pococke gives the Syriac citation from the commentary (in MS.) of this writer; and we know now that he was Dionysius Barsalibæus, bishop of Amida in the twelfth century. But in the extracts from the text which Dionysius introduced into his commentary, it seemed as though his version was not identical with that which was contained in the Bodleian MS. All these extracts were carefully gathered by Pococke from the MS. of Dionysius, and were mentioned in the notes to his volume.

As Dionysius Barsalibæus knew only the Harclean version of these four Epistles, his citations might be supposed to be taken from it; and this is found to be the case when they are compared with White's edition of Ridley's MS. Of the age or history of Pococke's version, we have, it appears, no extrinsic testimony at all.

When, however, the text of Pococke and the Harclean are closely compared, a strong degree of resemblance is seen to exist, and that to such a degree that they can hardly be regarded as independent versions. The verbal resemblances and the coincidences in peculiar expressions render such a thought almost impossible.

Dr. Davidson says, "In words they agree so often that the verbal diversity is the exception rather than the rule. They deviate from each other only in that which the reviser of a particular version would look upon as an improvement. The text of White adheres to the Greek words more slavishly than that of Pococke, which was doubtless reckoned a great excellence in the fifth [read seventh] century. Hence the suggestion naturally arises that the former may possibly have been but the revised edition of an earlier Syrian translation, in which the chief object was to remove everything supposed not to represent the original accurately. Accordingly we suppose that the text of White was the Philoxenian revised by Thomas of Harkel [which we know to have been the case], and made more literal; while that of Pococke was the same Philoxenian before its alteration by Thomas."2

This hypothesis has, at least, the merit of meeting the facts of the case, so as to account for them; and it is only in some such way that the resemblance can be explained. It cannot be supposed that the text of Pococke was a version which had any relation in date or character to the Peshito; and if in it and in the Harclean form of the same translation there is less ability shown in apprehending the purport of Greek words than could have been expected from a translator of the whole of the New Testament, it must be borne in mind that here he had not the aid of the Peshito to direct him.

After the text of Pococke had appeared, it was not long before these Epistles were incorporated in the printed editions of the Peshito, a version with which they have really nothing to do. This insertion was first made in the Paris Polyglott, and the example has been

1 See Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. ii. p. 157.
2 Biblical Criticism, ii. 196.

followed by subsequent editors, who, like the ancient copyists, were fond of having books as complete and ample as possible. The valuable notes of Pococke have, of course, not been retained in the various reprints: the consequence is, that but little attention has been paid to the true relation of his edition to the MS. on which it is based, or to the readings cited from the MS. of Dionysius.

The ancient Greek MSS. of the Catholic Epistles are so few, that this version, and the revision of it made by Thomas with a Greek MS. of good character (and ancient in text at that date), has a critical value which otherwise could hardly belong to it. Thomas seems to have had the same Greek codex in the Catholic Epistles which he employed in the Acts, and there we know its remarkable resemblance to the Codex Beza.

II. THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE. In 1627 Lewis de Dieu published at Leyden a Syriac version of the book of Revelation from a MS. in the library of the university of that place, which had formerly belonged to Joseph Scaliger. The form and arrangement of the text thus printed is the same as that of Pococke's Epistles, just described, which were edited in imitation of this volume.

The codex from which De Dieu took his text is now No. 18. amongst Scaliger's MSS. at Leyden. It is written on thickish glazed paper, of a small size; the ink is black and distinct, though the corrections in the margin are of a much fainter colour. It is carelessly written, and when the present writer examined it at Leyden it seemed to have altogether a modern appearance. In a subscription the copyist calls himself Loo? 132) Lo ilamo Caspar from the land of the Indians. De Dieu edited this subscription, mistaking apparently the Dolath in the last word for Rish (and this he might most easily do, as the puncta pluralia which might take the place of the upper. dot of are very plain, and the lower dot of the is a good way below and not very conspicuous); and thus he translated it, "Orate pro eo qui scripsit Casparo ex regione Hanravitarum." Marsh shows! from a Syriac Liturgy in the library of the Orphan-House at Halle, written by this same person, where he was and where he lived. The Latin title says that the book was copied by Gaspar, an Indian of Malabar, at Rome, in 1580.2 There is also a MS. at Florence, in the library of the Dominican Monastery of St. Mark, containing the same version of the Apocalypse in Syriac, also transcribed by this same Caspar in the year 1582.

To whom is this version to be ascribed? Assemani supposes that it was made in the sixth century by Mar Abba, the patriarch of the

Notes to Michaelis, ii. p. 560.

Ordo baptizandi juxta ritum Chaldæorum lingua Chaldaica, jussu Illmi, et Reymi D. Julii Antonii Sanctorii tituli Su Bartholomæi in insula S. R. E. Presbyteri Card" descriptus per Gaspar de Malavar Indum, servum olim deinde familiarem et diaconum Rey D. Haaman Ignatii, olim Patriarchæ Jacobitarum, unum ex præceptoribus linguæ Chaldææ et Arabica in Collegio Neophytorum. Romæ, mense Julii, M.D.LXXX."

1

east. But this opinion seems to be a mere conjecture; and such a version is not given in the list of his works.

Others suppose that this is part of the Harclean recension of the Philoxenian version. Dr. Davidson says, "Its internal character agrees with the Philoxenian as revised by Thomas. . . . In minute peculiarities it coincides with the Philoxenian. Thus it frequently admits Greek words, imitates the Greek text in the representation of the article itself, chooses the same Syriac words as in other parts for the same Greek words. There are, it is true, some exceptions to the rule that the same words and phrases are similarly rendered in the Philoxenian and this of the Apocalypse, but they do not invalidate the general principle." 2

Adler however says, "A genio Philoxenianæ versionis tantidem differt, quantum a simplice. Accusativum quidem, ut Philoxenus, S per præfixum exprimit, sed tot Græcis verbis civitatem vel potius peregrinitatem non dedit, voces vel phrases origine Syriacas Syriace reddidit, nulle superflua explicatione addita: ut c. i. 8. conf. vers. Philox. Matt. xxvii. 46., Marci v. 41., xiv. 36. al. verba composita non expressit, ut σvykowwvos c. i. 9. alas, conf. Philox. σUUTUμevos, Marci iii. 5. Expoßoι ix. 6. et alia multa; nomina propria more Syrorum, non ad Græcorum pronunciationem scripsit; verbo, litteris non tam anxie inhæsit quam Philoxenus. Statuimus, hanc Apocalypsos versionem ab alio quidem, quam versio Syriaca vulgata Evangeliorum, factam esse, sed Philoxenum auctorem non agnoscere.'

We are, indeed, informed that the Florence MS. has a subscription affirming that it was copied from the autograph of Thomas of Harkel, with the date of A. D. 622. We do not, however, know what authority the copyist had for the assertion; and even if it were all in good faith, it must be supposed to have been copied from some older transcript, and thus to have been mistakenly transferred to the copy made by Caspar. But how little such a subscription taken alone will weigh may be seen from the fact that the real subscription of Thomas to the Gospels revised by him has been subjoined to the Peshito in some MSS. The date A. D. 622 is, however, worthy of notice, for this is identical with that given in Ridley's MS. to the translation of John viii. 1-11. (See below.)

The present writer accords in general with the judgment expressed by Adler as to this version: it seems as if the translator had known the recension of Thomas and had tried to imitate it, but that it differs in characteristic features. It is possibly not really an ancient work; though of course its age is wholly uncertain; and its internal

"Apocalypsim Joannis ...

Gaspar Indus Nestorianus ex versione Marabæ, ut videtur, descriptam nobis conservavit." Bibloth. Orient. vol. iii. pt. 2. p. ccxxxvii. Assemani seems to have known but little of Gaspar, or he could not have called him a Nestorian.

2 Biblical Criticism, ii. 194.

ร

3 N. T. Versiones Syriacæ, &c. 78, 79.

See Adler, p. 77. Ridley says of this Florentine MS. of the Apocalypse, "Codex anno 1582 Romæ descriptus ab autographo pervetusto ab ipso, ut perhibetur, Thoma Heracleensi exarato, anno 622." (Dissertatio, § xii.)

character and the nature of its text, as well as the want of all external credentials, place it indefinitely low as to critical value.

If this version really proceeded from Thomas, it must show that he had only his own ability to guide him in making the translation; and this may suffice to account for all the differences between this version and his revision of the Philoxenian text. The points in which this varies from the known work of Thomas may have been characteristic of the mode of translating adopted by Polycarp.

It appears from De Dieu that Archbishop Usher sent him a Syriac MS. containing all that is deficient in the Peshito: if that copy could be now found, its value would be considerable, for it would show what text of the Apocalypse was placed by Syrians with the other books.

From the edition of De Dieu, this Syriac version of the Apocalypse was, like the Epistles of Pococke, transferred to the Paris Polyglott, and thence to the subsequent Syriac editions.

III. THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE NARRATIVE CONTAINING JOHN VIII. 1-11.-In 1631 De Dieu published his Animadversiones in quatuor Evangelia, in which he inserted a Syriac version of the history of the woman taken in adultery, which is not found in the Peshito, and which does not belong properly to the Philoxenian version or Harclean recension. De Dieu thus introduces the narrative, saying of the Syriac version previously printed, "ubi non hæc tantum historia, sed et secunda Epistola Petri, secunda ac tertia Johannis, Epistola Judæ, et Apocalypsis desunt. Quæ omnia ex luculenta sua et orientalibus libris instructissima bibliotheca amplissimus præsul Jacobus Usserius Archiepiscopus Armachanus nuper admodum ad nos misit. Ibi hæc historia sic habet." Then the Syriac passage is given with a Syriac note at the beginning, "The lesson concerning the sinful woman which is not in the Peshito."

From De Dieu the passage was inserted in Walton's Polyglott, with a reference to Usher's MS.; and thence, sometimes with and sometimes without a mark of distinction, it has been transferred to other editions.1

In Ridley's Codex Barsalibæi, the section was found; and out of this MS. it is printed in White's edition, at the end of St. John's Gospel, as not being a part of the Philoxenian or Harclean text. In this MS. it is noted as not being part of the Philoxenian version, and attributed to Maras, who is said to have translated it A. D. 622.2 In a MS. of the Harclean text at Paris, this same passage was found by Adler, with the annotation subjoined. (i. e. ouvragis) does not occur in all copies: Abbas Mar Paul found

ܣܘܢܛܟܣܝܣ This ،،

Marsh speaks of this passage as though it had first appeared in Walton's Polyglott; and this seems to be rather a current opinion, overlooking the edition of De Dieu. See notes to Michaelis, ii. 544, 545.

2 "Lucam sequitur Johannes [sc. in codice Barsalibæi] in quo legitur historia adulteræ a Marâ conversa anno Domini DXX11°." Ridley, § XIII. Marsh incorrectly says. "the translation being ascribed in Ridley's Codex Barsalibæi to Mar Abba" (ii. 545.); and this statement has been repeated from him.