The object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the then existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted the alterations made by him; and for the inforof the following marks: mation of those who might consult his works, he made use

(1.) Where any passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew, he designated them by an obelus with two bold points: also annexed. This mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or for the purpose of illustrating the sense.

(2.) To passages wanting in the copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek versions, he

prefixed an asterisk with two bold points also annexed, and now it may almost be considered as a hopeless task to in order that his additions might be immediately perceived. distinguish between them. Contemporary with the edition These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerome, of Eusebius and Pamphilus was the recension of the Kan, were for the most part taken from Theodotion's translation; or vulgate text of the Septuagint, conducted by Lucian, a not unfrequently from that of Aquila; sometimes, though presbyter of the church at Antioch, who suffered martyrdom rarely, from the version of Symmachus; and sometimes A. D. 311. He took the Hebrew text for the basis of his edition, from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial which was received in all the eastern churches from Constanti letter of each translator's name was placed immediately after nople to Antioch. While Lucian was prosecuting his biblical the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplement- labours, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a similar ary passage was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous work, which was generally received in the churches of Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotion's translation of Egypt. He is supposed to have introduced fewer alterathat book was inserted entire. tions than Lucian; and his edition is cited by Jerome as the Exemplar Alexandrinum. Syncellus 3 mentions another revisal of the Septuagint text by Basil bishop of Cæsarea: but this, we have every reason to believe, has long since perished. All the manuscripts of the Septuagint now extant, as well as the printed editions, are derived from the three recensions above mentioned, although biblical critics are by no means agreed what particular recension each manuscript has followed.

(3.) Further, not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also where that version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original, having noted the former reading with an obelus,÷, he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to determine what they were.1 Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to have been marks of better and more accurate renderings.

In the Pentateuch, Origen compared the Samaritan text with the Hebrew as received by the Jews, and noted their differences. To each of the translations inserted in his Hexapla was prefixed an account of the author; each had its separate prolegomena; and the ample margins were filled with notes. A few fragments of these prolegomena and marginal annotations have been preserved; but nothing remains of his history of the Greek versions.2

6. The importance of the Septuagint version for the right understanding of the sacred text has been variously estimated by different learned men; while some have elevated to an equality with the original Hebrew, others have rated it far below its real value. The great authority which it formerly enjoyed, certainly gives it a claim to a high degree of consideration. It was executed long before the Jews were prejudiced against Jesus Christ as the Messiah; and it was the means of preparing the world at large for his appearance, by making known the types and prophecies concerning him. With all its faults and imperfections, therefore, this version is of more use in correcting the Hebrew text than any other Since Origen's time, biblical critics have distinguished that is extant; because its authors had better opportunities two editions or exemplars of the Septuagint-the Kown or of knowing the propriety and extent of the Hebrew lancommon text, with all its errors and imperfections, as it guage than we can possibly have at this distance of time. existed previously to his collation; and the Hexaplar text, The Septuagint, likewise, being written in the same dialect or that corrected by Origen himself. For nearly fifty years as the New Testament (the formation of whose style was was this great man's stupendous work buried in a corner of influenced by it), it becomes a very important source of inthe city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great ex- terpretation: for not only does it frequently serve to deterpense of transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far ex-mine the genuine reading, but also to ascertain the meaning ceeded the means of private individuals; and here, perhaps, of particular idiomatic expressions and passages in the New it might have perished in oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphi- Testament, the true import of which could not be known but lus had not discovered it, and deposited it in the library of from their use in the Septuagint. Grotius, Keuchenius, Pamphilus the martyr at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw it Biel, and Schleusner, are the critics who have most successabout the middle of the fourth century. As we have no ac- fully applied this version to the interpretation of the New count whatever of Origen's autograph after this time, it is Testament. most probable that it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs; and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the Septuagint and the Catena of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain of a work, which in the present improved state of sacred literature would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism of the Old Testament.

5. As the Septuagint version had been read in the church from the commencement of Christianity, so it continued to be used in most of the Greek churches; and the text, as corrected by Origen, was transcribed for their use, together with his critical marks. Hence, in the progress of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of copyists, numerous errors were introduced into this version, which rendered a new revisal necessary; and, as all the Greek churches did not receive Origen's biblical labours with equal deference, three principal recensions were undertaken nearly at the same time, of which we are now to offer a brief notice.

The first was the edition, undertaken by Eusebius and Pamphilus about the year 300, from the Hexaplar text, with the whole of Origen's critical marks; it was not only adopted by the churches of Palestine, but was also deposited in almost every library. By frequent transcriptions, however, Origen's marks or notes became, in the course of a few years, so much changed, as to be of little use, and were finally omitted: this omission only augmented the evil, since even in the time of Jerome it was no longer possible to know what belonged to the translators, or what were Origen's own corrections;

1 Montfaucon, Prælim. ad Hexapla, tom. i. pp. 36-42. Holmes, Vetus Testamentum Græcum, tom. i. Præfat. cap. i. sect. i-vii. The first book of Dr. Holmes's erudite preface is translated into English in the Christian Observer for 1821, vol. xx. pp. 544-548. 610-615. 676-683. 746-750. 2 The best edition of the remains of Origen's Hexapla is that of Montfaucon, in two volumes, folio, Paris, 1713. On the character and value of this great work, some excellent observations may be found in a disser tation, by Ernesti, entitled "Origen the Father of Grammatical Interpretation," translated in Hodge's Biblical Repertory, vol. iii. pp. 215-260. New York, 1827.

II. The importance of the Septuagint, in the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures, especially of the New Tes tament, will justify the length of the preceding account of that celebrated version: it now remains that we briefly notice the other ancient Greek translations, which have already been incidentally mentioned; viz. those of Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the three anonymous versions, usually cited as the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, from which Origen compiled his Tetrapla and Hexapla.

1. The Version of AQUILA.-The author of this translation was a native of Sinope in Pontus, who flourished in the second century of the Christian æra he was of Jewish descent; and having renounced Christianity, he undertook his version, with the intention of exhibiting to the Hellenistic Jews an accurate representation of the Hebrew text, for their assistance in their disputes with the Christians. Yet he did not on this account pervert passages which relate to Christ by unfaithful translations, as some of the ancient 3 Chronographia ab adamo usque ad Dioclesianum, p. 203.

4 Dr. Holmes has given a copious and interesting account of the editions of Lucian and Hesychius, and of the sources of the Septuagint text in the manuscripts of the Pentateuch, which are now extant. Tom. i. Præf. cap.

i. sect. viii. et seq.

In the Eclectic Review for 1806 (vol. ii. part. i. pp. 337-347.) the reader will find many examples adduced, confirming the remarks above offered, concerning the value and importance of the Septuagint version. be read and understood by every man who studies the New Testament, is, "The Book," says the profound critic Michaelis, "most necessary to without doubt, the Septuagint; which alone has been of more service be read in the public schools by those who are destined for the church; than all the passages from the profane authors collected together. It should should form the subject of a course of lectures at the university, and be the constant companion of an expositor of the New Testament." Introduction to the New Test. vol. i. p. 177.-" About the year 1785," says Dr. A. Clarke (speaking of his biblical labours), "I began to read the Septua gint regularly, in order to acquaint myself more fully with the phraseology of the New Testament. The study of this version served more to expand and illuminate my mind than all the theological works I had ever con sulted. I had proceeded but a short way in it, before I was convinced that the prejudices against it were utterly unfounded; and that it was of incalculable advantage towards a proper understanding of the literal sense of Scripture." Dr. Clarke's Coinmentary, vol. i. General Preface, p. xv.

1. With respect to Aquila, (1.) That his translation is close and servile—abounding in Hebraisms-and scrupulously conformable to the letter of the text. (2.) That the author, notwithstanding he meant to disgrace and overturn the Septuagint version, yet did not scruple to make use of it, and frequently to borrow his expressions from it.

Christian writers thought: for the examples of designed | pretration than the latter, and has endeavoured, not unsucwant of fidelity, which they produce, are nothing more than cessfully, to render the Hebrew idioms with Greek precision. etymological renderings, or expressions of the same things Bauer3 and Morus have given specimens of the utility of in other words, or various readings, or else his own mistakes. this version for illustrating both the Old and New TestaProfessor Jahn fixes the date of this version to the interval ments. Dr. Owen has printed the whole of the first chapter between the years 90 and 130: it is certain that Aquila lived of the Book of Genesis according to the Septuagint version, during the reign of the emperor Adrian, and that his trans- together with the Greek translations of Aquila, Theodotion, lation was executed before the year 160; as it is cited both and Symmachus, in columns, in order to show their respective by Justin Martyr, who wrote about that time, and by Ire- agreement or discrepancy. This we are obliged to omit, on næus between the years 170 and 176. In conformity with account of its length; but the following observations of that the spirit of the Jews, Aquila renders every Hebrew word eminent critic on their relative merits (founded on an accurate by the nearest corresponding Greek word, without any re- comparison of them with each other, and with the original gard to the genius of the Greek language: it is therefore Hebrew, whence they were made) are too valuable to be extremely literal, but it is on that very account of considera- disregarded. He remarks, ble importance in the criticism of the Old Testament, as it serves to show the readings contained in the Hebrew manuscripts of his time. His version has been most highly approved by the Jews, by whom it has been called the Hebrew Verity, as if, in reading it, they were reading the Hebrew text itself. Nearly the same judgment was formed of it by the early Christian writers, or fathers; who must be understood as referring to this version, when they speak of the Hebrew. Professor Dathe has collated several passages from this translation, and has applied them to the illustration of the prophet Hosea. As the result of his comparison of the fragments of Aquila with the Hebrew text, he states that Aquila had nearly the same readings of the Hebrew text which we have. Which almost constant agreement cannot be observed without much satisfaction; because it supplies an argument of no mean importance for refuting the charges of those who assert that the modern Hebrew text is very greatly corrupted. The fragments of Aquilaand of the other Greek versions were collected and published, first by Flaminio Nobili, in his notes to the Roman edition of the Septuagint, and after him by Drusius, in his Veterum Interpretum Græcorum Fragmenta (Arnheim, 1622, 4to.); and also by Montfaucon in his edition of Origen's Hexapla above noticed. According to Jerome, Aquila published two editions of his version, the second of which was the most literal; it was allowed to be read publicly in the Jews' synagogues, by the hundred and twenty-fifth Novel of the emperor Justinian.

2. With respect to Theodotion, (1.) That he makes great use of the two former versions-following sometimes the diction of the one, and sometimes that of the other-nay, often commixing them both together in the compass of one and the same verse; and, (2.) That he did not keep so strictly and closely to the Septuagint version as some have unwarily represented. He borrowed largely from that of Aquila; but adapted it to his own style. And as his style was similar to that of the LXX. Origen, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied the additions inserted in the Hexapla chiefly from this version.

3. With respect to Symmachus, (1.) That his version, though concise, is free and paraphrastic-regarding the sense rather than the words, of the original; 2. That he often borrowed from the three other versions-but much oftener from those of his immediate predecessors, than from the Septuagint; and, (3.) It is observed by Montfaucon, that he kept close to the Hebrew original; and never introduced any thing from the Septuagint, that was not to be found in his Hebrew copy: but it evidently appears from verse 20.where we read, nero cures that either the observation is false, or that the copy he used was different from the present 2. THEODOTION was a native of Ephesus, and is termed by Hebrew copies. The 30th verse has also a reading-it may Jerome and Eusebius an Ebionite or semi-Christian. He perhaps be an interpolation-to which there is nothing answerwas nearly contemporary with Aquila, and his translation is able in the Hebrew, or in any other of the Greek versions.7 cited by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Tryphon the 4, 5, 6. The three anonymous translations, usually called Jew, which was composed about the year 160. The version the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, derive their names from of Theodotion holds a middle rank between the servile close the order in which Origen disposed them in his columns. ness of Aquila and the freedom of Symmachus: it is a kind The author of the sixth version was evidently a Christian: of revision of the Septuagint made after the original He- for he renders Habakkuk iii. 13. (Thou wentest forth for the brew, and supplies some deficiencies in the Septuagint; but deliverance of thy people, even for the deliverance of thine where he translates without help, he evidently shows himself anointed ones,s in the following manner: Eğnades Tou owa to have been but indifferently skilled in Hebrew. Theodo-To hæcv σcu dia Inocu Teu XpioTcu σcu; i. e. Thou wentest forth to tion's translation of the book of Daniel was introduced into save thy people through Jesus thy Christ. The dates of these the Christian churches, in or soon after the second century, three versions are evidently subsequent to those of Aquila, as being deemed more accurate than that of the Septuagint. Theodotion, and Symmachus: from the fragments collected It is not unworthy of remark, that he has retained several by Montfaucon, it appears that they all contained the Psalms Hebrew words, which seem to have been used among the and minor prophets; the fifth and sixth further comprised the Ebionites, such as λ, Lev. vii. 18.; μaspaa, Lev. xiii. 6.; Pentateuch and Song of Solomon; and from some fragments xa, Deut. xxii. 9.; and diu, Isa. Ixiv. 5. of the fifth and seventh versions found by Bruns in a Syriac Hexaplar manuscript at Paris, it appears that they also contained the two books of Kings. Bauer is of opinion that the author of the seventh version was a Jew.

3. SYMMACHUS, we are informed by Eusebius and Jerome, was a semi-Christian, or Ebionite, for the account given of him by Epiphanius (that he was first a Samaritan, then a Jew, next a Christian, and last of all an Ebionite) is generally disregarded as unworthy of credit. Concerning the precise time when he flourished, learned men are of different opinions. Epiphanius places him under the reign of Commodus II. an imaginary emperor; Jerome, however, expressly states, that his translation appeared after that of Theodotion; and as Symmachus was evidently unknown to Irenæus, who cites the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, it is probable that the date assigned by Jerome is the true one. Montfaucon accordingly places Symmachus a short time after Theodotion, that is, about the year 200. The version of Symmachus, who appears to have published a second edition of it revised, is by no means so literal as that of Aquila; he was certainly much better acquainted with the laws of inter

Dissertatio Philologico-Critica in Aquila Reliquias Interpretationis Hosea (Lipsia, 1757, 4to.); which is reprinted in p. 1. et seq. of Rosenmüler's Collection of his "Opuscula ad Crisin et Interpretationem Veteris Testamenti," Lipsia, 1796, 8vo.

This work of Drusius's is also to be found in the sixth volume of Bishop Walton's Polyglott.

III. Besides the fragments of the preceding ancient versions, taken from Origen's Hexapla, there are found in the margins of the manuscripts of the Septuagint some additional marks or notes, containing various renderings in Greek of some passages in the Old Testament: these are cited as the Hebrew, Syrian, Samaritan, and Hellenistic versions, and as the version of some anonymous author. The probable meaning of these references it may not be improper briefly to notice.

ad

1. The Hebrew ( Elpes) is supposed by some to denote Critica Sacra, pp. 277, 278.

Acroases Herineneuticæ, tom. ii. pp. 127, 129.

Theodotion, qui in cæteris cum lxx translatoribus facit. Hieron. Ep.
Marcell. Licet autem Theodotio lxx. Interpretum vestigio fere semper

hæreat, &c. Montf. Præl. in Hexapl. p. 57.

Ea tamen cautela ut Hebraicum exemplar unicum sequendum sibi proponeret ; nec quidpiam ex editione tv O. ubi cuin Hebraico non quadrabat, in interpretationein suam refunderet. Præliin, in Hexapl. p. 54. Owen on the Septuagint, pp. 124-126.

Archbishop Newcome's version. The authorized English translation runs thus:-"Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for the salvation of thine anointed."

the translation of Aquila, who closely and literally followed | § 3. ON THE ANCIENT ORIENTAL VERSIONS OF THE OLD AND the Hebrew text; but this idea was refuted by Montfaucon and Bauer, who remark, that after the reference to the Hebrew, a reading follows, most widely differing from Aquila's rendering. Bauer more probably conjectures, that the reference Epos denotes the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint version differs.

2. Under the name of the Syrian (ö Zupos) are intended the fragments of the Greek version made by Sophronius, patriarch of Constantinople, from the very popular Latin transla- I. SYRIAC VERSIONS.-Syria being visited at a very early tion of Jerome, who is supposed to have acquired the appel-period by the preachers of the Christian faith, several translation of the Syrian, from his long residence on the confines lations of the sacred volume were made into the language of of Syria. He is thus expressly styled by Theodore of Mop- that country. suestia in a passage cited by Photius in his Bibliotheca.1 3. The Samaritan (To Lauapetine) is supposed to refer to the fragments of a Greek version of the Hebræo-Samaritan text, which is attributed to the ancient Greek scholiast so often cited by Flaminio Nobili, and in the Greek Scholia appended to the Roman edition of the Septuagint. Considerable doubts, however, exist concerning the identity of this supposed Greek version of the Samaritan text; which, if it ever existed, Bishop Walton thinks, must be long posterior in date to the Septuagint.2

1 Page 205. edit. Hoeschelii. a British Critic, O. S. vol. viii. p. 259. The preceding account of ancient Greek versions is drawn from Carp. zov, Critica Sacra, pp. 552-574.; Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 273-88.; Er nesti, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, pp. 250-269.; Morus, Acroases Hermeneuticæ, tom. ii. pp. 120-147.; Bishop Walton, Prolegom. c. xi. $19. pp. 385-387.; Jahn, Introductio in Libros Sacros Veteris Fœderis, pp. 66-70.; and Masch's edition of Lelong's Bibliotheca Sacra, part ii. vol. ii. sect. i. pp. 220-229. Montfaucon, Pral. Diss. ad Origenis Hexapla, tom. i. pp. 46-73. In the fourth volume of the Commentationes Theologica, (pp. 195-263.), edited by MM. Velthusen, Kuinöel, and Ruperti, there is a specimen of a Clavis Reliquiarum Versionum Græcarum, V. T. by John Frederic Fischer: it contains only the letter A. A specimen of a new Lexicon to the ancient Greek interpreters, and also to the apocryphal books of the Old Testainent, so constructed as to serve as a Lexicon to the New Testament, was also lately published by M. E. G. A. Bockel, at Leipsic, entitled Nova Clavis in Græcos Interpretes Veteris Testamenti, Scriptor-sterdam edition.) As far as his observation extends, the Syriac accords esque Apocryphos, ita adornate ut etiam Lexici in Novi Fœderis Libros usum præbere possit, atque editionis lxx interpretum hexaplaris, specimina, 4to. 1820.* (This work has not been coinpleted.) Cappel, in his Critica Sacra, has given a copious account, with very numerous examples, of the various lections that may be obtained by collating the Septuagint with the Hebrew (lib. iv. pp. 491-766.), and by collating the Hebrew text with the Chaldee paraphrases and the ancient Greek versions (lib. v. cc. 1 -6. pp. 767-844.), tom. ii. ed. Scharfenberg.

ancient, and in many respects as valuable, as the Chaldee | Pentateuch, was written about the seventh century. In Paraphrase; and in the notes to his edition of the Hebrew looking over this manuscript, Dr. Buchanan found the very Bible he has shown that this version has retained numerous first emendation of the Hebrew text proposed by Dr. Kenní and important various readings. To its general fidelity cott, which doubtless is the true reading. almost every critic of note bears unqualified approbation, The first edition of the Syriac version of the Old Testa although it is not every where equal; and it is remarkably ment appeared in the Paris Polyglott; but, being taken elear and strong in those passages which attribute characters from an imperfect MS., its deficiencies were supplied by of Deity to the Messiah. Michaelis and Jahn have observed, Gabriel Sionita, who translated the passages wanting from that a different method of interpretation is adopted in the the Latin Vulgate, and has been unjustly charged with Pentateuch from that which is to be found in the book of having translated the whole from the Vulgate. This text Chronicles; and Jahn has remarked that there are some was reprinted in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, with the addiChaldee words in the first chapter of Genesis, and also in the tion of some apocryphal books. There have been numerous book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon: whence editions of particular parts of the Syriac Old Testament, they infer that this version was the work not of one, but of which are minutely described by Masch. The principal several authors. Further, Michaelis has discovered traces editions of the Syriac Scriptures are noticed in the Biblioof the religion of the translator, which indicate a Christian graphical Appendix, Vol. II. and no Jew. A Jew by religion would not have employed the Syriac but the Hebrew letters, and he would have used the Chaldee Targums more copiously than is observed in most books of the Syriac Old Testament. This a Jew by birth would have done, if even he had been converted to Christianity and as most of the books of the Syriac Bible thus evince that the interpreter had no acquaintance with the Targums, Michaelis (whose opinion is adopted by Gesenius) | is of opinion that the translator was a Christian; and their judgment is corroborated by the fact that the arguments prefixed to the Psalms were manifestly written by a Christian

author.2

The Syriac version of the NEW TESTAMENT comprises only the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Saint Paul (including the Epistle to the Hebrews), the first Epistle to Saint John, Saint Peter's first Epistle, and the Epistle of Saint James. The celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7., and the history of the woman taken in adultery (John viii. 2-11.), are both wanting. All the Christian sects in Syria and the East make use of this version exclusively, which they hold in the highest estimation. It agrees with the Constantinopolitan recension. Michaelis pronounces it to be the very best translation of the Greek Testament which he ever read, for the general ease, elegance, and fidelity with which it has been executed. It retains, however, many Greek words, which might have been easily and correctly expressed in Syriac: in Matt. xxvii. alone there are not fewer than eleven words. In like manner some Latin words have been retained which the authors of the New Testament had borrowed from the Roman manners and customs. This version also presents some mistakes, which can only be explained by the words of the Greek text, from which it was immediately made. For instance, in rendering into Syriac these words of Acts xviii. 7., ONOMATI JOTZTOT ZEBOMENOT, the interpreter has translated Titus instead of Justus, because he had divided the Greek in the following manner: ONOMA TΠΟΥΣ ΤΟΥ ΣΕΒΟΜΕΝΟΥ,

The Peschito Syriac version of the New Testament was first made known in Europe by Moses of Mardin, who had been sent by Ignatius, patriarch of the Maronite Christians, in 1552, to Pope Julius III., to acknowledge the papal supremacy in the name of the Syrian church, and was at the same time commissioned to procure the Syriac New Testament. This was accomplished at Vienna in 1555, under the editorial care of Moses and Albert Widmanstad, with the assistance of William Postell, and at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I. This Editio Princeps is in quarto. The Syriac New Testament has since been printed several times.

There is also extant a Syriac version of the second Epistle of Saint Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, which are wanting in the Peschito: these are by some writers ascribed to Mar Abba, primate of the East, between the years 535 and 552. The translation of these books is made from the original Greek; but the author, whoever he was, possessed but an indifferent knowledge of the two languages.

2. The PHILOXENIAN or SYRO-PHILOXENIAN version derives its name from Philoxenus, or Xenayas, Bishop of Hierapolis or Mabug in Syria, A. D. 488-518, who employed his rural bishop (Chorepiscopus) Polycarp, to translate the Greek New Testament into Syriac. This version was finished in the year 508, and was afterwards revised by Thomas of Harkel or Heraclea, A. D. 616. Michaelis is of opinion, that there was a third edition; and a fourth is attributed to Dionysius Barsalibæus, who was bishop of Amida from 1166 to 1177. It appears, however, that there were only two editions-the original one by Polycarp, and that revised by Thomas of Harkel; the single copy of the Four Gospels, with the alterations of Barsalibæus, in the twelfth century, being hardly entitled to the name of a new edition. This version agrees with the Constantinopolitan recension: it was not known in Europe until the middle of the eighteenth century; when the Rev. Dr. Gloucester Ridley published a An important accession to biblical literature was made, a Dissertation on the Syriac Versions of the New Testament few years since, by the late Rev. Dr. Buchanan, to whose (in 1761), three manuscripts of which he had received thirty assiduous labours the British church in India is most deeply years before from Amida in Mesopotamia. Though age and indebted and who, in his progress among the Syrian growing infirmities, the great expense of printing, and the churches and Jews of India, discovered and obtained nume- want of a patron, prevented Dr. Ridley from availing himrous ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures, which are now self of these manuscripts; yet having, under circumstances deposited in the public library at Cambridge. One of these, of peculiar difficulty, succeeded in acquiring a knowledge which was discovered in a remote Syrian church near the of the Syriac language, he employed himself at intervals in mountains, is particularly valuable: it contains the Old and making a transcript of the Four Gospels. These, being New Testaments, engrossed with beautiful accuracy in the put into the hands of the late Professor White, were pubEstrangelo (or old Syriac) character, on strong_vellum, in||lished by him with a literal Latin translation, in 1778, in large folio, and having three columns in a page. The words two volumes 4to., at the expense of the delegates of the of every book are numbered: and the volume is illuminated, Clarendon press at Oxford. In 1779, Professor White pubbut not after the European manner, the initial letters having lished from the same press the Acts of the Apostles and the no ornament. Though somewhat injured by time or neglect, Catholic Epistles, and in 1804, the Epistles of Saint Paul, the ink being in certain places obliterated, still the letters also in 4to., and accompanied with a Latin translation. can in general be distinctly traced from the impress of the pen, or from the partial corrosion of the ink. The Syrian church assigns a high date to this manuscript, which, in the opinion of Mr. Yeates, who has published a collation of the

:

1 Biblia Hebraica, vol. i. Pref. pp. xv. xvi.

Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 623-626.; Leusden, Philologus HebræoMixtus, pp. 67-71.; Bishop Lowth's Isaiah, vol. i. p. xci.; Dr. Kennicott, Diss. ii. p. 355.; Baner, Critica Sacra, pp. 308-320.; Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Foed. pp. 75, 76.; De Rossi, Variæ Lectiones ad Vet. Test. tom. i. prol. p. xxxii.; Dathe, Opuscula ad Crisin et Interpretationem, Vet. Test. p. 171.; Kortholt, de Versionibus Scripturæ, pp. 40-45.; Walton, Proleg. c. 13. pp. 593. et seq. Dr. Smith's Scripture Testimony of the Messiah, vol. i. pp. 396, 397. first edition. Gesenius, in the Introduction to his Commentary on Isaiah (in German), Theil. ii. § 12. 3. or pp. 429, 430. of the Essays and Dissertations on Biblical Literature, published at New York. a Hug's Introd. vol. i. pp. 342, 343.

The Philoxenian version, though made immediately from the Greek, is greatly inferior to the Peschito, both in the accuracy with which it is executed, and also in its style. It is, however, not devoid of value, "and is of real importance to a critic, whose object is to select a variety of readings,

In the Christian Observer, vol. xii. pp. 171-174. there is an account of Mr. Yeates's Collation; and in vol. ix. of the same Journal, pp. 273–275. 348-350. there is given a very interesting description of the Syriac manuscript above noticed. A short account of it also occurs in Dr. Buchanan's "Christian Researches," respecting the Syrians, pp. 229-231. (edit. 1811.)

Gen. iv. 8. And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go down into the plain. It may be satisfactory to the reader to know, that this disputed addition is to be found in the Samaritan, Syriac, Septuagint, and Vulgate Versions, printed in Bishop Walton's Polyglott.

Bibl. Sacr part ii. vol. i. sect iv. pp. 64-71.