Page images
PDF
EPUB

into different provinces, so has the language into different dialects. Of these the following have been particularly dis tinguished.

1. The ANTIOCHANEAN, which was spoken by the inhabitants of Damascus, Mount Libanus, and Colo-Syria. This is the most ancient of all, and in it are the sacred writings of the Syrians composed, and the works of their learned

men.

ra wrote.

2. The ARAMEAN, from Aram, the son of Shem. It was used in Mesopotamia, by the inhabitants of Roha, or Edessa, and Harran, and outer Syria. This was brought to considerable perfection at Babylon. In this Daniel and EzAfter the destruction of Babylon it was corrupted; and in this state is distinguished by the name CHALDAIC. This was the dialect, used by Onkelos and Jonathan, and probably that, which was spoken by Christ and the apostles. After the destruction of Jerusalem fresh impurities were added, and another dialect gradually arose, called the Jerusalem. In this were written the Mishna and Talmud. From the emigration of some of the school of Tiberias to Babylon the Aramean underwent another change, and hence arose the Babylonian dialect.*

3. The NABATHEAN dialect was spoken by the people of Nabathea, of the mountainous parts of Assyria, and the villages of Irak. This is the least polished and pure of the

three.

The Alphabetic character is singular, and very ancient. It consists of seventeen single letters and five double ones.+

There are many Syriac books, with which the learned are well acquainted ; but this language is mostly valued for the excellent translations in it of the Old and New Testament.

* RIDLEY dissert. de Syr. Novi Fœderis versionem indole atque usu. Oxon. 1762. MULLER de Syriacis lib. sacr. versionibus. Berol. 1673, AIKIN annual review vol. ii. p. 96.

FRY Pantographia p, 279, 8vo. Lond. 1799. PoSTELL ling. xii. charact dif. Alph. 4to. Paris 1538.

lated.

Particularly the works of EPHREM of Edessa, which have all been trans-
The best edition is that of Oxford 1708, fol.

The most ancient version of the Pentateuch, and some other Jewish scriptures, in the Aramean dialect, and called Peshito, or "the literal," or rather, as Mr. Marsh has observed, "the "faithful or correct version," is asserted by many of the orientals to have been made in the times of Solomon. The other parts of the Old Testament, and the writings of the New are supposed to have been the work of Thaddeus, one of the apostles This, according to Asseman,* has a subscription, explicitly declaring, that it was finished A. D. 78.

There is some reason to doubt this high antiquity; yet respectable arguments can be produced to show, that the Peshito may claim as early a date, as the middle of the second century of the christian æra. However it is justly considered as very faithful and accurate; and, excepting the Septuagint and the Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the prophets, is the most ancient translation of the Jewish scriptures.

This version was not known in Europe till the sixteenth century, when Moses de Mardin was sent by Ignatius, Patriarch of the Maronite christians, to acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman pontiff. He was also charged with the commission of getting the Syriac version printed; and for this purpose he brought with him manuscripts, not duplicates, but, as Mr. Marsh supposes, one containing the gospel, the other the acts and the epistles. The former of these is still preserved in the imperial library at Vienna. Jean Alberti, better known by the name of Widmanstadt, the most accom

* Biblioth. Orientale tom. ii. p. 279. Abulpharagius hist. dynast. p. 100. The writer is not ignorant, that Fuller, Grotius, and Vossius maintained, that it was not made till the sixth or seventh century. While Renaudot and Le Long supposed it no other, than a corrected copy of the version of Philoxenus, which will be noticed above. Even Westein maintained this suggestion in the Prolegomena to his first edition of the N. T. and, though convinced of his error by Dr. Kippax, he retracted the opinion; yet in the next edition he very unaccountably retained an argument against the antiquity of the Peshito, which, if sound, would bring down its origin to the eighth century.

"Obsummam antiquitatem et autoritatem publicam, maximè laudata.” Glassii, philol. sacr. tom. ii. p. 308. ed. 1795.

plished orientalist in Europe, prevailed, not without difficulty, on the Emperor, Ferdinand I, to be at the expense of the impression; and by the joint care of Moses, Widmanstadt, and Postell, the Syriac version was handsomely printed at Vienna, A. D. 1555 in 4to, and so, as to be a perfect pattern of the Peshito. A thousand copies were struck off, five hun dred of which the Emperor took for himself, three hundred were sent into the East, and two hundred with twenty dollars were presented to Moses. This copy is the basis of most of the succeeding copies, that have been published. Some unjustifiable liberties have indeed been taken by different editors, and several additions made to the genuine Peshito. Tremellius, who published his valuable edition in 1569, not finding in the Vienna edition the seventh verse of 1 John V, translated it; whence it has been taken by some subsequent editors, and inserted into the text.* on the authority of a manuscript from the Heidelberg library, altered in many places the text of Widmanstadt. In the edition, published in the fifth volume of the Antwerp Polyglott, several passages were altered from a manuscript, brought by Postell from the East, and now preserved in the Leyden library. In the year 1627 Ludovicus de Dieu published the Apocalypse from a manuscript, formerly belonging to Scaliger, and now in the library of the University at Leyden. In 1630 Pocoke published at Leyden the four epistles, not found in the old Syriac, from a manuscrip, which he obtained from the Bodleian library.†

He also,

In the Paris Polyglott by de Jay, published between the years 1628 and 1645, all these parts were added to the text of the Vienna edition. Gabriel Sionita, a Maronite, was employed to make the revision, and he added the vowel points, and supplied the "lacunæ." It It may well be suppos ed, that such emendations and alterations with no better au

* This verse is also wanting in the manuscript, published by Ridley; and he contents himself with saying " abesse potius quam deesse censeo."

tr

† Some of the above observations the writer of this article has extracted from Aikin's review of White's edition of the Philoxenian MS. 1805.

thority than conjecture, would be considered, as impairing the authority of the original. Accordingly Walton in the London Polyglott wisely rejected them, and aimed to publish the simple Syriac according to the most ancient copies, he could pro cure. He was furnished with a valuable and most accurate manuscript version of the Pentateuch from the collection of Archbishop Usher; he procured, at great expense, a transcript of the whole Old Testament, the Psalms excepted, from the Patriarch of Alexandria; and he consulted an old though defective manuscript in the library at Cambridge. These, compared with the Vienna edition, enabled him to give a very correct copy.

In the year 508 a new translation of the Greek Testament into the Syriac was undertaken at the suggestion of Philoxenus, or, as he was also called, Xenayas, bishop of Hierapolis, or Maberg, by Polycarp. This version Thomas de Haskel undertook to revise and correct. For this purpose he went and resided in Alexandria, where the best copies of the Greek Testament were to be found; and there, 66 cum dili gentia multa, molestia, et solicitudine," he collated it with two Greek copies of acknowledged accuracy.*

In the twelfth century Dionysius Barsalibæus, bishop of Amida, revised the four gospels of the Philoxenian version, and took the liberty of making some additions.

In 1729 Mr. Samuel Palmer, being at Amida, Diarbekr, in Mesopotamia, purchased at a considerable expense four Syriac manuscripts, two of which proved to be copies of the Syriac New Testament; one the version of Barsalibæus in the twelfth century; and the other, the most important, the Philoxenian version by Thomas de Haskel. These he sent to his friend, the Rev. Glocester Ridley, minister of Poplar. This worthy clergyman, though then advanced in years, and unacquainted with the Syriac, immediately applied to learning

Valde probatis et accuratis." See farther, Michaelis' Introd. and Marsh's Notes vol. ii. p. 329–336, and part 2d of vol. ii. p. 790–797. +One of the Syriac manuscripts was a tract on " the one nature of Jesus Christ," written by James in the reign of Constantine; probably the famous Syrian of that name.

r

Vol. II. No. 4:

Tt

that language, and, after being unsuccessful in his application to Michaelis to come over to England and undertake the print ing, engaged himself to transcribe the copy, and published the four gospels in a quarto volume with a learned dissertation prefixed in 1762. His age and infirmities prevented his doing more; and he deposited the manuscripts in the archives of the University at Oxford. When that learned body resolved on completing the publication, the celebrated Bishop Lowthe recommended Dr. White, the Arabic professor, as a proper person to undertake the arduous office of conducting it through the press. Happily for the cause of sacred learning he did not decline the honorable labor, to which he was invited. The first volume appeared in 1778; the second in 1799; and the third and fourth in 1805.*

*

The indispensable necessity of a correct knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures, on which alone the rational Christian must build his faith and regulate his conduct, is too obvious to stand in need of any comment. But that these divine registers have been deteriorated by the ignorance and negligence of early transcribers is in innumerable instances discovered by those, who take any pains to examine. And, though the va rious false readings, which occur in different copies, may not invalidate their authority, yet they cannot fail of perplexing the candid inquirer, who has inclination and capacity to judge for himself in those matters, which most essentially concern his present and future happiness. To remedy these difficul ties therefore, and to attain a clear and certain knowledge of the original communication, it is requisite to have recourse to the most ancient manuscripts and the earliest versions. In the latter particularly, as the learned Michaelis justly observes, "we find the verbal and literal interpretation of per"sons, who were better acquainted with the language of the "New Testament, and the customs sometimes alluded to; "than we are; and they are preferable to the Fathers in "this, that they give us the bare, literal sense, whereas the "Fathers subjoin various remarks and mystical interpretations." Aikin's Annual Review, vol iii. p. 99. + Introd. Lect. to the N. T.

3

« PreviousContinue »