which Wetstein and others have produced as proofs against the antiquity of that verfion, turn out in its favour. It is likewife probable that the apoftles, who were Jews, fhould quote paffages out of the Old Teftament, rather from the Hebrew original than the Greek tranflation, and we find that the old Syriac verfion quotes from the Hebrew.

It is, moreover, very fingular, that the tranflated quotations from the New Teftament, by the ancient Latin Fathers, are full of Syriafms, which we can hardly account for, unless we allow that they quoted either from the Syriac, or from fuch Greek copies as that of Cambridge; which would fcarcely have been the cafe, if they had poffeffed fuch Greek copies as thofe which we, in our days, look upon as reprefenting the true original.

We muft further obferve, that the different fects of Chriftians in Syria, Neftorians, Jacobites, and Maronites, would hardly, to this day, unanimoufly adopt this old Syriac verfion, and pay fo much refpect to it as they do, had it not exifted, and been long established, before ever those fects arofe. Chrif tianity fpread very early in Syria; the difciples of Chrift were first called Chriftians at Antioch; and there is reason to think that the first Chriftian temple was erected at Edeffa in Syria. At this very place an old Syriac copy of the four gospels was found, and at the end of it a note was added, mentioning that this copy was finifhed + by the apoftle Achaeus. Though we grant that there is no relying on the authority of this note, yet we think it proves at leaft that an opinion, referring the Syriac publication of the four gofpels to the end of the first century, prevailed at the time when this note was written. But how this could be done fo early, and particularly how it could differ fo much from our modern Greek copies, is altogether unaccountable, if we do not admit that the evangelifts wrote in their own language, which is that of the Syriac in the Peshito.

We confefs that what we have thrown out here, is not faid merely by way of introduction to an account of the book before us, nor for the fake of novelty, but with a fincere with, that fome able critic, fuperior to the prejudices of education, and well grounded in thefe fubjects, would purfue the hints here

+ Mr. White in his Preface, p. v. gives, from Dr. Ridley's dif fertation, the Latin tranflation of this Syriac note, and the words we here refer to are, Abfolutus eft fan&tus ifte liber-propria manų Achaei apofioli, &c. How fome, from this, could draw the inference, that Achæus tranflated the four gofpels into Syriac, for the benefit of King Abgarus or the Chriftians at Edeffa, we cannot well conceive. The words, he finished this copy with his own hand, might as well, perhaps more properly, convey the idea, that he himself tranfcribed it from another Syriac copy.

thrown

thrown out, and difcufs the points to which they relate, with a more adequate extent of investigation.

We shall now enter into the merits of that verfion which we have before us, and which is called The Philoxenian. It was made in the beginning of the fixth century, after the best Greek copies then extant; which were at the fame time compared in regard to their various readings. Thefe Greek copies have been loft in the revolutions of time, but the critics in facred literature look upon this tranflation as a true expreffion of their contents: for which reafon it is undoubtedly very valuable. The university of Oxford must, therefore, be confidered as entitled to the thanks of all friends to the critical ftudy of the New Teftament, for gratifying their wifhes by printing this version in fo correct and fplendid a manner. We are happy to say farther, that the publication is fallen into able hands, and that the Editor, Mr. White (Laudean Profeffor) has acquitted himfelf in fuch a manner as cannot fail of doing credit to his abilities and learning.

In the Latin Preface the Profeffor gives, firft, an account of the fate of the Syriac copy from which thefe gofpels are printed, fince it came into England. He fays, the late Dr. Ridley, to whom it was fent, as a prefent, by his friend Mr. Palmer, who bought it at Amida, or Diarbekr, in Mefopotamia, wished to fatisfy the defire of the learned in having it printed *. He, therefore, though already advanced in years, applied, very clofely, to learn the Syriac language, and furmounted innumerable difficulties, having no inftructor, nor even the proper books. He tranfcribed the four Syriac gofpels from the Heraclean copy, and marked, at the bottom of his tranfcript, the various readings from his other manufcript-copy, which he called the Barfalibean; but, thinking that the Greek text was the best interpreter of the Syriac, he added not a Latin translation. When Dr. Ridley found that, on account of his age, he was incapable of finishing the work, he made a prefent of his transcript to the univerfity of Oxford, who intended publishing it at their expence. Dr. Lowth, the prefent worthy Bishop of London, propofed Mr. White as a proper Editor. The Profeffor, accordingly, undertook the work, in hopes of having it foon published; but many unforeseen difficulties produced a long delay. He found, particularly, the Latin tranflation, which he gives with the Syriac, under the printed text, a laborious task; and he was obliged to transcribe Dr. Ridley's tranfcript over again.

• See our Review for October, 1761, p. 305.

D 4

The

The first five sections of this Preface are copied from Dr. Ridley's Latin differtation on the Syriac verfions, of which we have given an account fome years ago +. The third fection comprehends the history of this Philoxenian verfion and its origin; it is to the following purport: Philoxenus or Xenayas, a Bishop of Hierapolis, or Mabug, as it is called in Syriac, employed (in the year 508) his chorepifcopus, Polycarp, to tranflate the Greek New Teftament verbatim into Syriac. He, accordingly, rendered the four Gospels, the Acts, the feven Catholic Epiftles, the fourteen of St. Paul, and, perhaps, the Revelation of St. John. All this he tranflated from his Greek copy, with fo much exactness, that he even expreffed the Greek articles, though the Syriac has none; he tranflated likewife thofe Syriac words, which occur in the Greek gospels, over again, in a truly ridiculous manner. But from these very circumstances we may infer the great utility of this tranflation, when confidered in a critical view; for, if Polycarp tranflated fo fcrupulously from his Greek copies, it is evident that we have, by this means, the true readings and refemblance of thofe Greek copies, which he had before him, and which are fupposed to have been of the third or fourth century. Whatever were Bishop Philoxenus's particular intentions, in ordering this verfion to be made, it is undoubtedly fact that he has done pofterity confiderable service, by employing in this business fo fimple and fcrupulous a man. We only wish that Polycarp had not betrayed either an ignorance of the Greek language, or a drowfinefs, which made him tranflate wrong, of which Wetstein has produced inftances, and Mr. White adds two others-the laft of which, agados, Matth. xxiii. 25, which the interpreter takes to be a compound of maga and is, is a very glaring one.

This tranflation of Polycarp's, which he dedicated to Philoxenus, from whom it is named, was afterward revifed by Thomas of Heraclea ‡, as appears from fome notes at the end of the four gofpels, which give an account of this verfion. We have obferved that in thofe Syriac copies, particularly in the third of them that are in the poffeffion of Affeman*, and of which he himself has communicated an account to Mr. White, these notes, which have puzzled the critics very much, differ in fome refpects. Dr. Ridley's copy fays, Thomas had compared them with two Greek copies at Alexandria; Affeman's fays

+ Review, vol. xxv. p. 298.

copy.

Hence the denomination of Codex Heracleenfis, or the Heraclean

This is not Jofephus Simonius Affeman, author of the Biblia theca Orientalis; but his nephew, Stephanus Evodius Affeman, titular Archbishop of Apamea.

three

threet. Ridley's fays, the collation with the Greek copies was made in the monaftery of Antonius; Affeman's fays, Domitius. Ridley's fays, in the third note, in the year 927, according to the Greeks (which is 616 after Chrift); Affeman's fays, in the year of the Greeks 1799 (which is 1488 after Chrift). Upon the whole, it appears to us that there is a great inaccuracy in these notes, and that it feems very probable that they were added at three different times; the first perhaps by Polycarp; the other by Thomas, who calls himself Mafcino, or the poor; and the third, perhaps one hundred years after, by him who fays, God knows his troubles,-which, too, is all that the critics know of him; for, hitherto, both his name and perfon have eluded their utmost inquiries.

The troublesome times, which followed in fucceeding centuries, threw this verfion almost into oblivion; but toward the end of the twelfth century, Dionyfius Barfalibæus made, from feveral old copies, which he procured, what we may call a new edition; and thefe two copies, which Dr. Ridley's friend, Mr. Palmer, bought at Amida, on his journey by land to India, were, in all probability, written about this time.

The fixth fection, which is written by Mr. White himself, treats on the afterifks, obeli, and marginal readings, of which Dr. Ridley has faid nothing in his differtation. Wetstein, in his Prolegomena, fpeaking of this Syriac copy of Dr. Ridley's, fays, it contains a collation of the firft Syriac verfion, and the latter, which is marked in the text itfelf, by putting an obelus (-) to those words which the first has more, and an afterifk (*) to thofe which are wanting in the fame. The word or sentence to whom the obelus or afterifk belongs, is always marked at the end with a nota finalis (↓). Mr. White cenfures Wetstein, and produces many inftances which ferve to refute Wetstein's opinion. He thinks that they rather relate to thofe Greek copies which Thomas of Heraclea had compared ; and as to the marginal notes, he is of opinion, that they are added by fome critic who lived after Thomas, and who, not fatisfied with the authority of those copies which Thomas had made ufe of, compared the verfion over again with other Greek copies and the Pelhito.

As to the manner in which Profeffor White has executed his work, he fays, in the conclufion of his Preface, In this edition of the gospels I have taken pains that the Syriac text of the Heraclean copy might be faithfully printed off, except where

+ Wetstein. Proleg. ad N. T. fol. 113, fays: Idque rectius, cum etiam in noftro (viz. Dr. Ridley's) quo ufi fumus exemplari, ad Matth. xxviii. 5. tres Græci codices diferte citentur, and fo we have found in this edition of Mr. White; but it might be asked, Whether this marginal note is not of a later date ?

there

there openly appeared to be a fault, which I have corrected from the Barfalibean and Bodleian copies, of which I have always apprized the reader, and mentioned, in a note, the reading of our copy. Those words which were written on the margin of our copy in Greek characters, I have printed likewife on the margin of this edition; but the Syriac various readings, which are on the margin of the manufcript, are printed, for want of fmall Syriac types, at the bottom of the page.-The Latin tranflation, I have, as far as I could, made literal, without paying attention to elegance of style.' And in another place he fays: I must here make an apology for the shortness of thofe annotations, which the reader, now and then, will meet with at the bottom of the page, and which I intended to render more copious. The work requires, indeed, a commentary almost as voluminous as the verfion itfelf. I had a great many annotations committed to paper, 'more than I have printed here; but, fince I had no friend, mafter of the fubject, with whom I might have advifed concerning these annotations, I would rather fupprefs my thoughts than run the risk of a fevere reprehenfion. Should the univerfity be pleafed to let the fecond volume be printed, and to let me have the management of it, I fhall then communicate more things, relating to the fubject in general, and illuftrate fome difficult paffages.'

This, indeed, does credit to the modefty of Mr. White; but many will, perhaps, wifh, with us, that, in this inftance, he had manifefted fomewhat lefs of this virtue. We hope, however, that the univerfity, and particularly the fuperintendents of the Clarendon prefs, who have fo greatly promoted the cause of Eaftern literature, will gratify the friends of that branch of learning with the fecond volume of this work, and intruft Mr. White with the publication,-as he has gained fo much repu tation by the first.

The Appendix to the prefent volume contains, first, the hiftory of the adulterefs, taken, no doubt, from the Barfalibean copy, fince it is not in the verfion of Philoxenus. Secondly, thole three notes found at the end of the Heraclean copy of the gofpels. Thirdly, Dr. Ridley's collations of the Barfalibean copy and that in the Bodleian library; together with some notes by Mr. White. Fourthly, a defcription of three manuscript copies of the Philoxenian verfion, tranfmitted from Rome to Mr. White by Affeman, whofe property they are. The first of these copies is, according to Afleman, written in the very handwriting of Thomas of Heraclea; which, however, we much doubt. We fhould rather be inclined to think, from the famenefs of the fcripture of the copy with the three notes at the end, that fome Monk may have tranfcribed the whole copy. The difference of thefe notes, at the end of the third copy,