vii. 14.

letter).

viii. 3.

of a letter.)

viii. 4.

viii. 10.

viii. 12.

viii. 13.

"And she said" pro zaì elprza (accidental change of one

évántos (P.00) pro totáln (poo). (Wrong insertion

om. καὶ.

om. μέγας.

ad καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα add. ἐσκοτίσθη.

v pecoupavijuart is rendered by o??

but ;ܒܫܡܝܐ ܕܒܕܡܐ In xiv. 6 the same is rendered by . ܐܝܬ ܠܗ

xix. 7 it is rendered correctly. The later editions modify somewhat, but retain the essential error. De Dieu's note is worth quoting from, as it gives a sufficient hint of the error: "Ita transtulit Syrus Græcum illud, ἐν μεσουρανήματι, ac si decompositum esset ex μέσος medius, oùpà cauda, & aipa sanguis." His Latin rendering of this phrase is "medio caudæ, quæ sanguinem habet," which is strictly The later modifications are worth looking at only as matter

correct.

of curiosity. ix. 11. aðòw is curiously rendered by o (served), instead of J. The exchange of the initial letter hints at a quasi error of sound, especially as the Syriac kindred word to '43aboo is used to render àzóista (xvii. 8, 11). The omission of the final letter is probably a mere accident. On the whole, it seems as if the Syrian translator, or a scribe, had mistaken the Oriental word, and was intending to write the word for servant.

Χ. 6. μέγας (την μέγιστος) pro χρόνος (easy error of Lasio pro

.(ܙܒܢܐ)

X. II. ἄρχουσι pro γλώσσαις (error of one letter and part of another).

xi. 5. up

θελήσῃ is transferred by mistake to verse 1 (post zaì ú årpedos of the received text), but the MS. has marks to indicate the correction.

tor, quasi a i ẞákλw; “as if ôráßodos were disjictor." Compare

will) pro ¿3kyjo in same connection). In xx. 2, but not xx. 10, the same rendering occurs.

χίν. 7.

δουλεύετε (vel διακονεῖτε pro φοβήθητε. (Error of whole

xvii. II. xviii. 2.

ληνοῦ.

om. ὑδάτων. (but margin supplies it).

ἐστιν pro ὑπάγει.

πνεύματος, by error of one letter, is rendered μας, quasi " of wing" or "Aying.” The mistake is for lo:s, literally ἐν πνεύματι—itself a copyist's mistake.

xviii. 2. post μεμισημένου add. καὶ φυλακὴ πάντος θηρίου ἀκαθάρτου καὶ μεμισημένου.

xviii. 9. post κλαύσονται add. καὶ πενθοῦσι.

xviii. 17.

πλέων is rendered by a word meaning “swimming.”

xix. 18. καὶ σάρκας ἰσχυρῶν is repeated in the MS., but only printed once in De Dieu's edition.

ΧΧ. 3.

δὲ λυθήσεται pro δεῖ αὐτὸν λυθῆναι. (Α clear mistake of the translator; or rather, a misreading of the Greek.)

xxi. 6. γέγονα ἐγώ pro γέγοναν. (The sense intended is apparently ego fui.)

xxi. 17. μέτρων (vel μέτροι), πηχῶν ἀνθρώπου pro πηχῶν, μέτρον ανθρώπου (perhaps only an idiomatic change).

xxi. 27.

om. καὶ ψεῦδος.

xxi. 27. καὶ pro εἰ μή.

xxii. 11. ὁ ἀδικῶν, by dropping one letter accidentally, is rendered by a word meaning intrans or ascendens (soy pro Vassy). xxii. 16. ἐνώπιον τῶν ἐκκλησίων pro ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις (perhaps idiomatic).

From these specimens several results are clear. (1.) The original translator made a number of mistakes, some of which mislead, but some of which, again, by their very erroneous quality, give clear testimony to the Greek text followed. (2.) The Leyden MS. is clearly a copy from some archetype of greater correctness, and every way

better than the extant copy. (3.) De Dieu probably made a few mistakes in transcribing or editing, which demand a re-examination of the MS. (4.) The MS. contains a few additions, and quite a number of serious omissions, which seem chargeable to the copyist rather than to the archetype. (5.) The care with which the extant copy is written is not extreme; nor, on the other hand, is its carelessness gross. It compares favorably with the bulk of Syriac MSS., though many better Syriac Biblical MSS. exist. The most evident lack is that of a contemporary top. (6.) Its critical value is not great enough to make it a strong reliance; since it does not give either a complete or an accurate representation of the text. But it contains the substance well, and it is of value as testimony to the text in use by the maker or makers of the version, and also, in a less degree, to the genuine text of the Apocalypse.

In addition, it may be said that the rendering is generally very close to the Greek; painfully close, indeed; and nothing at all like the elegant idiomatic freedom of the Peshitto. But more on this

last head will be found further on.

III.-Place among the Syriac Versions.

More interesting, however, than all the foregoing, are the questions: What place does the Syriac Apocalypse hold with respect to the other Syriac versions? What is its age, and what style of thought and spirit does it reflect? What is its position in Syriac literature? What grade or habit of the language does it typify? These questions, if resolved at all, must be resolved solely by internal evidence, and by comparison with other writings. Standing alone as a Syriac version of the Apocalypse, the comparison is more difficult, and depends more upon the uncertain, and, so to speak, the second-hand, considerations of style and usage, than upon matters tangible by themselves as primary evidence.

It would be a waste of time to argue at length that the Apocalypse is no part of the Peshitto, or of a version of equal date. That is a fact that lies upon the surface. Nor can it be shown that any earlier version underlay it as a basis. Scattered notices in early Syriac writers, notably Ephrem Syrus, prove that the Syrian fathers knew of the existence, at least, of the Apocalypse, and perhaps or probably -had a Syriac version thereof. It is true, also, that the Syriac Apocalypse, in the version we know, must have had a wide, though probably not a general, currency later; but like the Epistles 2 Peter,

and 2 and 3 John, and Jude, being no part of the principal version (Peshitto), it suffered great neglect. Indeed, of the Peshitto version itself, certain Old Testament portions have been rare among the Syrians. MSS. of the Psalter have been most abundant, of the Pentateuch less so, of the Prophets rare, of the Chronicles very rare, and of the remaining books exceedingly rare. (See, for an illustration, Justin Perkins's Eight Years in Persia, p. 15.) It is not at all surprising that a portion of the New Testament which was not read in the churches, which did not belong to the popular version, nor was its equal in antiquity, should fall into disuse.

Concerning the origin (among the versions) of this Syriac Apocalypse, two leading opinions seem to have been held. One is expressed by Eichhorn as well as any one else (Einleitung in das N. T., ed. 1827, iv. pp. 459 ff.): "Erst seitdem die Philoxenische von Thomas von Harkel überarbeitete Uebersetzung des N. T. bekannt geworden ist, hat man entdeckt dass unsre gedruckte Syrische Apokalypse ein Stück derselben seyn müsse." His reasons are, first, the subscription to the Florence Codex mentioned above (which, however, we cannot trust); next, its following the Harklensian style, as he alleges, in jeder Kleinigkeit," in the prevailing use of Greek words, imitations of Greek structure, representations of the Greek article by Syriac pronouns; next, its resemblance to an apparent revision of the (supposed) fragments of the original Philoxenian preserved by Jacob of Edessa in his commentary on Genesis; and next, in its supposed preservation of the critical marks of Origen in the Florence codex, as shown by the example cited in Adler's M. T. Versiones Syriace, p. 78.

At

All these arguments are good to a certain extent. It is undeniable that the genius of this version approaches the Harklensian nearer than even the Pococke Epistles; which last, again, are not without reason supposed to be a fragment of the original Philoxenian. the same time, all analogy forbids the supposition that either the Pococke Epistles or the Apocalypse were ever based upon a Peshitto original.

The other opinion is well expressed by Adler (M. T. Vers. Syr. pp. 78, 79): "Sed tamen a genio Philoxenianæ versionis tantidem differt, quantum a simplice. Accusativum quidem, ut Philoxenus, per > præfixum exprimit, sed tot græcis verbis civitatem vel potius peregrinitatem non dedit, voces vel phrases origine syriacas reddidit, nulla superfla explicatione addita et alia multa, nomina propria more Syrorum, non ad Græcorum pronunciationem scripsit, verbo,

...

litteris non tam anxie inhæsit quam Philoxenus. Statuimus, hanc Apocalypseos versionem ab alio quidem, quam versio syriaca vulgata Evangeliorum, factam esse, sed Philoxenum auctorem non agnoscere." This opinion is held by Tregelles, and for the same reasons. (See Treg. Horne's Introd., iv. p. 281.) Other critics might be cited, but their opinions would add little on either side.

The investigation of the questions here presented involves much labor, but results in little that can be presented particularly without the recitation of long tabulated comparisons, with much other material of the driest sort. I have approached the subject by five lines of comparison, as follows:

1. The proper names.

2. The use of Greek words in place of Syriac.

3. The use of peculiar Syriac words, which seem to characterize respectively the Peshitto, the Harklensian, and the Pococke Epistles.

4. The use of structures and forms of expression which characterize respectively the Peshitto, the Harklensian, the Pococke Epistles, and secular Syriac literature as far as practicable.

5. The quotations from the Old Testament. In these, if the phraseology appears to coincide with that of the O. T. Peshitto, it would show a familiarity with that version, and a measurable guidance thereby; but if their alliance was clearly with the Hexaplar, the fact would show an apparent posteriority to that version, and a consequent origin posterior to both the Philoxenian and the Harklensian.

I. As to the proper names. Most of them are such as easily show whether the Syriac fashion or the Harklensian distortion is followed. Jesus, Christ (Messiah), John, David, Israel, Jerusalem, Satan, Babylon, Euphrates, the names of the cities of the Seven Churches, Zion, Moses, Michael, Sodom, Egypt, Judah, Jews, the names of the twelve tribes, Patmos, Magog, Gog, Nicolaitans, and the like, follow the Syriac fashion generally, and not the Harklensian or the Greek. And the exceptions to the general rule seem rather to show an independent rendering than a desire to reproduce the Greek phenomena. These exceptions are such as the following: the name Balak (ii. 14) suffers a double mistake (see above); first, mistaking it for Barak, or changing it by a natural Oriental permutation of the liquids, and second by the transcriber's changing the inton and the B into Q; making the erroneous reading Qanaq. In ii. 13, the name Antipas (again see above), by a singular but not unnatural error, is replaced by a word meaning "that appeared." The name of the star Apsinthos (viii. 11) is transliterated, not translated. In ix. 12, Abaddon and Apollyon are both attempted to be transliterated, the