09. Testimonies founded on Knowledge and Esteem of the Peshito-Syriac.

09. Testimonies founded on Knowledge and Esteem of the Peshito-Syriac.

Bishop Walton, 1657, had some degree, but only some degree, of reliance on Syrian testimony respecting the Peshito. He said that "much is to be yielded to the general tradition of the Eastern Churches, because no clear evidence is adduced in opposition to it, and it is sustained by internal evidence in the Peshito, which proves its great antiquity; for 2 Peter 2:1-22 nd and 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation are not extant in the old issue." The real Syrian tradition is, that it was made not only in the time of the Apostles, but by THE CARE of Apostles; as that tradition is related by Jesudad. But as related by Bishop Walton, "The constant and uninterrupted tradition is, that the Peshito was made in the time of the Apostles, either by some of their DISCIPLES, or by APOSTOLIC MEN." Even this version of it, implies that the DISCIPLES, or the COMPANIONS, of the Apostles, would, in the time of the Apostles, submit to them what they wrote, for their correction, that it might have, as the writings of Luke and Mark have, Apostolic authority. Bishop Walton admits, that if "it were made by any of the Apostles, it would have an authority which is Divine, and equal to that of the other sacred books," and he says that therefore "he would not readily admit that it was made by any one of the Apostles." He says also, that "no one up to that time had affirmed its Divine authority;" and yet this is the very authority which the Syrians seem to say it has. (See Chap. v., especially the words of Jesudad, and of the Indian Christians.) The Syrians have a tradition that the Peshito was made chiefly by MARK. Bishop Walton thinks this incorrect, because "many parts of the New Testament were written after his death, which Jerome and others say took place in the eighth year of Nero," that is, in 62. (Prol. xiii. 16.) The great utility of the Peshito, in the view of Bishop Walton, is, that Syriac was the language spoken by Christ and his Apostles, and that the meaning of many expressions which occur in the Greek New Testament, can scarcely be discovered, except from the Syriac. (Prol. xiii. 19.)

JACOB MARTINI was Professor of Theology in the University of Wittenberg, and wrote a preface to the New Testament Peshito-Syriac, in which he said, "It is a version, but of all, it is the first and most ancient..... It is a version, but made either by one of the Evangelists, or at least, of those who.....had the Apostles themselves present, whom they could consult and hear, respecting many of the more obscure places. To this ONLY, therefore, when some obscurity or difficulty occurs in Greek copies, can we safely go. This ONLY, when doubt arises respecting the meaning or translation of any passage, can be consulted with safety and freedom from error. By this ONLY, the Greek Text is truly illustrated, and rightly understood." (See Gutbier’s Preface to his Syriac N.T., 1663, pg. 26.)

J.D. MICHAELIS, in his Introduction to the New Testament, 1787, chap. vii., sec. 4, says, "The Syriac Testament has been my constant study." In section 8, he says, "The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read.....Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraem and Bar Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure.....It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original." "What is not to be regarded as a blemish, it differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation; but I know of no version that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration." "The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke." "The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language [as that of Christ], but in a different dialect, ..... in the purest Mesopotamian." The question is, whether the contents of the Peshito are inconsistent with what the Syrians state to be a known fact; namely, that it was made in the time of the Apostles, and by the care of the Apostles. J.D. Michaelis did not give the above testimony with view to answer that question; yet, what he says, shows that he found the Peshito to be as accurate as it would be, if made under Apostolic care. He had found "no version so free from error." He found that "this must ever be read with profound veneration." And owing to some unexplained cause, when he had "difficulty and doubt" as to the Greek, he could with "much confidence consult" the Peshito. The Rev. JEREMIAH JONES said, "The Primitive Christians are proper judges, to determine what book is Canonical, and what is not." (On the Canon, vol. i. pg. 43.) "The Greek copies, and the Syriac ones, were both esteemed the Word of God, though in different languages." (pg. 103.)

Professor WICHELHAUS, 1850, dwells much on the worth of the Peshito. He calls it, "The most ancient witness, a version most accurate, untouched and untarnished, ever transcribed and preserved by the Syrians with the greatest care." (pg. 236.) He did not see why, with some few exceptions, it should not be "most like to the autographs of the Apostles." (pg. 264.) He said, as Dr. Glocester Ridley had done, "The Peshito is older and better than all the ancient Latin versions." (pg. 77.) The Common English Version is from a Greek text much like the Peshito. Wichelhaus remarks, that "the ancient Syriac version represents the Received Greek Text." (pg. 268.) This is a point of deep interest to all to whom the Common English Version is dear.

He asserts that, with certain exceptions, the Peshito "is to be esteemed to be amongst the best and firmest aids for the right construction of the [Greek] text." (pg. 270.) The Rev. EZRA STILES, D. D., President of Yale College, in the United States of America, said, in an Inaugural Oration, "In Syriac, THE GREATER PART of the New Testament (I believe) was ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, and not merely translated, IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE..... The Syriac Testament, therefore, is of high authority; nay, with me, of THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THE GREEK." (Appendix to Dr. Murdock’s English Translation of the Peshito, New York, 1851, pg. 499.)

Dr. JAMES MURDOCK, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, at New Haven, Connecticut, USA, and Author of an English Translation of the Peshito, 1851, says that Dr. Ezra Stiles was not the only person who believed that "the books of the greater part of the New Testament WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN in Syriac." He thinks that the Peshito "MAY BE something more than a mere translation; that it may have nearly, or quite equal authority with the Greek." (pg. 500.)

DEAN JOHN W. BURGON, B. D., was the author of three articles in the Quarterly Review, which, he says, were "wrung out of me by the publication on May 17th, 1881, of the Revision of our Authorised Version of the New Testament." In compliance with much solicitation, he published them separately in 1883, under the title of "The Revision Revised." (Pref. pg. ix.) He felt conscious, after the publication of his first article in October, 1881, that enough was even then on record, "to secure the ultimate rejection of the Revision of 1881," and that "in the end, it must be universally regarded as - what it most certainly is - the most astonishing, as well as THE MOST CALAMITOUS literary blunder of the age." (Pref. pp. x. - xi.) He knew that "by demonstrating the worthlessness of THE NEW GREEK TEXT of the Revisionists," he had proved that "the English translation of it must be incorrect." He soon found that "the Revised ENGLISH, would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone." (pg. xii.)

Dean Burgon says, "I am able to prove that this Revision of the Sacred Text is untrustworthy from beginning to end." (pg. v.) "The systematic depravation of the underlying Greek, is nothing but A POISONING OF THE RIVER OF LIFE AT ITS SACRED SOURCE. Our Revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt), stand convicted of having DELIBERATELY REJECTED THE WORDS OF INSPIRATION in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated readings, which the church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, and which only survive at this time in A LITTLE HANDFUL OF DOCUMENTS OF THE MOST DEPRAVED TYPE..... The Revisers have, in fact, been the dupes of an ingenious Theorist..... If any complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out, that..... when THE WORDS OF INSPIRATION ARE SERIOUSLY IMPERILLED, AS NOW THEY ARE, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either oo straight, or too hard." (pp. vi. - viii.) "I traced the mischief" (done by the New Greek Text of the Revisers) "home to its true authors, - Drs. Westcott and Hort, a copy of whose unpublished text of the [Greek] N.T., THE MOST VICIOUS IN EXISTENCE, had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body." (pg. xi.) In answer to Dean Burgon, it was insinuated that he could not disprove THE THEORY of Drs. Westcott and Hort. This, he says, compelled him to demonstrate that "in their solemn pages," there is only "a series of UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS;..... a tissue as flimsy and as worthless as any spider’s web." (pg. xiv.)

Dean Burgon says that the Greek Text, which is commonly called "THE RECEIVED GREEK TEXT," is confessedly, at least 1,530 years old." (pg. xx.) Dr. Hort admits (see his Intro. to Grk. Test., pg. 92), that "The fundamental text of late extant Greek manuscripts generally," that is, of copies which have had THE APPROVAL OF CHRISTIAN BODIES, on which bodies we have to rely, as on well-informed and credible witnesses to the truth; he says that the text of their "manuscripts generally, is, beyond all question, identical with the dominant Greco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century;" that is, with the text approved by both Greeks and Syrians, from A.D. 350-400. Of this text the Peshito is one member. This is the text which Dean Burgon says Isaiah 1,530 years old. But the THEORY or CONJECTURE which it has pleased Drs. Westcott and Hort to adopt, is, that the original Greek text was VERY DIFFERENT FROM THIS, and is contained in A FEW COPIES of the fourth, or next following centuries, which are not known to have been APPROVED BY ANY LARGE BODIES free from any serious error. To account for the fact that the text of these few copies was "generally" rejected by Greeks and Syrians, Drs. Westcott and Hort gamble with conjecture. They cannot find history to quote, and therefore invent fictions. Their chief fiction is, that "a NEW text" was formed, "different from all" preceding texts, of which there had grown up three; and that this new text was "a work of attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors," (Intro. to Grk. Test., pg. 133); that there was "an authoritative revision of GREEK texts at Antioch, which revision was then taken as a standard for a similar authoritative revision of THE [PESHITO] SYRIAC text; that the Greek text was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision; but that the Vulgate [Peshito] Syriac did not undergo any corresponding second revision." (Intro. to Grk. Test., pg. 137.) The invention of what is unsaid in history, under pretence of PROVING the facts of history, and with respect to infallible truth, is as rash as it is wrong. But the use made of this invention of revisions which never took place, is more rash still, for it is assumed that the best text of Greek and Syriac copies was rejected by the Revisers in both cases; that the purer texts were abandoned, and the more corrupt adopted throughout both Greek and Syrian bodies in all following ages. Drs. Westcott and Hort conjecture that the leading Christians in those bodies were so weak, or so wicked, that they preferred "acceptability" to "purity of text," and were so "capricious," that their "new interpolations," their forged additions, "were abundant." (pp. 134-35.) On the ground of this slanderous assumption, they please to decide, that any reading which is "distinctly Syrian, is to be rejected at once," (pg. 163); and that the whole line of Greek and Syriac manuscripts in which this alleged "new" text is found, is to be rejected also. What evil influence can possibly have so possessed and blinded minds trained to reason rightly, that they can say what is so unreasonable? On this subject Dean Burgon says: - "We are invited to make our election between FACT and FICTION." (pg. 293.) If there had been such a revision, "we should insist that no important deviation from such a TEXTUS RECEPTUS as THAT, would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS have any foundation at all in fact, it is ’all up’ with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely nowhere." (pg. 293.) But no such authoritative revision is recorded as having ever occurred. "As a mere effort of the imagination," says Dean Burgon, "it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands." (pg. 277.) But if it had occurred, then, according to Dr. Hort’s theory, we should behold ON ONE SIDE the "choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning of the Eastern Church, from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350. ON THIS SIDE sits Dr. Hort. An interval of 1,532 years separates these two parties." (pg. 288.) "According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality, - a most unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error, - these illustrious fathers of the church have been at every instant SUBSTITUTING THE SPURIOUS FOR THE GENUINE, - a fabricated text in place of the Evangelical verity. Miserable men!" (pg. 289.) "The self-same iniquity [was] perpetrated," Dr. Hort supposes, in the case of the Peshito, as in the case of the Greek text. "One solitary witness" to the true text, "Cureton’s fragmentary Syriac, is suffered to escape, and alone remains to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive truth;" a fragment which is in reality "utterly depraved." (Revision Revised, pp. 279, 289.) "Who is it who gravely puts forth all this egregious nonsense? It is Dr. Hort, at pp. 134, 135, of his Introduction. According to him, those primitive fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture, have proved the worst enemies of the Word of God. And (by the hypothesis), "Dr. Hort, at the end of 1,532 years, aided by codex B, and his own self-evolved powers of divination, has found them out, and now holds them up to the contempt and scorn of the British public." (Revision Revised, pg. 290.)

Dean Burgon says that the admission by Drs. Westcott and Hort of "the practical identity of 99 out of 100 of our extant Greek manuscripts," with what they call "the Greco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century," makes the following the only question to be answered, "How is this resemblance to be accounted for?" and he replies, "Certainly not by putting forward so violent and improbable - so irrational a conjecture as that.....an authoritative standard text was FABRICATED at Antioch;" but by owning that in the similar text of those Greek copies of 350-400 A.D., and of the Peshito-Syriac version, and the mass of Greek manuscripts, there is probably a "GENERAL FIDELITY TO THE INSPIRED EXEMPLARS THEMSELVES, from which remotely they are confessedly descended." (Revision Revised, 295.)

"THE VERY LITTLE HANDFUL" of Greek copies to which Dean Burgon refers as those on which Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely in opposition to all other sources of information, are those four which are called B, Aleph, C, and D. He says, it matters nothing to these editors "that all four are discovered, on careful scrutiny, to differ essentially, not only from 99 out of 100 of the whole body of other extant manuscripts, but even FROM ONE ANOTHER; the last circumstance being obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions," because it proves that "in different degrees they all exhibit a fabricated text." He says, "that when compared with THE COMMONLY RECEIVED GREEK TEXT, B and Aleph have 8,972 omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications; that these are by no means the same in both;" and that "these four codices, be it remembered, come to us without a character." (Revision Revised, pp. 11, 12, 14.) The Rev. F. C. COOK, M. A., Canon of Exeter, and Editor of the Speaker’s Commentary, published in 1882, a valuable work on "The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels." He mentions the Peshito thus: - "The Peshito, an independent version, and of THE HIGHEST VALUE." (pg. 37.) "Occupying the highest place among ancient versions." (pg. 81.) He names it as being one of the "authorities to which, in some cases, A HIGHER VALUE IS TO BE ASSIGNED, THAN TO ANY MANUSCRIPTS," because it is "more ancient, and better attested" than these. He says that it is "the version which probably comes NEAREST TO THE AUTOGRAPHS of the Evangelists, especially of Matthew;" and that "It supports the old Received [Grk.] Text in the passages which he dwells upon, as of special importance." "For my own part," he says, "I do not doubt that this version is more trustworthy than manuscript B, especially as evidence against omissions. In fact, in the great majority of disputed readings, that which has its decided support, has a PRIMA FACIE claim to PREFERENCE, IF NOT TO ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE." (pp. 143-44.) His remarks on the two Greek copies, B and Aleph, which are relied on as the chief foes of the Peshito-Syriac text, are VERY IMPORTANT. He says that they "were certainly written at a time when Arianism was in full ascendancy; when Eusebius of Caesarea was the most prominent and the most influential leader of that party," (pg. 244); and that a "combination of facts, external and internal, appears to be incompatible with any other hypothesis, than that these two manuscripts which have furnished the Revisers of the English Version with their new Greek text, were among those which Eusebius prepared by the order of Constantine." (pg. 243.) He says that the Peshito-Syriac Version "must surely be regarded as THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY WITNESS to the state of the text, as received from the beginning in Palestine, and all the adjoining districts; that it gives us distinct intimation of the existence of words, clauses, entire sentences, which are obliterated or mutilated in those two manuscripts;" and he asks whether "we can hesitate as to which testimony has THE BEST, THE ONLY RIGHTFUL CLAIM TO ACCEPTANCE?" (pg. 245.) Of B, Aleph, C and D, Canon Cook speaks as Dean Burgon does. He confirms "the charges of corruption and depravation made against B, Aleph, C and D," (pg. 229); and says that D is, "of all manuscripts, the least trustworthy." (pg. 214.) Of B and Aleph he says, "I hold it as ALL BUT CERTAIN that they were written at Caesarea, between 330 and 340 A.D., under the direction of Eusebius," (pg. 245); whom Jerome called "the standard-bearer of the Arian faction." (pg. 166, note.) He says that the Greek Text followed by the Revisers, as well as by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is "virtually identical with B." (pp. 133, 149.)

Manuscript A differs in character from the rest of "the oldest five Greek manuscripts; Aleph, A, B, C and D." (Dr. Scrivener’s Intro., 523.) "Manuscript A is the representative," says Canon Cook, "according to Westcott and Hort, of their [imaginary] Syriac recension. It actually represents the text which was adopted and used, without the slightest indication of doubt, by the great divines, the masters of early Christian thought in the fourth century," (pg. 217); it is the text "generally followed" in the later manuscripts, "especially in those which appear to have been the chief authorities for what is called the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, which, as Dr. Scrivener and others have shown, is the foundation of our Authorised Version." (pg. 133.)

Canon Cook says of the general mass of Greek manuscripts, which many critics despise, that "they ought not to be disregarded on the mere score of inferior antiquity. Because they record THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCHES for some ten or twelve centuries, and, as Dr. Hort admits, represent the fathers of the fourth century, including Chrysostom, and those who lived after him." (pg. 228.) The testimony of Canon Cook, therefore, to the value of the Peshito-Syriac, is VERY STRONG; and he represents that testimony, as others do, to be in harmony with the Greek copy called A, with the text approved by early Greek writers, with the text of the mass of Greek copies, and with that followed in the Common English Version; and also as being opposed to that of Drs. Westcott and Hort, and of the Revised English Version.

DR. SCRIVENER, Prebendary of Exeter, is said by Dean Burgon to be "FACILE PRINCEPS, without question first, in Textual Criticism." (Revision Revised, vii.) He is also named by Canon Cook as "that most cautious and judicious critic, the very foremost among those who in England combine reverence for God’s Word with the most thorough appreciation of every point bearing upon the criticism of the New Testament." (On Revised Version, pg. 120.)

Dr. Scrivener says in his Plain Introduction, pp. 312, 313, "The grievous divisions of the Syrian Christians have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival churches is as complete and hopeless as ever. Yet the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Coordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas, along the coast of Malabar, and of the Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though the Maronites acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea [did so] in the eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from each of these rival communions,..... ALL EXHIBIT A TEXT IN EVERY IMPORTANT RESPECT THE SAME."

Dr. Scrivener says that "The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern, or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other, and with the citations from [the Syriac Gospels by] Aphraates, A.D. 337-45, in most important points, seems to bring the Peshito text, SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE SAME STATE AS WE HAVE IT AT PRESENT, UP TO THE FOURTH CENTURY OF OUR ERA..... Of this version there are many codices, of different ages, and widely diffused. Of the Curetonian but one." "Adler (pg. 3) describes a copy of the Peshito in the Vatican, dated, A.D. 548. From the Peshito, as the authorized version of the Oriental church, there are many quotations in Syriac books, from THE FOURTH CENTURY downwards." (pg. 322.) "We are sure that Christianity flourished in these regions [that is, the regions of Antioch and Edessa] at a very early period..... The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it UNQUESTIONABLE that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively [of any other], from THE SECOND CENTURY of our era downwards. As early as A.D. 170, THE SYRIAC is cited by Melito on Genesis 22:13. See Mill, Prol. 1239." (pg. 312.) In strong contrast with this proved agreement of all Syriac copies from all quarters, from the fourth and sixth centuries till now, is Dr. Scrivener’s reliable account of THE CORRUPT STATE OF THE GREEK COPIES. He says at pg. 532, "During THE FIRST HALF OF THE SECOND CENTURY," that is, between A.D. 100 and 150, "must have originated the WIDE VARIATIONS from the prevailing text, which exist in primary authorities, both manuscripts and versions; variations which survive in D, of the Greek, and in some of the old Latin codices. The text they exhibit is distinguished as Western." Its readings are "the EARLIEST which can be fixed chronologically..... The chief and most constant characteristic of the Western readings is a love of PARAPHRASE. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences, were CHANGED, OMITTED, and INSERTED, with astonishing freedom..... There was a disposition to enrich the text, at the cost of its purity, by alterations or additions taken from TRADITIONAL, and perhaps from apocryphal, and other non-biblical sources." (Dr. Hort, pp. 120, 122-123, quoted by Dr. Scrivener, pp. 532-533.) Dr. Scrivener gives passages from B and Aleph, the oldest copies now existing, in proof of their corrupt state, (pp. 543-552); and says that the text which Drs. Westcott and Hort have built chiefly on them, "is destitute, not only of HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, but of ALL PROBABILITY," (pg. 542); that it is even VISIONARY." (pg. 531.)

Dr. Scrivener says that "During THE WHOLE OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH CENTURIES, CHANGES appear to have been going on without notice;" those of them which are called Western, in Africa, France, and North Italy; those of another kind, in Egypt and its neighbourhood; and of a third kind, in Syria, Antioch, and Constantinople, (pg. 554); and that "ALL that can be inferred from searching into the history" of the Greek text, "amounts to NO MORE THAN THIS: - that EXTENSIVE VARIATIONS..... subsisted in it FROM the earliest period to which our records extend," (pg. 519); and that "beyond this point our investigations CANNOT BE CARRIED, without indulging in PLEASANT SPECULATIONS, which may amuse the fancy, but cannot inform the judgment." He says that he is "brought reluctantly to this conclusion after examining the principles laid down by Bengel, Griesbach, Hug, Scholz, Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and by Professor Hort and Canon Westcott." (pp. 519-20.) He says, "Elaborate systems have failed," (pg. 520); "for the present, much is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous." (pg. 521.) He knows of no means of GIVING SURE PROOF, by means of Greek copies, of what readings are true, and what false. The result of comparing Greek copies, is, in many cases, nothing but an OPINION ABOUT PROBABILITY; and Dr. Hort admits that these fallible opinions show "great diversity of judgment" (Scrivener, pg. 541.) It is self-evident that decisions of this kind fail utterly to establish A SURE TEXT, such as God’s book must have, to be infallible. The attainment of such a text in many places, from the mere study of Greek readings, seems to be a forlorn hope.

HOW IMMENSELY IMPORTANT, therefore, is the certainty given by the agreement of Syriac copies! They retain almost throughout, their FIRST FORM, and are, as Dr. Scrivener says, "IN EVERY IMPORTANT RESPECT THE SAME." (pg. 313.) He states that, "Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for THE IDENTITY of the Syriac Version NOW CALLED the Peshito, with that used by the Eastern church long before the great schism had its beginning;" that is, long before A.D. 431. (pg. 313.) He says, "The Peshito has well been called the Queen of versions of Holy Writ, for it is at once the oldest, and one of the most excellent." "It is composed in the purest dialect of a perspicuous and elegant language..... No version can well be more exempt..... from stiffness of expression; yet, while remarkable for its ease and freedom, it very seldom becomes loose or paraphrastic." (pg. 319.) "It is assigned by eminent scholars to THE FIRST CENTURY, undoubtedly it is not later than the second." (Contributions, 1859, pg. 14.) As to THE RESEMBLANCE of the Peshito to other texts, Dr. Scrivener says that "It habitually upholds the readings of A, one of the oldest uncial copies, those of the later uncials, and of the vast majority in cursive characters." "I claim for codex A and its numerous companions, peculiar attention by reason of their striking conformity with the Peshito Syriac." (Contributions, 1859, pg. 14.) "Beza was the true author of what is called the Received Text." (Intro. pg. 441, note.) "Beza’s text of 1598 is found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version than any other Greek text." (See Greek Text with variations of Revised Version, 1881; preface, pg. 8.) THE UNTRUTH OF STATEMENTS AND CONJECTURES made by Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort, against the Peshito, in order to sustain their own Greek texts, is fully shown by Dr. Scrivener. Dr. Tregelles collated a Nestorian manuscript of the Peshito called Rich, 7157, and has said in Horne’s Introduction, pg. 264, that the greater part of the materials afforded by a comparison of manuscripts with the printed text, for a critical revision of it, "relate to grammatical forms and particulars of that kind." (Scrivener’s Int. pg. 318.) Yet Dr. Scrivener, writing in 1859, said, that though "this precious document [Rich, 7157] had been collated throughout by Dr. Tregelles, together with several other manuscripts of high antiquity in the Museum," and though Dr. Cureton, Mr. Ellis, and two German scholars, had found that these "venerable manuscripts exhibit a text singularly resembling that of the printed editions," Dr. Tregelles had spoken of the Peshito, in his "Printed Text of the Greek N.T., 1854," pg. 170, as "the version COMMONLY PRINTED AS THE PESHITO." "He would persuade us," says Dr. Scrivener, that the sects of "the whole Eastern church, distracted as it has been..... have laid aside their bitter jealousies in order to substitute..... a spurious version, in the room of the Peshito, - that sole surviving manuscript of the first ages of the gospel in Syria! Nay more, that this WRETCHED FORGERY has deceived Orientalists profound as Michaelis and Lowth." (Contributions, pp. 14, 15.)

Drs. Westcott and Hort have represented the Peshito, in the Introduction to their Greek Testament, as made in the third or fourth century out of a corrupt text called the Curetonian Syriac, and have implied that all the Syrians have been deceived as to its origin. (Intro. pg. 84.) Dr. Scrivener says, "Of this two-fold authoritative revision of the Greek text, and of this formal TRANSMUTATION OF THE CURETONIAN SYRIAC INTO THE PESHITO..... NOT ONE TRACE REMAINS IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITY; no one writer seems conscious that any modification, either of the Greek Scriptures, or of the vernacular translation, [the Peshito], was made in, or before their times..... Yet Dr. Hort regards his SPECULATIVE CONJECTURE AS "UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE;" and, though he believes that this recension was "made deliberately by the authoritative voice of the Eastern Church," he declares that all readings so made "must be AT ONCE REJECTED, (pg. 119); thus making a clean sweep of all critical materials, - Fathers, versions, manuscripts uncial and cursive, comprising about NINETEEN-TWENTIETHS OF THE WHOLE MASS, which do not correspond with his PRECONCEIVED OPINION of what a correct text ought to be," pg. 163. (Scrivener’s Intro., pp. 533-34.)

These last remarks apply equally to the untruthful statement of Dr. Tregelles, in the Introduction to his Greek Testament, that "The Peshito-Syriac was frequently modernized from time to time." (pg. v.) When the word of God is in question, it is necessary to know and show who are trustworthy, and who are not. THE ABOVE STATEMENTS, made by persons well informed and of faithful mind, will aid some, it is hoped, to arrive at the truth, by as short a path as the breadth of the field permits. Most of these witnesses reject the Syrian testimony that the Peshito was made in the time, and by the care of the Apostles. But they give no good reason for doing so, nor is it easy to see why, if Greek testimony is accepted as proof of the Apostolic origin of the Greek text, Syrian testimony should not be received as proof of the Apostolic origin of the Syriac text. But it is evident that even on the supposition that the Syriac is but a man-made translation, the three facts, that it was made at so early a date, that there is no proof that it was greatly altered in the first centuries, as the Greek copies were, and that the agreement of existing copies, and of quotations from it, show that it has remained without material change from the fourth century till now; these facts prove that its text has a purity and a stability which are not only peculiar to it, but are providential gifts exactly suited to our present need. They prove that it is able to restore to God’s word much of that certainty which some have impaired, and to affirm parts of it to be genuine which they would take away.