quently his want of knowledge of it can be no objection to his living in Syria. I conclude therefore, that if the writings of the New Testament were read in the churches, where Justin Martyr lived, they were read in Syria; and if they were read in Syria, they were read in the Syriac language, because no other was there understood, and consequently a translation of the New Testament into Syriac was made out of Greek in Justin Martyr's time, i. e. within a few years of the apostles'

time.

It cannot be improper here to add, that in the book which goes under Justin Martyr's name, called Quæst. et Respons. ad Orthodox. I find mention of a Syriac translation of the Old Testament, as there is also in St. Austin's famous book De Civitat. Dei, l. 15. c. 13. I might argue from hence the great probability of a version being made of the New also into the same tongue; but, I confess, I question the genuineness of that book, there being something in it certainly later than Justin; and yet I cannot but think the learned Dr. Cave's conjecture b concerning it deserves considering, that perhaps it may be that piece of Justin's, which Photius calls Solutiones Summariæ Dubitationum adversus Religionem, only much interpolated. This conjecture seems probable, which, though the learned doctor proposes as his own, was made long before him by Andr. Rivet d, from whom it is evident he borrowed it, though he mentions not his name. This is the more observable, because that learned writer in the page before treats Sandius very roughly, for proposing an opinion of Rivet's in the same place as his own, without mentioning Rivet's name.

CHAP. XVII.

The Syriac version proved to be made in or near the apostles' times from some internal evidences.

Obs. 5. THE Syriac version of the New Testament now extant is very probably the same, which was made in or near the apostles' time.

b Hist. Liter. in Justin. Martyr. c Loc. cit.

d Critic. Sacr. lib. 2. c. 5. §. 3. That opinion is, that this book cannot be Justin's, because he, being

a Samaritan, would never have interpreted the Syriac word Osanna by μsyaλωσύνην ὑπερκειμένην, when it is evidently of another signification. Vid. Quæst, et Respons. ad Orthod. Quæst. 50.

1. This is constantly asserted by the Syrian churches from whom we had it. See the history of it above.

2. There was no more probability of the Syrian churches losing their translation, than of the western churches losing their Greek copies. For the same reason as the Greek copies did multiply, the Syriac ones would multiply too; and for the same reason that care would be taken to preserve the one, care would be taken to preserve the other. They were both esteemed the word of God, though in different languages; and in the nature of things it seems morally impossible, that the churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, &c. could ever lose a treasure of so much value, and which they so much esteemed, as they did these sacred writings. Add to this, that the Jewish Targums made about this time were safely preserved; and the Christians cannot, with any reason, be supposed less careful of their sacred books than the Jews.

3. There are internal characters in the translation itself, which evidence its very great antiquity, or its being made near that period which I have assigned it: for instance,

I. The first instance in the Syriac version which I propose as proving that antiquity of it, which I contend for, is the translation of the name Ptolemais, as it is in our Greek copies, Acts xxi. 7. by the name o Acu, or Aco; for it may as justly, or indeed more justly, be pointed with the vowel dsekopho, than ezozo.

Now to make out what I design, I observe the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was y Aco, or Acco, Judges i. 31. This name undoubtedly continued long in use, and afterwards changed into Ptolemais; though at what time, or on what occasion, I cannot certainly tell. Mr. Reiland f, and after him dean Prideauxs, say it was repaired by Ptolemy Philadelphus, and from him had its new name Ptolemais. This was about 250 years before Christ; and seems a very probable account; I say probable only, because I know not what ancient author relates it. However this be, it is certain, the former name was antiquated and out of use among the Romans, and they called it Ptolemais. So we find by Pliny,

f Palæstin. Illustrat. 1. 2. c. 7.

Connect. of Hist. of the Old and

New Testam. part 2. book 2. p. 61. h Natur. Histor. 1. 5. c. 19.

"Ptolemais Claudii Cæsaris colonia quæ quondam Ace;" and Stephanus Περὶ πόλεων: Πτολεμαΐς, πόλις Φοινίκης, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ πрóτegov 'Axýi: Ptolemais was formerly called Ace. How the termination o should change into e, is very easily accounted for; such changes being common, when a word is taken out of one language into another k.

Now why the Syriac interpreter should translate it Aco, and not retain Ptolemais, can be accounted for no other way, but by supposing the persons, for whom his version was made, were more acquainted with one name than the other. Upon any other supposition, it would have been absurd for him to have changed it. I argue then hence, that this version must be made either before, or very soon after the destruction of Jerusalem; because till that time one may suppose a people (viz. the Jews) to retain the old name Aco still, out of a fondness, very predominant in that people, for its antiquity: but how they, or indeed any other part of Syria, could after the Roman conquest call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. Besides, it was, as Pliny says, a Roman colony, even in Claudius's reign, and therefore very remarkable; and so in consequence must in thirty or forty years more (in which time the conquest also was) be much more known by the name Ptolemais, by which the Romans called it. To suppose therefore that this translation, in which we meet with this old name instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator acting quite contrary to the design of his translation; and, instead of a name well known to all, to substitute an antiquated name, which could be known but to few. On the other hand, supposing it made about the period I assign, it was a very proper translation, being made for those, who were wont to call this place by this name, as indeed it appears out of the Talmud in many places the Jews in our Saviour's time were wont to do. I only add further, that Josephus, though a Jew, both in his History and Antiquities of the Jewish War, whenever his occasion led him

i Apud Fuller. Miscell. Sacr. I. 4. c. 15.

* Vid. Fuller, 1. 4. c. 2.

1 See Dr. Lightfoot's Centur. Chorograph. c. 64.

to mention this place, calls it as St. Luke does in the place above cited in the Acts, Ptolemais, and never Ace, nor Acom: unless perhaps where he is relating the history of the Israelites' first entrance into this country"; there indeed, as it was proper, in transcribing the history of the Israelites' possessions in Canaan, he mentions this city under the name of 'Apx, which undoubtedly ought to be read 'Axǹ, as one of the best of English critics, Mr. Fuller, has conjectured and proved; though Bochart thinks the letter p ought not to be cast away, and opposes Mr. Fuller herein P.

II. The next argument for that antiquity of the Syriac version which I have assigned, I collect from its translation of the Greek words "Eaλnv, "Elvn, 'Elvixòs, and their adverbial derivatives Exλquioti and 'Elvixãos. After a careful examination of all those places in the original Greek, where either of these words occur, and a comparison of them with the several translations of them in the Syriac version, there seems to me the most just reason to conclude,

1. That the author of this version was one who had been formerly a Jew.

2. That he lived either before or not long after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the dispersion of the Jews.

Now before these I must premise a few remarks concerning the meaning of those Greek words in the writings of the New Testament.

(1.) The word "EXλŋy in the New Testament is made use of by the writers of it to denote all the world besides the Jews. The word properly signified a Greek; but ever since the Grecian conquests by Alexander, the Greeks became the most noted people, and the Jews, who had but very little acquaintance with the world, called all nations by their name. Hence we find frequently the distinction of all mankind into 'Ioudalous xaì “E^^ŋvas?, into Jews and Greeks, or (as our translators, regarding the sense more than the words, do well enough render it) Jews and Gentiles: just as the ancient Greeks divided all

m

Antiq. Jud. 1. 13. c. 20, 21. et de Bell. Judaic. 1. 2. c. 9. where he particularly describes the place.

n

Antiq. Jud. 1. 5. c. 1.

• Miscell. Sacr. 1. 4. c. 15.

P Canaan. 1. 2. c. 17. in fine.

¶ Rom. i. 16. ii. 9. iii. 9. Acts xix. 10, 17. 1 Cor. i. 22. x. 32. Gal. iii. 28. and many other places.

mankind into "Ελληνας and Βαρβάρους. But this remark is so obvious and well known, that I shall insist no further on it.

(2.) The word "Evy in the New Testament denotes in a peculiar sense all nations besides the Jews. Thus the old Hebrews in their language distinguished themselves from all others, by calling them and pyn, i. e. the nations. It would be superfluous to produce instances of this, there being scarce a page in the New Testament, where there are not one or more instances.

(3.) In the ideas of both these words the Jews implied something that was bad; or, which is the same thing, they looked upon all the world as profane, sinners, unclean, &c. They esteemed themselves as a peculiar people, privileged above all the world, only in covenant with God, and so only in hope of his favour; no names therefore were thought bad enough for the people of other countries; uncircumcised and reprobate of God were with them synonymous terms; and they could say nothing of a person among themselves that would sound worse, than to liken him to a man of another nation. This is sufficiently evident out of the New Testament; for instance, when our Saviour speaks of a reprobate abandoned person, unfit for any communion, he says, Let him be to you as an heathen ; i. e. esteem him as vile as you do those of other nations, for so the word 'Eixos must signify; and he makes it more than once an argument to restrain his disciples from a sinful practice, because the "Elm, the nations, i. e. the heathens did so. But to say nothing more of a thing so well known, it is easy to see what notions the Jews had of all people besides themselves, as impure and unfit for conversation, from the history of St. Peter's vision, Acts x. For nothing less than a miracle would convince him of the lawfulness of his having any conversation with those, whom they called the "Exλnvas or "Elvy, i. e. of any other country besides his own ". He held it, as he says, an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one born in another country; the reason of which was, because they judged them unclean, and were afraid of being polluted by them.

Thucyd. 1. 1. §. 3. not. 5. in Scholiis. Strab. l. 14. p. 977. Vid. et Rom.

i. 14.

Matt. xviii. 17.

t Matt. vi. 7, and 32.

u Acts x. 28.