Now this premised concerning the use and meaning of these words in the New Testament, I come to consider, how our Syriac translator has rendered them.

1.) The word "Eλany, by which the Jews denoted all the world besides themselves, the Syriac interpreter very often translates by a i. e. a profane, impious, sinful person. See John vii. 35. Acts xviii. 4, 17. Mark vii. 26. In other places he translates it ; i. e. a Syrian, Aramæus. So Acts xvi. 1, 3. xix. 10, 17. xx. 21. Rom. i. 16. ii. 9, 10. 1 Cor. i. 22, &c. x. 32. xii. 13. Gal. ii. 3, 14. iii. 28. Col. iii. 11. In other places i. e. Gentiles. John xii. 20. Acts xxi. 28. Rom. iii. 9.

2.) The word 'Elvixòs, i. e. a man of another nation, he translates i. e. profane or impious. Matt. vi. 7. xviii. 17. l 'Elvines, (which we translate after the manner of Gentiles,) Gal. ii. 14. he translates AL; i. e. after the manner of the Syrians; and so "Elvŋ, i. e. Gentiles, he renders commonly

but very often a i. e. profane. So Matt. x. 5. 1 Cor. v. 1. x. 20. xii. 2. 1 Pet. iv. 3.

Now from these translations I argue,

1. That the translator was one of the Jewish nation; else it would have been impossible for him so exactly to have formed his version to the Jewish notions. Who else would have taken every opportunity to have represented all the nations of the earth in such a manner? Nay, indeed, who besides could have thought of it, and so naturally formed himself into the Jewish way of speaking? Is it likely any one but a Jew would call all the world profane? or can it be thought, that a man, not accustomed to give these characters, could have so readily on all occasions have done it? But to put the matter out of doubt, I will single out one of his words, viz. ; Armojo, which he most commonly uses for "Eλλŋ, as may be seen above. The word is the very same with the old Hebrew, which signified a Syrian, or native of Syria. Now to understand the reason of this appellation, viz. why Gentile and Syrian, or profane, were among the Jews synonymous terms; we must observe, that though they were a part of Syria, as the word is generally used by geographers, yet they did not look upon themselves as such, but always had a very contemptible opinion

of the Syrians, as being idolaters. So we find in Onkelos's Chaldee version and, i. e. uncircumcised and Syrian, are used promiscuously to denote any foreigner or profane person, Lev. xxv. 47. because they were their nearest neighbours and idolaters; and the first idolaters mentioned in scripture were Syrians, viz. Thare, Nachor, and Laban¤; perhaps also because when the Israelites were taught to humble themselves before God, in their form of confession, were these words, Our father was a Syrian ready to perishy. Thus it came to pass, that the word Syrian among the Jews denoted a profane person, or an idolater, as the word "Eλλŋy did, when they wrote in Greek; and accordingly in the New Testament z the Syrian woman is called 'Exλnvis. Now the Syriac interpreter using the word Syrian for a Gentile or profane person, evidences that himself was certainly a Jew; for to no other nation could those words, Greek and Syrian, be synonymously and promiscuously used for idolaters or heathens.

2. As this translator was a Jew, so from the translation of these words it seems evident, that he lived either before, or not long after the conquest of Jerusalem. For when the Jews were scattered abroad in the world, they who were become Christians, such as this interpreter must necessarily be supposed to be, could not but learn, that these distinctions were now to cease, and as the apostles taught them, it was neither Jew nor Gentile, circumcised nor uncircumcised, but the new creature only, that was acceptable to God. While their temple stood, and they continued together as a people, one may well suppose, that even a Christianized Jew would retain his former notions of all the rest of the world being profane; and indeed this was really fact, as to a great part of the convert Jews, and the best reason that can be assigned for the Syriac translation of the forementioned words. But afterwards they could not but see, I mean those of them who embraced Christianity, that, as Christ had foretold, their former differences were to be laid aside, no persons to be reckoned common and unclean, all sincere persons, of whatever country, were equally acceptable to God, &c. and in consequence of this, their old denominations

* Bochart. Phaleg. 1. 2. c. 5.

y Deut. xxvi. 5.

z Mark vii. 26. Vid. omnino Joan. Camero Myrothec. ad Matt. xviii. 17.

must cease; and so this version be made either before, or soon after their dispersion.

Nor can it be objected, that the Syriac interpreter knew no other words, whereby to translate the above-mentioned Greek ones; for, it is certain, that he not only knew others, but with a great deal of accuracy and justice has made use of them. Thus when the word "ExAny in the New Testament is put to denote those who were properly Grecians, or inhabitants of Greece, he makes use of the word . i. e. 'Iwviç, or 'Iwvinòs, a Greek, properly so called. So when Paul, according to the forementioned distinction of the Greeks, divides all mankind into "Exλnvas and Bapßápovs, he uses the word a Rom. i. 14. and in another place, where he thought the same distinction was made, viz. Col. iii. 11. he uses the same word. So when he means the proper natives of Greece, he calls them Acts xiv. 1. xvii. 4, 12, &c. and the Greek language he always styles A. as Luke xxiii. 38. John xix. 20. Acts ix. 29. xxi. 37. This is a most convincing argument, that where he translates the word "Eλλŋy, profane, he spake according to the notions and language of the Jews; and therefore that he lived in the time above-mentioned.

CHAP. XVIII.

The Syriac translation is of the greatest antiquity, because there is a most remarkable agreement between it and our most ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I HAVE in the foregoing chapter produced two several instances, or arguments, out of the Syriac version, which evidence its antiquity. The only one I shall mention further is,

III. Its agreement with the best and most ancient copies of the New Testament. This, though perhaps it will not prove it to be of that age I contend for, will at least prove it of very great antiquity. He who will read Beza's larger Annotations on the New Testament, will frequently observe, that the Syriac translation and his famous manuscript, undoubtedly the oldest now in the world, (which he gave to the university of Cambridge,) do in many things agree, where they both differ from others. The same may be said of several other

ancient copies. I shall omit instances, which any one may easily collect, and only establish further its antiquity, by considering the omission of some things, which are found in all our printed copies; first premising, that I do not here determine any thing concerning those passages, the Syriac version being liable to the same corruptions as the Greek copies. This premised, I observe,

1. That our present Syriac version has not the history of the adulterous woman, John viii. It is indeed inserted in our English Polyglots, out of a manuscript of archbishop Usher's, and afterwards by Schaaf from thence put into his late edition in Holland, but was wanting in the old Syriac copy. And so we find in many of the most ancient Greek manuscripts, and not mentioned by many of the oldest Christian writers. Most of Beza's manuscripts indeed had ita; but of a great number which Maldonate consulted, but one had it. Erasmus says, it was wanting in most of the Greek copies, but inserted at the end of some of them. In the Greek Catena of twenty-three ancient fathers on John, not one had itd. Neither Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Chrysostom, Nonnus, (who wrote a Paraphrase on John,) nor Theophylact, &c. make any mention of ite. Father Simon saw many old manuscripts in France, which had it not, only some of them at the end f. I need cite no more; it is plain, it was formerly wanting in many copies, which, with what has been said above, seems to be a good argument of the antiquity of the Syriac version.

2. The version has not the famous controverted text, 1 John v. 7. The late Dutch editor has unfairly inserted it in the text, though he knew it was in no manuscript, and that what he inserted was only Tremellius's translation out of Greek 8. As the former verses, so this also is wanting in almost all the ancient manuscripts, and is not cited by any of the ancient writers against the Arians in the fourth century, nor even in the council of Nice; though some suppose it was made use of by Cyprian before that time. But this is a well known

a Annot. in Joan. vii. 53.

b Comment. in Joan. viii. apud Simon. Critic. Hist. of the New Test. part 1. c. 13.

c Annot. in loc.

d Vid. Simon. loc. cit.

e Bez. loc. cit.

f Simon. loc. cit.

g Var. Lect. ad Calc. Test. Syriac. h Father Simon's Critic. Hist. of the New Test. part 1. c. 18.

subject. I only infer, that the want of this text in the very oldest manuscripts, proves the great antiquity of the Syriac

version.

3. The old Syriac version has not in it the four catholic Epistles, (viz. the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Epistle of Jude,) nor the Revelation. It is true, these are added in the last printed editions, as I have observed above, but were wanting in the old manuscripts, which I take to be a very considerable proof of the antiquity of the version; for their being wanting must necessarily proceed from one of these three causes, viz. either,

1.) Because they were not written when this version was made; or,

2.) Because the knowledge of them was not yet come to the Syrian churches, for whom this translation was made; or, 3.) Because they were not yet universally received into the number of canonical books.

Now whichsoever of these be said, the antiquity of the version will be sufficiently established. But the first of these seems most probable; because, as I shall hereafter shew, the churches of Syria did both know and receive several of these books at least as canonical in the second century, as it is certain they do now, though it seems they are not ordinarily bound with the others in the same volume, and read in their churches; a very probable reason of which the reader may see in Mr. Richardson's Answer to Toland's Amyntork. Until therefore any thing more probable can be said on the contrary, which I dare say has not yet been done, I think it fair to conclude, that the four canonical Epistles above-mentioned not being in the old Syriac copies of the New Testament, evidences this version was made before they were written. This argument was thought so conclusive by Tremellius and our learned bishop Walton, that from it they were persuaded to believe this version was made in the apostles' time.

Thus have I largely endeavoured to evince the antiquity of the Syriac version; from which how evidently the truth of my

i So Guido Fabritius assures us,

Præf. in Vers. Lat. Syr. Test.

k Page 18.

1 Præf. in Nov. Test. Syr.

m Proleg. in Bib. Polyglott. xiii.

§. 15.