6

6

It is worthy of remark that many of those idioms of the Old Testament which are proper to the Hebrew, and of the New Testament, which we term Hebraisms, are often as truly Syriasms. Hence, frequently it occurs that a phrase or a sentence, which in the Greek Testament was obscure, is quite intelligible when presented to us here, in a language so much more congenial with the writer's habits of thought and utterance. This remark relates specially to the use of certain particles, and an unusual application of nouns and verbs, e. g. 1 Cor. x. 2, And all of them were baptized by the hand of Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.' Again, Ch. xv. 29, Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized instead of the dead?' In Heb. vi. 4, already quoted, is another example, where тovs äτak pwriσtévraç is rendered those who have once descended to baptism,' or rather a baptistery.' The following are different: John i. 1, 'The word' is a feminine noun, with a masculine verb and pronoun, giving the translator's view of the personality of the Word and its reference to Christ. In ch. xiv. 1, the verb is imperative, Believe in God and in me believe.' So also in ch. v. 37. The translator's view of the Lord's day is given in 1 Cor. ii. 20, When therefore ye assemble, ye do not eat and drink as becometh the Day of the Lord.' As instances of the unusual application of nouns, Guthier gives these. (Preface to Reader--N. T.) Bißλos for catalogue, Mt. 1. 1: Enpa for land, Mt. 23, 15: nav pñpa, for anything, Luke i. 37, OKεvos, for the instrument of the rational soul, the body, 1 Thess. iv. 4. ἀιών for world, ἀδελφός for associate, εἰρήνη for every good, ἀστεῖος T 08 for very beautiful, Acts vii. 20. Such a use of words was perfectly natural to the writers of the New Testament, and equally so to those who executed the Syriac version, hence we generally find these simply transferred from one language to the other.

6

But without further details, we might next inquire who have investigated and exhibited the character and claims of the Syriac version during the last three centuries? and what use has been made of it? The answer to these questions might be long, but it may be short. There are the editors of editions and translations, and the compilers of Grammars and Lexicons. In this list we find such names as Buxtorf Jun., Pococke, De Dieu, Walton, Castell, Michaëlis, Lee, Bernstein, Hoffmann, Greenfield. Then there are the annotators who have availed themselves of it, such as Beza, Piscator, De Dieu, &c. There are the editors of the New Testament in Greek; the writers of introductions to the study of the Holy Scriptures; and those who have produced separate treatises on the subject, a list which would be more lengthy than instructive, and yet would include some of the names most known and honoured in sacred literature. Reference has before been made to Dr. Wiseman's Hore Syriace, of which the first part appeared in 1828 at Rome, the remainder has not been published. The intention of this book seems to be principally twofold: 1. To refute the too hasty statement that there is in Syriac no word which expresses to signify, represent, or denote: and 2. To describe a Syriac мs. called the 'recensio Karkaphensis,' which is in the Vatican. There is no doubt that the first of these objects has been attained, though it is questionable whether the Romanist doctrine of the Eucharist has been by any

means confirmed by the entire discussion. On the contrary, Dr. Lee rendered the Protestant doctrine essential service, by giving a true interpretation of the very authorities referred to by Dr. Wiseman.

There is one other treatise to which a brief space shall be assigned; it is a critical examination of the Syriac version of the epistle to the Ephesians, by Dr. Löhlein (Erlangen, 1835). We mention this, because it exhibits the principles on which a comparison of this translation with the Greek text should be instituted. Although others have made this comparison of certain books, as Acts, James, &c., yet the plan of this brief essay may be presented; the rather as it may be done in a few words. After a preface containing sundry observations on the writings of others, Dr. L. treats:-1. Of the care and caution which must be employed in comparing this translation with the Greek original. 2. He shows that respect must be had to the various readings of the Peshito. 3. Even when all the Ms. and editions of the Syriac agree, too much importance must not be attached to the circumstance, owing to the alterations which this text is asserted to have undergone from the Nestorians and others. 4. Too much confidence must not be reposed in the vowel points, which are of a more recent date than the version itself. 5. There are differences of idiom which may render a departure from the exact expression of the Greek text necessary. These must be carefully observed, because hence arise certain omissions, additions, and alterations. 6. Customary deviations from the wording of the Greek text do not constitute a various reading. 7. Those variations which appear to depend upon the taste and caprice of a translator, or upon the customary order of words in any common phrase. From both these will also arise omissions, alterations, and additions, as well as a transposition of the order of the words of a sentence. 8. Some differences may have arisen from the fallibility and inaccuracy of both translators and copyists. 9. If these rules and facts are attended to we may consider ourselves to be in a position to judge of the actual relation of the two texts.

It is evident that these, or some such principles, should guide us in comparing the entire translation with its originals; and that rules not very different should and must influence us in comparing any other version in a similar manner. It is because they are few, short, plain, and to the purpose that we have given them.

But it is not desirable to prolong our observations, therefore we conIclude with a few words on the value of this version.

We think it may be safely said, that there is no ancient translation of the New Testament at least, more valuable than this for critical purposes. Whatever be the worth of the LXX as a translation of the Old Testament equally belongs to the Syriac Peshito of the New. This is the oldest version of the one, as that is of the other. Both represent a recension of the originals prior to any мs. we possess. As a translation, the Syriac is the more correct. It was, moreover, made into a language with which the chief actors in the Gospels, and most of the writers of the New Testament were acquainted, if indeed it were not vernacular to them. Clearly, if a knowledge of the Greek of the

Old Testament be important, so also is an acquaintance with the Syriac of the New. Is the style of the LXX capable of illustrating the Greek of the New Testament? So is that of the Syriac version: for if there are Hellenisms there are Syriasms. Perhaps many supposed to be the former are really the latter. Are there Hebraisms both in the LXX and in the Greek New Testament? Many of these are as much and as truly Syriasms. The more we consider the matter the more we wonder, that while some of the versions have been so much studied this has been so little. All who have written upon the actual or comparative value of translations have owned the worth of this. It has had the fortune to be praised by all, and by most to be neglected, as if praise were an equivalent for attention. While we place it at least as high as the LXX, we place it higher than the Latin Vulgate in every respect in which one translation is better than another. It is more ancient; it was made by more competent translators, because they lived nearer the time and place in which the New Testament had its birth; they knew the language of the country; they were no strangers to national habits of feeling, thought, and action, such as give a tinge to the style of the Greek New Testament. Whatever exceptions may be made on the ground of a corrupted text, we remember that a Tischendorf for the Vulgate has yet to arise, as he has but just arisen for the LXX: we cannot think that the doctrinal tendencies of the translators of the Syriac were so powerful as those of the Latin Vulgate, or if they were, that they were so alien from those of the apostolic Church. At present, much has been done for the Septuagint; something for the Vulgate; but little for the Peshito. And yet we do not admit that its text is so far deteriorated as to prevent its being brought into honourable comparison with them, and its being pre-eminently useful to the wise student of the Word of God.

Therefore we conscientiously commend this branch of sacred study to those who, in discharging the functions of their high calling, would rightly divide the word of truth. They will be aided by its use to obtain such views of divine truth as will be alike new, interesting, and refreshing. In other cases previous views will be confirmed when correct; or corrected if erroneous; and in general, the result will be a calmer reliance upon the substantial integrity of those transcripts of God's revealed will, with which in His Providence he has favoured us, and a more abiding satisfaction with the principles of that system which the Apostle denominates the glorious gospel of the Blessed God.' The reason is plain; all the higher qualifications essential to a true translator of the Divine Word-those which can be found alone in him that has experienced its salutary power-here concentre, and in the personal experience and faith of such a man, seen in his work, the Christian student will sympathise, while all unconsciously perhaps he will be refreshed by them, and assimilated to them.

If then this knowledge is so desirable, we trust the time is nigh when it shall be far more general. May the Providence of God soon say of this hidden treasury, as the Redeemer, of the man that was blind, when 'he sighed and said unto him Ephphatha! that is, be opened!'

B. H. C.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. By JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature to the United Presbyterian Church. London and Glasgow Griffin. 8vo. Pp. xliv., 466.

We have very great pleasure in introducing to our readers this truly learned production. A large volume on one small portion of Holy Scripture is something novel in our country, though common enough among our continental neighbours. As an English writer, Stuart set this example of exhaustive criticism and commentary, in his works on the Romans and the Hebrews, and we gladly welcome Dr. Eadie's similar effort on the Epistle to the Ephesians. It is only in this way that we can expect our divines to do full justice to the Word of God. Life is too short, in most instances, to allow of one pen to write a learned exposition of the Bible; but this is not the principal reason for our desiring monographs. Although the Scriptures relate, generally, to one grand object, they offer immense diversity in the characters of the different parts. A man who could expound Isaiah would not necessarily be competent to meet the difficulties of the Acts of the Apostles; nor would a clever exegesis of Genesis fit the writer to be equally successful with the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Dr. Eadie is a graceful and spirited writer, and knows how to clothe the hard outlines of textual criticism with the drapery of warm thoughts and elegant language. Perhaps by some this will be thought no advantage, preferring, as they may do, a dry and scientific treatment in matters of criticism. But as the exposition of the text of Holy Writ derives its peculiar value from the matter it professes to illustrate, we are delighted when it displays an animated interest in the subject before it, and glows with delight as its beauties are pointed out and its intricacies made plain. A skilful anatomist is none the worse for being a man of feeling and sentiment, who will accompany the dissection of a nerve with some observation to his pupils on the fine adaptation of the delicate mechanism before him to its results; so a commentator, in our opinion, loses none of his claim to confidence when it is seen that he personally delights in the Law and Word of God.

We cannot now attempt to do justice to the whole of this volume, but will confine ourselves to the introductory matter. Under the head, 'Title and Destination of the Epistle,' Dr. Eadie fully discusses the question, whether it was really written and sent to Ephesus; or in other words, whether the words in the first verse, év 'Epéow, are spurious or genuine. Tischendorf, in his last edition, retains them in the

text, but puts them in brackets as doubtful. We think Dr. Eadie is correct, in allowing a vast amount of early authority to counterbalance the adverse criticism. He alludes to internal evidence, and that, we think, has greater strength than is always perceived. We are aware that fancy has done something in finding allusions, in the Epistle, to the circumstances of the Ephesians, but even when her wings are pinioned, sober induction can find much that, as we think, is indisputable. Dr. Eadie has given the evidence, for and against, very fully and fairly, and decides for the retention of the old opinion, that St. Paul wrote this Epistle for the Ephesians.

As specimens of the warm and graphic style of Dr. Eadie, we give the following:

"But "no small stir" was made by the progress of Christianity, and its victorious hostility to magic and idolatry. The temple of Diana, or the Oriental Artemis, had long been regarded as one of the wonders of the world, and "all Asia" worshipped the goddess. The city claimed the title of vewkópos, a title which, meaning originally "temple-sweeper," was regarded at length as the highest honour, and often engraved on the current coinage. The town-clerk artfully introduced the mention of this honour into the commencement of his speech; for though the whole province claimed an interest in the temple, and it was often named & TŷS 'Aoías vάos, yet Ephesus enjoyed the special honour of being the guardian or sacristan of the gaudy edifice. And the Ephesians were quite fanatical in their admiration and wardenship of the magnificent colonnades. Their quarries of Mount Prion had supplied the marble; the art and wealth of Ephesian citizens, and the jewellery of Ephesian ladies, had been plentifully contributed for its adornment; its hundred and twenty-seven graceful columns, some of them richly carved and coloured, were each the gift of a king; its doors, ceiling, and staircase were formed respectively of cypress, cedar, and vine-wood; it had an altar by Praxiteles, and a picture by Apelles; and in its coffers reposed no little of the opulence of Western Asia. A many-breasted idol of wood, rude as an African fetich, was worshipped in its shrine, in some portions of which a meteoric stone may have been inserted, the token of its being "the image that fell from Jupiter." Still further, a flourishing trade was carried on in the manufacture of silver shrines, or models of a portion of the temple. These are often referred to by ancient writers, and as few strangers seem to have left Ephesus without such a memorial of their visit, this artistic business "brought no small gain to the craftsmen." But the spread of Christianity was fast destroying such gross and material superstition and idolatry, for one of its first lessons was, as Demetrius rightly declared-" they be no gods which are made with hands."-P. 11.

Whatever emotions the Church of Ephesus felt on receiving such a communication, the effects produced were not permanent. Though warned by its Lord, it did not return to its "first love," but gradually languished and died. The candlestick was at length removed out of his place, and Mahomedan gloom overspread the city. The external scene has also become one of melancholy desolation. The sea has retired from the harbour, and left behind it a pestilential morass. Fragments of columns, arches, and porticos are strewn about, and the wreck and rubbish of the great temple can scarcely be distinguished. The brood of the partridge nestles on the spot of the theatre and stadium; its streets are ploughed by the Ottoman serf, and the heights of Coressus are only visited by wandering flocks of goats. The best of the ruins-its columns of green jasper-were transplanted by Justinian to Constantinople, to adorn the dome of the great church of Sancta Sophia, and some were carried into Italy. A straggling village of the name of Ayasaluk, or Asalook, is the wretched representative of the great commercial metropolis of Ionia. While thousands in every portion of Christendom read this Epistle with delight, no one now remains to read it in the place to which it was originally addressed. Truly the threatened blight has fallen on Ephesus.'P. 41.