James Murdock, _The New Testament; or, The book of the holy gospel of Our Lord and Our God, Jesus the Messiah.: A Literal Translation from the Syriac Peshito Version_ (1855), 515pp., 497-501
https://books.google.com/books?id=SiVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=497
THE VALUE OF THE PESHITO VERSION.
The great value of this translation depends on its high antiquity, on the competence and fidelity of the translators, and on the near affinity of its language to that spoken by our Lord and his Apostles. In all these respects it stands pre-eminent among the numerous versions of the New Testament.
On this subject we will here give the published statements of various learned men who have devoted particular attention to this unrivalled version.
James Martini, a Professor at Wittemberg, in his elaborate Preface to the Syriac New Testament, edited by Trostius, in 1610, says: "Let those who speak lightly of this version know, that the Syriac, if not the very language in which Christ himself conversed with his Apostles, approaches very nearly to the vernacular tongue of our Saviour and his companions, and that into it the recent books of the New Testament were the first of all translated, and that, too, at the very time when the Apostles, (those divine teachers whom Christ himself had educated, and who were enlightened and instructed by the Holy Spirit,) were laying the first foundation of the Christian church among the nations. I admit that it is a _version_, but it is the _first_ and most ancient of all versions. It is a _version_, I say, but one to be preferred before all others, as being more authentic and more correct. It is a version, I say again, but made either by some one of the Evangelists, or certainly by one of those who had the Apostles present with them at Antioch, whom they could consult and hear speak on many of the obscurer passages. And therefore to this version only can we safely go, when any obscurity or difficulty occurs in the original Greek. This only can be safely consulted and relied upon, whenever there is doubt respecting the import or the rendering of any passage. By this only is the Greek text illuminated and correctly explained. For the authority of this version very nearly approximates (proxime accedit) to that of the Greek original."
Wolfgang Francius, a colleague of Martini, in his Treatise on Hermeneutics, (p. 46,) says: "This version, all the learned pronounce and declare to be the _purest_ of all versions: and, doubtless, it was so exactly transferred by the holy men, because _Christ_ spoke and discoursed in the Syriac language: so that we cannot doubt, that the Apostles and the apostolical men carefully inquired after and laid up the very words of Christ, and, with a holy veneration, endeavored to record them in this version."— And (p. 38) he says: "Among all the versions of the New Testament, that which holds the first rank, and is the most exact, felicitous, and divine, is certainly the Syriac, which, undoubtedly, was most faithfully handed down by apostolical men, who remembered well the recently uttered words of Christ and his Apostles, and understood their meaning. For Christ himself used this language."
Emanuel Tremellius, in the Preface to his Syriac New Testament, A. D. 1568, says: "It is entirely consonant with truth, that this version was formed at the very commencement of the Christian church, either by the _Apostles_ themselves or by their disciples: unless we would suppose that in writing they had regard only to strangers, and cared little or nothing for their own countrymen."
Brian Walton, in the Prolegomena to his Biblia Polyglotta, (p. 92,) says: "The Syriac version of the New Testament exhibits the native aspect, (faciem nativam,) of the original text, and confirms its integrity. For it follows the Greek text for the most part, ...[snipping 2 Greek words]..., strictly. For, the New Testament being written in _Greek_, by men whose vernacular language was _Syriac_, everywhere savors of _Syriasms_. Hence, Ludovicus de Dieu (in his Harmonia trium Linguarum) affirms, that the true import of the phraseology of the New Testament _can scarcely be learned, except from the Syriac_. For no one will say that the phraseology of the Evangelists and Apostles is _pure_ Greek: and it would be easier for Europeans to imitate the elegance of Plato and Aristotle, than for Plato and Aristotle to explain to us the New Testament, because the holy men _conceived in Syriac_, that which they _wrote in Greek_, injecting the force of their vernacular tongue into foreign words." After accounting for some diversity in the orthography of certain Syriac words, such as _Golgotha_, _Aceldama_, _Mammona_, &c., in the Greek and Syriac New Testaments, by saying, that the Peshito of both Testaments is written in _the Antiochian dialect_, and not in the dialect of Jerusalem, he concludes thus: "From these most ancient versions we infer, that this (the Syriac) language is of the highest importance, because the writers of the New Testament, to whom this language was vernacular, first preached the divine oracles in it to the Jews, and to the nations around them, and afterwards wrote them out in Greek, yet retaining everywhere the _spirit_ (_gustum_) of the Syriac. Nay, it was vernacular to the Lord and Saviour himself; He drew it in with his mother's milk: and in it, the only-begotten Son of God revealed to the world the will of God, and the express promises of eternal life. This language, He consecrated by his holy lips; in this language, He taught the doctrines of the Gospel; in it, He offered his prayers to the Father, laid open the mysteries hidden from the world, and heard the voice of the Father coming from heaven: so that we may say,
'Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei.'
And, as a poet has said of a Syrian lexicographer,
'Nos docet hic unus, Numinis ore loqui.'
Moreover, this is the language of the Christian doctors through nearly all the East, as appears from the Liturgies and Divine Offices almost everywhere performed in it."
….
John D. Michaelis, in his Introd. to the New Testament, (translation of Marsh, ed. London, 1802, vol. ii. P. I. p. 40, &c.,) says: "The Peschito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther .... holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraim and Bar-Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure; not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master in rendering those passages where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original: and this excellence of its style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. ... It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and (what is not to be regarded as a blemish) diners frequently from the modern mode of explanation. But I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in case of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray any weakness or 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 ever be read with profound veneration."
After a few sentences, Michaelis adds: "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 difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing; and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spoke with his disciples in the Aramaean language. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature. . . . This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ's _immediate disciples_."—(Ibid. p. 44.)
"The Syriac version .... leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, e. g. Matt. vi. 7; John, xvi. 2; Rom. ix. 22; and xiii. 3; and confirms some ancient rites in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was probably acquainted with the language of common life, as well as the language of books; and is, at least, of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages."—(p. 45.)
"The chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. . . . The difference between the Syriac version and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the productions of countries remote from Syria."
https://books.google.com/books?id=SiVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=497
THE VALUE OF THE PESHITO VERSION.
The great value of this translation depends on its high antiquity, on the competence and fidelity of the translators, and on the near affinity of its language to that spoken by our Lord and his Apostles. In all these respects it stands pre-eminent among the numerous versions of the New Testament.
On this subject we will here give the published statements of various learned men who have devoted particular attention to this unrivalled version.
James Martini, a Professor at Wittemberg, in his elaborate Preface to the Syriac New Testament, edited by Trostius, in 1610, says: "Let those who speak lightly of this version know, that the Syriac, if not the very language in which Christ himself conversed with his Apostles, approaches very nearly to the vernacular tongue of our Saviour and his companions, and that into it the recent books of the New Testament were the first of all translated, and that, too, at the very time when the Apostles, (those divine teachers whom Christ himself had educated, and who were enlightened and instructed by the Holy Spirit,) were laying the first foundation of the Christian church among the nations. I admit that it is a _version_, but it is the _first_ and most ancient of all versions. It is a _version_, I say, but one to be preferred before all others, as being more authentic and more correct. It is a version, I say again, but made either by some one of the Evangelists, or certainly by one of those who had the Apostles present with them at Antioch, whom they could consult and hear speak on many of the obscurer passages. And therefore to this version only can we safely go, when any obscurity or difficulty occurs in the original Greek. This only can be safely consulted and relied upon, whenever there is doubt respecting the import or the rendering of any passage. By this only is the Greek text illuminated and correctly explained. For the authority of this version very nearly approximates (proxime accedit) to that of the Greek original."
Wolfgang Francius, a colleague of Martini, in his Treatise on Hermeneutics, (p. 46,) says: "This version, all the learned pronounce and declare to be the _purest_ of all versions: and, doubtless, it was so exactly transferred by the holy men, because _Christ_ spoke and discoursed in the Syriac language: so that we cannot doubt, that the Apostles and the apostolical men carefully inquired after and laid up the very words of Christ, and, with a holy veneration, endeavored to record them in this version."— And (p. 38) he says: "Among all the versions of the New Testament, that which holds the first rank, and is the most exact, felicitous, and divine, is certainly the Syriac, which, undoubtedly, was most faithfully handed down by apostolical men, who remembered well the recently uttered words of Christ and his Apostles, and understood their meaning. For Christ himself used this language."
Emanuel Tremellius, in the Preface to his Syriac New Testament, A. D. 1568, says: "It is entirely consonant with truth, that this version was formed at the very commencement of the Christian church, either by the _Apostles_ themselves or by their disciples: unless we would suppose that in writing they had regard only to strangers, and cared little or nothing for their own countrymen."
Brian Walton, in the Prolegomena to his Biblia Polyglotta, (p. 92,) says: "The Syriac version of the New Testament exhibits the native aspect, (faciem nativam,) of the original text, and confirms its integrity. For it follows the Greek text for the most part, ...[snipping 2 Greek words]..., strictly. For, the New Testament being written in _Greek_, by men whose vernacular language was _Syriac_, everywhere savors of _Syriasms_. Hence, Ludovicus de Dieu (in his Harmonia trium Linguarum) affirms, that the true import of the phraseology of the New Testament _can scarcely be learned, except from the Syriac_. For no one will say that the phraseology of the Evangelists and Apostles is _pure_ Greek: and it would be easier for Europeans to imitate the elegance of Plato and Aristotle, than for Plato and Aristotle to explain to us the New Testament, because the holy men _conceived in Syriac_, that which they _wrote in Greek_, injecting the force of their vernacular tongue into foreign words." After accounting for some diversity in the orthography of certain Syriac words, such as _Golgotha_, _Aceldama_, _Mammona_, &c., in the Greek and Syriac New Testaments, by saying, that the Peshito of both Testaments is written in _the Antiochian dialect_, and not in the dialect of Jerusalem, he concludes thus: "From these most ancient versions we infer, that this (the Syriac) language is of the highest importance, because the writers of the New Testament, to whom this language was vernacular, first preached the divine oracles in it to the Jews, and to the nations around them, and afterwards wrote them out in Greek, yet retaining everywhere the _spirit_ (_gustum_) of the Syriac. Nay, it was vernacular to the Lord and Saviour himself; He drew it in with his mother's milk: and in it, the only-begotten Son of God revealed to the world the will of God, and the express promises of eternal life. This language, He consecrated by his holy lips; in this language, He taught the doctrines of the Gospel; in it, He offered his prayers to the Father, laid open the mysteries hidden from the world, and heard the voice of the Father coming from heaven: so that we may say,
'Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei.'
And, as a poet has said of a Syrian lexicographer,
'Nos docet hic unus, Numinis ore loqui.'
Moreover, this is the language of the Christian doctors through nearly all the East, as appears from the Liturgies and Divine Offices almost everywhere performed in it."
….
John D. Michaelis, in his Introd. to the New Testament, (translation of Marsh, ed. London, 1802, vol. ii. P. I. p. 40, &c.,) says: "The Peschito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther .... holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraim and Bar-Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure; not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master in rendering those passages where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original: and this excellence of its style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. ... It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and (what is not to be regarded as a blemish) diners frequently from the modern mode of explanation. But I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in case of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray any weakness or 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 ever be read with profound veneration."
After a few sentences, Michaelis adds: "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 difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing; and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spoke with his disciples in the Aramaean language. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature. . . . This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ's _immediate disciples_."—(Ibid. p. 44.)
"The Syriac version .... leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, e. g. Matt. vi. 7; John, xvi. 2; Rom. ix. 22; and xiii. 3; and confirms some ancient rites in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was probably acquainted with the language of common life, as well as the language of books; and is, at least, of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages."—(p. 45.)
"The chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. . . . The difference between the Syriac version and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the productions of countries remote from Syria."