[Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the existence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian origin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New.  But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting Hegesippus ([Greek:  ek te tou kath’ Hebraious euangeliou kai tou Syriakou ... tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by Routh as having reference not to any ’version of the Gospel, but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel’ like that according to the Hebrews.  In any case the Syriac Scriptures ’were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa’ (299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337 and 344 [Endnote 323:1].

A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian fragments.  There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems rapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the same relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome’s Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version.  The strength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very cautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his Introduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly antagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M’Clellan, who is usually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his opponents [Endnote 323:2].  All the writers who have hitherto been mentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in the second century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian.  Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that ’the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have concluded would be current in the second century’ [Endnote 323:3].  English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of Continental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was imperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet asserts that the Syriac version ’belongs without doubt to the second century A.D.’ [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the beginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third century.

The question as to the age of the version is not necessarily identical with that as to the age of the particular form of it preserved in Cureton’s fragments.  This would hold the same sort of relation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b, or c—­any primitive codex of the version—­holds to the original text of the Old Latin.  It also appears that the translation into Syriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew’s, was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote 324:4].  Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be glad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text to the second century make to the observation that it contains the reading [Greek:  Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally