Origen’s revisions, and had also marginal references.  It is agreed that the Old Testament was translated from the original Hebrew and Chaldee, though the translators seem to have had before them the Greek version of the Seventy, and to have consulted it in the progress of their work

7.  The Peshito is a free, and at the same time, a faithful version of Scripture, holding the first place among the ancient versions for its general excellence, while it ranks with the Old Latin in antiquity.  Its authority in both textual criticism and interpretation is deservedly high.  As it regards textual criticism, however, its value is diminished by the fact that its text has not come down to us in a pure state.  It has suffered in the same way as the text of the Old Latin, though not to the same extent.

Among the manuscripts brought from the Nitrian monasteries, and deposited in the British Museum, is one of great antiquity, containing large portions of the four gospels in Syriac.  Dr. Cureton published in 1858 the text of this manuscript as “Remains of a very ancient Syriac recension of the four gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe,” with an English translation and preface.  Its appearance was hailed with lively interest and has excited warm discussions.  The manuscript itself is assigned to the fifth century, but it presents a text which, in the judgment of competent scholars, is older than the current text of the Peshito.  Whether it is an older form of the Peshito version, or another and earlier version of the gospels, is a question that has been differently answered.  It is maintained, on the one hand, that the Peshito is a revision of the Curetonian text, “replete with readings unknown in the second century” (Tregelles in Smith’s Bible Dict.); on the other, that it is “an older version than the Peshito; which the author or authors of the latter consulted throughout.”  Davidson in Alexander’s Kitto.  Its great value for critical purposes must be acknowledged by all.

In many characteristic readings it agrees with the oldest manuscripts and quotations.  It has also some erroneous readings known to be of great antiquity.  In a word, the high antiquity of its text cannot be reasonably questioned.  Drs. Cureton and Tregelles think that the gospel of Matthew may be a translation from the apostle’s Hebrew copy.  But this is denied by Davidson and others.

8.  The Philoxenian Syriac version was executed A.D. 508, under the auspices of Philoxenus, or Xenaias, bishop of Hierapolis or Mabug in Syria.  Philoxenus belonged to the sect of the Monophysites, and it is generally thought that the version was made in the interest of that sect.  The translator’s name was Polycarp, one of Philoxenus’ rural bishops.  With the exception, perhaps, of certain books (see below), the text of this version has not come down to us in its original form.  We have only a revision of it made A.D. 616 by Thomas