of Harkel in a monastery of Alexandria, whence this version is also called the Harclean Syriac.  The characteristic of this version is its extremely literal character.  It is the translator’s aim to represent every Greek word, even the article, by a corresponding Syriac word, even where the idiom of the language must thereby be violated.  Hence its style is of necessity barbarous.  But this very character of literalness gives to the Philoxenian version high authority in respect to textual criticism.  So far as it has come down to us in its primitive form, it is, in truth, equal to the Greek text of its own time.

About the time that Thomas of Harkel revised the Philoxenian version of the New Testament, Paul of Tela, another Monophysite, executed what is called the Hexaplar Syriac version of the Old Testament, because it was made from the text of Origen’s Hexaplar.  Chap. 16, No. 12.  It coincides with the Philoxenian version of the New Testament in respect to its character as well as the time of its appearance, being made on the principle of following the Greek text word for word as exactly as possible.  Thus the Hexaplar version of the Old, and the Philoxenian version of the New, constitute together a whole of like character throughout.

After the example of Origen, Paul introduced into his version asterisks and obeli; the asterisk (*) to indicate insertions made in the text on the authority of manuscripts and other versions; the obelus (/), to mark passages of doubtful character.  Thus it supplies, as far as a version can, the Hexaplar of Origen, of which only a few fragments remain.

The Philoxenian version of the New Testament, as revised by Thomas of Harkel, contains also the same asterisks and obeli.  Critical marks and marginal readings also appear in most of the manuscripts.  This critical apparatus is generally thought to have proceeded from Thomas himself, in imitation of the Hexaplar Syriac of the Old Testament; but whether to indicate comparison with the Peshito, or with the Greek manuscripts employed by Thomas is not certain.

There is a version of the Catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito—­2 Pet., 2, 3 John, Jude—­existing in two forms, one of which is thought to be the unrevised Philoxenian text.  There is a codex at Rome containing the four gospels which has also been supposed to contain the same unrevised text.

The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, containing simply lessons from the four gospels, is a peculiar version known to us from a single manuscript in the Vatican Library which belongs to the eleventh century.  The version itself is referred by some to the sixth century, by others to a later date.  Its dialect is barbarous, being a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac, but its readings are said often to coincide with the oldest and best authorities.

III.  EGYPTIAN AND ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.