language, especially when they certainly believed the inspiration of the one as well as the other? I might farther argue this from the character of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and other Bishops of Syria, who muft needs be very defective in their duty to the Churches over which they were fet, if they did not take care they should be supplied with the inspired volumes, which themselves valued fo much. I conclude therefore, that as a Verfion into Syriack was neceffary to be made in or near the Apostles' time, so it is probable one was then made. Obf. 4. The Chriftians of Syria were wont to read the facred Scriptures of the New Testament in their Churches and publick affemblies very foon after the Apostles' time; and therefore a tranflation of them was then made into the Syriack language. Although I might confirm this Observation by many instances, yet the inftance which I fball produce being so demonstrative of the fact, I fhall content myself with producing only that. The paffage I refer to is that of Juftin Martyr, who lived in the beginning of the second century, and plainly speaks of himself as being a difciple of the Apostles, 'Atosóhwv ysróμeros padlás'. He tells us, that in their religious affemblies every Sunday the writings of the Apostles and Prophets were read". Now Juftin was a native, as he himself fays ", of Palaeftine in Syria, viz. Neapolis in Samaria, in which country, as has been proved, Syriack was the language. Now unless a Verfion was made of the Apoftles' writings into this language, it had been very prepofterous for them, to have read them in their Churches; unless we fuppofe them like the later Papifts, who will neither fuffer tranflations of the Scriptures to be made into other languages, nor any other to be read in the Churches, but fuch as the people do not underftand. This argument I look upon as conclufive, and therefore fhall anticipate an objection or two, which fome perhaps may be apt to raise against it. As, 1. That Juftin dwelt at Rome, and not in Syria, where he was born. To which I answer, that though it be certain Justin was at Rome, yet the accounts we have of him feem to intimate, that he went there only with a view of presenting his memorials for the Chriftian Religion to the Emperor and Senate, and that he was not a refident of Rome; and therefore when this was done, he returned again to Afia, and at Ephesus he had that famous difpute with Trypho the Jew, which is ftill extant P. This seems not unlikely to have been either as he was going to Rome from Syria, or returning to Syria from Rome; because in the end of the difpute he tells us, they prayed for his fafety in the voyage he was then going to make. It is true indeed, the words in Eufebius', 'Eπì rãs Ῥώμης τὰς διατριβὰς ἐποιεῖτο, are commonly tranflateds as though they expreffed his fixed habitation at Rome; but the words. imply no fuch thing, but more properly are fignificative of fuch a continuance, as is made by a traveller on a journey; and fo we find the word dagi is continually made use of in the New Teftament, to denote the continuance of our Saviour and his Apoftles for a few days in a place, till they removed to another. Befides, there is another fenfe, which may be given. to Eufebius's words, much better than that of his tranflators, viz. if we take dallas w to fignify his having publick conferences, and making public difcourfes. This feems most agreeable to the context of Eufebius; and is most evident in that Jerome and Photius *, fpeaking of Juftin's being at Rome, inftead of διατριβὰς ἐποιεῖτο have διατριβὰς ἔχε, which can be taken in no other than the sense last given; especially if we confider, that Photius adds the word poop, which, though it be not placed fo as to be connected with dapibas, yet evidently ought to be, and the firft Latin tranflator read it • Vide Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 16. Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. in Juftin. & Phot. Bibliothec. Cod. CXXV. P Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 18. 9 Dialog. cum Tryph. Jud. in fine. r Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 11. in fine. s Vid. Verf. Chriftophorfon. &. Valef. t John iii. 22. xi. 54. Acts xii. 19. xiv. 3, 28. xv. 35. xvi. 12. xx. 6. and several other places. u Catal. Script. Eccl. in Juftin. * Phot. Biblioth. cxxv. fo. fo. I conclude therefore, that Juftin's abode at Rome was only as a stranger or traveller, and that Syria, his native country, was still his home; and consequently, when he declares to the Emperor the customs of the Christian affemblies, he means the Churches in Syria; and so that a Version was made in the Syriack language, because the writings of the New Teftament were read in them. 2. It may be farther objected, that Juftin could not speak of the books of the New Testament being read in the Syrian Churches, and that he himself did not refide in Syria, because he was unacquainted with the Hebrew or Syriack language, as seems to be evident from his works. Dr. Cave produces a very remarkable inftance of it, viz. his deriving the word Satana from Sata, which, says he, in the language of the Jews and Syrians fignifies an Apoftate, and Nas (on which account he is called a Serpent) and denotes the fame as Sata in their language". To which I answer, that though the derivation be, as Dr. Cave fays, very childish and ridiculous, because every one who knows any thing of Hebrew now is fure it is derived from the verb w, which fignifies to hate with malice, yet I think it cannot hence be concluded, that Juftin did not live in Syria: for, (1.) The verb was not in the Syriack language, but another always made use of instead of it. As there are in the Syriack abundance of words, which are not in the old Hebrew, fo abundance in Hebrew, which were not in Syriack. As the language altered, many words were both brought in and left out, among which this was one: this I conclude, because another verb is always made use of in the Syriack Version of the New Testament to denote the idea, and never this; so that a native of Syria could not give a just etymology of this word, without being acquainted with the old Hebrew, which at that time, it is certain, was known but to very few, especially out of Jerufalem. (2.) Suppofe the verb you had been common in Syriack, it will be a mighty strange confequence to infer, that Justin was not an inhabitant of Syria, because he thought another verb or noun in the fame language, and not that, was the root of any particular word. Were I to make use of the fame argument in refpect of an European language, and to conclude, for inftance, a person was not an inhabitant of England, because he could not tell, or fhould mistake the Latin or Saxon original of any English word; the reasoning would be apparently very weak, and the consequence would be, that but a very few ininhabitants would be left in England. The cafe is exactly the fame. (3.) This verb was not common in the Hebrew itself, not being above once or twice to be found in the Hebrew Bible. (4.) Justin, though a Samaritan or native of Palaftine, was born of Gentile parents; as appears by the names of his father and grandfather, which, he fays, were Prifcus and Bacchius; was educated in the philosophy and learning of Greece, as is evident from the accounts of Eufebius, Jerome, and Photius; and therefore, though he might understand his own country language, it is not at all strange he was no critick in it. But, (5.) For proof that Juftin understood Syriack, I think we need go no farther than this very place which is objected. If he had not, how did he know the word Satana was of Hebrew or Syriack original, and apply to that language for its etymology? Why did he not, as other Fathers unacquainted with this language are often ridiculously wont, apply to the Greek for its original? This evidently proves he knew the language. Befides, to put the matter past all controversy, I observe, upon a close and critical enquiry, the two words (viz. Sata b Præf. in Apol. 2. Jerome indeed feems to take them as one name of his father, but is mistaken. Vid. Valef. ad Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1.4. c. 12. Locis fupra citatis. d Thus Lactantius Divin. Instit. 1. 4. c. 26. and others, derive Paf cha, the Paffover, from the Greek waxw to fuffer, because Christ suffered at the Paffover, or because that was typical of Chrift. Others derive the name Jefus from iaw fano, &c. which etymologies every body knows are trifling, and and Nas, from which he derives Satanas) are purely and properly Syriack words, which denote very exactly the nature of Satan, or the Devil, as it is represented in Scripture. This discovery I take to be of fome confequence, and therefore shall endeavour to fhew it more clearly. 1.) The first word is Sata; this, fays Juftin, fignifies an Apoftate, in the language of the Jews and Syrians; and fo, I observe, it does. The original Hebrew verb is no which fignifies to feduce, or deceive, or draw afide, and is the very word made use of to express Satan's feducing David to number the people. Hence came the verb NDD very common in Chaldee, to draw aside, or go aside, and the Syriack fignifying the very fame; and fo the participle Peal of this verb in Syriack will denote one that goes afide, or an Apoftate and deceiver of others, and that participle is Sate, or Sata, the very word that Juftin produces. This verb is very common in this sense in the Syriack translation of the New Teftament; and Gal. iii. 19. the noun derived from it fignifies Apoftacy. The reader learned in these things fee the inftances in Dr. Caftell's Polyglot Lexicon, and Schaaf's and Troftius's Syriack Lexicons. may 2.) The other word is Nas. This, says Justin, fignifies the fame as Sata in Hebrew or Syriack, and denotes that, on the account of which Satan is called Serpent. Nothing can be more just than this. The word is apparently Syriack, derived from the known Hebrew root ПD3, which in Piel fignifies to tempt, and is used of God's tempting Abraham. In the Syriack it is often used in the fame fenfe; and the noun formed from it denotes frequently the Tempter 8, on which account Satan is called Serpent. So that nothing can be more evident, than that Justin understood the Syriack language; and confequently his want of knowledge of it can be no objection to his living in Syria. I conclude therefore, that if e 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. The word Satan is not indeed in our prefent copies in that place; but either it by fome means dropt out of the text, or at least must be fupplied from 1 Chron. xxi. 1. where it is. Vid. H 3 See the Lexicons cited above. the |