Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions
Chapter Four: On the Syriac Edition
On the Syriac edition three things need to be said. First what the difference is between the Syriac and Chaldee tongues. Next, which Sacred Books are possessed in the Syriac tongue. Lastly, how much authority this edition has.
As regards the first point, the Syriac tongue is a sort of offspring of the Hebrew and Chaldee tongues. The Hebrews, indeed, who up to the Babylonian captivity were accustomed only to speak Hebrew, that is, their own tongue, began, when they were in Babylon, to forget their own tongue and to learn a foreign one, that is, the Chaldee; but because they were not able to pronounce it perfectly and always retained something from Hebrew, the result was that a certain third tongue was born, mixed of Hebrew and Chaldee, and this is the one the Hebrews thereafter had for their common and mother tongue.
But it is called Syriac from the region where it was most in vigor, or Jerusalemic, from the chief city of the Hebrews, just as the Chaldee tongue, which gets this name from the region of Chaldea, is also called Babylonic, from the most noble city of Chaldea. Further, these two languages are distinguished by their characters, their verb conjugations, their affixes, the notation of the pointings, the sound of the vowels, the idioms, and in almost the whole structure of the language, and also in many particular words.
But as to the second point, first it is certain that no book of the Old Testament was written by its first author in this tongue, save perhaps the first book of Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus, the first of which Jerome writes in the Galeatic Prologue that he saw in Hebrew, and he writes the same about the second in his prologue to Proverbs. For it is credible that these books were written in the vulgar tongue of the Hebrews, that is, in Syriac, although these books are not extant at the present time save in Greek. About the remaining books it is clear that they were written by their first authors either in Hebrew or Chaldee or Greek.
About the New Testament there is greater doubt. It is indeed very probable that the Gospel of St. Matthew and the epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews were written in the Syriac tongue; for it is proved with very effective arguments by Albert Widmestadius, Chancellor to the Emperor Ferdinand, who was the first in Europe to see to the printing of the Syriac New Testament; and also by Guido Fabricius, whose Latin translation of the Syriac New Testament is in the royal Bibles.
Nor are in conflict with this the ancient writers, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, who say that these books, and especially the Gospel of St. Matthew, were written in Hebrew; for they are speaking of the Hebrew tongue that was common at the time of the Apostles, just as everywhere in the Gospel itself we read something said in Hebrew, which however it is clear was said in the common tongue, that is, Syriac, as is that verse of John ch.19: “He went out to the place called Calvary, or in Hebrew Golgotha.” On which words see St. Jerome in his book on Hebrew Names, where he has carefully noted all the words that are Syriac, although however they are called Hebraic by the Evangelists. In addition to these two books, the whole New Testament was translated from Greek to Syriac by St. Mark the Evangelist (as the Syrians themselves think).
If this is true, there would be no reason to doubt of the authority of this edition (to come now to the last chapter). But I cannot easily be induced to believe that the Syriac edition of the whole New Testament was handed over by St. Mark to the Churches of Syria and Egypt; and altogether no mention of the edition is extant in Clement of Alexandria, in Origen, in Eusebius, Athanasius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, John Damascene, and other Fathers who were either bishops or priests in Syria or in Egypt, and who either disputed accurately of the various editions of the Scriptures, or certainly left many writings about the Holy Scriptures to posterity.
But if the Syriac edition is posterior to the time of these Fathers, as I indeed am certainly persuaded, its authority cannot be so great that it can rightly be compared with the Greek and Latin editions, to pass over for the time being that there are also not lacking certain things in this edition that do not much please learned and pious men. There is, however, one signal advantage among others in this edition that, since in its titles and chapter sections mention is made of fasts, venerations of the cross, prayers for the dead, vigils, memorials of the saints, and other things of this sort, which the Lutherans detest as the traditions of the Roman Pontiff, this edition itself very openly convicts the Lutherans of a lie. But about the Chaldee and Syriac editions sufficiently much has been said for the brevity of the intention of this work. Now let us come to the Greek edition.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME