various forms of Latin mixture which are perceptible in 'Mixed Vulgate' MSS (§ 114): it is likewise possible that some of their Non-Western readings may have come directly from Greek MSS.
214. The textual character of the Old state of the national or Peshito Syriac version is to a certain extent ambiguous, as being known only through a solitary and imperfect MS. We cannot always distinguish original readings of the version, antecedent to the bulk of Western readings, from readings in no sense Western introduced into it by mixture in the later generations before our MS was written. In many cases however the discrimination is rendered morally certain by the grouping of documents: and at all events the widest examination of all classes of documents only confirms the general conclusions on the history of the Syriac version set forth above (§ 118) as suggested by the prima facie relations of early grouping. In its origin the version was at least predominantly Western of an early type, such few Alexandrian readings as occur having probably come in at a later though still early time. At the revision, whether independent or conforming to a Greek Syrian revision, changes having the Syrian characteristics already described were introduced into the fundamental text. The revised or Vulgate Syriac text differs from the final form of the Greek Syrian text chiefly in retaining many Non-Western readings (some few of them apparently Alexandrian) which afterwards gave way to Western or to new (distinctively Syrian) readings.
215. The Harklean Syriac, which the thorough recasting of diction constitutes rather a new version founded on the Vulgate Syriac than a revision of it in the ordinary sense, receives its predominant character from the multitudes of ordinary Antiochian readings introduced; but readings of more ancient Greek types likewise make their appearance. Taken altogether, this is one of the most confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered more intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if they should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of Harkel from that of his predecessor Polycarpus. It would not be surprising to find that Polycarpus simply converted the Vulgate Syriac into an exact imitation of the Greek Antiochian text, and that the more ancient readings were introduced by Thomas from the "three (v. l. two) approved and accurate Greek copies in the Enaton of the great city