[It follows the Greek text very closely, and sometimes copies its errors. It follows the peculiar readings of the Alexandrian text. It is of no value except as a critical help in restoring the text of the Hexapla. Ludolph speaks unfavorably of that part printed in Walton's Polyglot, and says it has more errors than Potken's edition.

The Ethiopian division of the books is peculiar They make four classes of books: —

I. The Law; that is, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,
and Ruth.

II. The KINGS; Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra,
Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms.

III. SOLOMON; Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon.

IV. The PROPHETS; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, and the two books of Maccabees.]"

§ 51.

4. THE EGYPTIAN VERSION.

There is a version of the Bible in the dialect of Lower Egypt, which is called Coptic, though it is better named Memphitic, — and another in the dialect of Upper Egypt, which is called Sahidic or Thebaic."

......

num, 1696, 4to. Prophetia Joel, Æthiop.... Lab. et Stud. Th. Petræi ; Lug. Bat. 1661, 4to. Vaticinium Malachia ......a Th. Petræo; Lug. Bat. 1661, 4to. Fragmenta V. T. ex Versione Æthiop. Interpretis ut et alia quædam Opuscula Æthiop. ex Æthiop. Lingua in Latina transtulit....... Ch. A. Bode; Helmst. 1755, 4to. [See Platt's Catalogue of the Æthiopic Biblical MSS. in the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Society, &c. &c. 1823, 4to.] [Ludolf, 1. c. Eichhorn, § 309, 310. Hug, l. c. § 97, 98.] On the Egyptian language and its dialects, see Quatremère, Re

[A great part of the Old Testament is still extant in the manuscripts of the Coptic version, and it is probable the translation included the whole of the Old Testament. The Sahidic version also included the same.] The origin of these versions is probably to be referred to the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century; for at that time Christianity seems first to have been extended to the Egyptian provinces. Both follow the Alexandrian version, but it is doubtful which of the two is the oldest." [Woide maintains that an Egyptian version was made in the first century. His arguments are as follows: Christianity early penetrated into Egypt; a version would be needed, for Greek was not correctly spoken. To prove the latter point, he cites Athanasius

cherches critiques et historiques sur la Langue et la Lit. de l'Egypte ; Paris, 1808, 8vo. [See the "Précis," of this work in Classical Journal, vol. i. p. 101, sqq.] Hug, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop., art. Egypt. Sprache, &c. [M. Quatremère thinks the Coptic and ancient Egyptian were substantially the same language, and that it continued to be spoken long after the Greek became the legal tongue. He thinks the Egyptians had many books before the time of Cambyses. See Bib. Repos. for July, 1839, art. ii.]

Münter on the age of the Coptic versions of the N. T., in Eichhorn's Allg. Bib. vol. iv. p. 24, sq. [“If we attempt to place the origin of the Egyptian versions of the Bible about the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century, we do not meet with the same difficulties as in the attempt to refer them to a more ancient date. There are express testimonies to the existence of a Coptic version of the Bible in the fourth century." Münter, 1. c. 24.] On the other hand, see some of the earlier opinions in Spec. Verss. Dan. Copt. (Rom. 1786,) p. 23, and Woide in J. A. Cramer's Beiträge zur Beförd. theol. Kentnitze, iii. 1. Hug, l. c. and Introduction, § 90, sqq., dates the Lower Egyptian version in the latter half of the third century, and the Upper Egyptian in the first half of that century. Engelbreth, N. Theol. Journal, vol. vi. p. 844, and Adler, 1. c. p. 186, give a catalogue of the MSS.

See Woide's comparisons of the Greek and Egyptian versions, in Holmes's ed. of the LXX. In Daniel, Theodotion's version was the basis. See Adler, 1. c. p. 187. Münter, 1. c. p. 139, sqq.

[Cited in Eichhorn, § 316, a.]

a

and Sozomen to show that Antony, an Egyptian hermit, could not speak Greek. Pachomius wrote rules for seven thousand monks in the Egyptian tongue; some of Chrysostom's homilies, and passages from the writings of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, and Cyril, were also translated into Egyptian. The Bible must have been translated much earlier. However, these arguments are not conclusive. But if the version is quoted in Valentinian's Sophia, written in the first quarter of the second century, as Woide maintains, the conclusion is irresistible. He finds traces of the Memphitic version in the third century. Saint Antony, who lived in Lower Egypt, could not read Greek, but yet read the Bible. But the date of both these versions rests mainly on conjecture. Yet, if one of them follows the recension of Hesychius, as Münter supposes, we have good reason for placing it after the middle of the third century.]'

Whole books and a couple of fragments of the Lower Egyptian version have been printed, but only fragments of the Upper Egyptian."

["The Egyptian versions in general adopt words and phrases from the Seventy, though sometimes they are differently divided. Whatever is added, omitted, or

[Eichhorn, 1. c. See, also, Hug, 1. c. § 90-96, and the authorities he cites, and Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 595, sqq.]

C

[Eichhorn, 1. c.]

Quinque Libri Mosis Proph. in Lingua Ægypt. descripti et Lat. versi a Dav. Wilkins; Lond. 1731, 4to. The Psalms were printed at Rome, 1744 and 1749, at the expense of the Propaganda. The fragment Jer. ix. 17— xiii., is published in Reliquiis Ægypt. Codd. Venetiis in Biblioth. Naniana asservatorum, (ed. Mingarelli,) Fasc. i.; Bol. 1785, and Daniel, ch. ix. in Münter's Specimina above cited.

d Daniel, ch. ix. in Münter, l. c. Jer. xiii. 14. xiv. 19, in Mingarelli, 1. c. 1sa. i. 1—v. 18, 25, in Engelbreth, Frag. Basmuricocopt. V. et N. T.; Hafn. 1811. See Engelbreth's Catalogue of the MSS. in Neue Theol. Journal, vol. vi. p. 844. [See Horne, pt. i. ch. iii. sect. iii. § 3.]

transposed in the Seventy, is added, omitted, or transposed, likewise in the version. Yet this harmony is not without exceptions. Sometimes the Egyptians insert something in the text; sometimes omit something through negligence. It often agrees with the Alexandrian codex, in particular when this accords with the Oxford and Marshaline manuscript, and the Aldine and Complutensian editions. Sometimes it contains readings peculiar to these authorities, or to Origen, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila; sometimes it follows the Hebrew text, and departs from all the readings of the Seventy hitherto known....... Both of these versions were made independently from the Greek, as it is evident from the great diversities between the two....... Their critical use is limited to the correction of the Seventy. Sometimes they retain what is lost from the Greek ; sometimes explain obscure words; sometimes correct errors; and sometimes they confound the Egyptian names with the Greek names of places." The Sahidic version of Daniel-in which both versions follow Theodotion — differs from the Memphitic enough to show they were not both from the same text of that version. From this circumstance Münter concludes they did not use Origen's recension of Theodotion's text. Both must have been made after Theodotion's work had acquired ecclesiastical authority.]"

There is still another Egyptian version, in the Basmuric dialect, of which Engelbreth has published some fragments." [Athanasius, bishop of Rus, mentions a

[Eichhorn, § 315, sqq. A writer in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1840, art. v., states that Mr. Tattam has recovered some valuable MSS. of the "Coptic," which "will soon be published."]

'See, as above, p. 204, note d, [and Hug, l. c. § 96.]

third dialect of the old Egyptian language, the Basmuric, which, however, became extinct in his time. It is mentioned in his Copto-Arabic Grammar, still preserved in manuscript, in the Royal Library at Paris;" from which Picques gave the first information concerning this dialect to the learned of Europe,' but without being able to make it further known by publishing any specimens of it. At last, Georgi found a fragment of a version of the New Testament, (1 Cor. ix. 9—16,) in an old Egyptian dialect which differed from that of Upper and Lower Egypt. He conjectured it was the Basmuric. This version was made from the Alexandrian, but it cannot be determined from what text.]"

§ 52.

5. THE ARMENIAN VERSION.

Miesrob, or Mesrobes, with the assistance of John Echellensis and Joseph Palnensis, [or Planensis,] about 410 A. C., gave the Armenians a translation of the Bible, and also an alphabet. [The Armenian literature commences with him. Before his time, the Armenians must have used the alphabet of their neighbors, the Persians, Syrians, or Greeks. Perhaps the first literary work

с

[Georgi, Fragm. Evang. Joh. Præf. p. 75. Quatremère published the Lamentations, Jer. iv. 22—v. 22, and Jeremiah's Epistle to the Jews in Babylon. Engelbreth, i. 1—16, and v. 8-25. See, also, Zoega, Catalogus Codd. Copt. MSS. qui in Museo Borgiano asservantur; Rom. 1810, p. 145 -169, et al. Woidius, De Vers. Bibliorum Ægypt. Diss.]

¿ [See Eichhorn, § 316, c.]

Mosis Chorensis, Hist. Armeniæ, ch. 54, p. 299. Comp. ch. 61, p. 313. Schröder, Diss. de Ling. Armen. in Thes. Linguæ Armen. p. 59.