Page images
PDF
EPUB

written in the new character of Miesrob was this translation of the Bible. The Proverbs were first trans

[blocks in formation]

In the Old Testament, this version follows the Septuagint very closely, and Theodotion's translation of Daniel. It is made from a mixed text, which does not agree with any of our most important recensions. It oftener agrees with the Alexandrian codex than with the Aldine or Complutensian editions. But sometimes it follows a reading contained only in the two latter, and not in the former. In passages where all these differ from Bos's printed text, the Armenian version retains the diverse reading. Since this does not follow any text now known, it is thought to be peculiarly valuable for correcting the Seventy; but its value is limited to that object."

It has often been supposed that this version was interpolated from the Peshito in the sixth century; but this opinion is unfounded, and rests only on a conjecture of Barhebræus, which has been repeated by Walton and Wiseman. It is doubtful that it was interpolated from the Vulgate in the thirteenth century, as La Croze and Michaelis suppose. [However, Eichhorn believes that it has been corrupted from the Syriac and the Vulgate,

G

e

* [Eichhorn, § 306. Hug, § 86.]

Bredencamp, on the

Bib. vol. iv. p. 630, sqq.

p. xii. sqq.

с

Armenian version of the O. T., in Eichhorn, Allg.
Whiston, Præf. ad Mosis Chorensis, Hist. Armen.

[Eichhorn, § 307. ¿See Gregory, on Ps. xvi., repeated in Walton, Proleg. xiii. 16; more fully in Wiseman. Hor. Syriacæ, p. 142. Comp. Rhode, Gregor. Barhebræi Scholia on Ps. v. et xviii. p. 74, and, on the other hand, Bredencamp, l. c. p. 634, sqq.

Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 98, sqq.]

e

La Croze, Thes. Epist. vol. iii. p. 3, sq., 69. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 98, sqq. Bredencamp, l. c. p. 635, sqq. See, on the other side, Adler, Philol. Krit. Miscell. p. 140, sqq. Holmes, Præf. in ed. LXX. ch. 4.

but thinks it doubtful from which Syriac version the interpolations have been made. But its agreements with the Syriac may be accounted for without the hypothesis of interpolations from it; for Isaac, the patriarch of Armenia, was engaged in translating a Syriac version into Armenian, when Miesrob returned to the country with the Greek manuscripts he had procured. The version from the Syriac text was then thrown aside. But it may, naturally enough, have given a Syriac tinge to the new version from the Greek. Gregory says, as soon as finished, it was altered to accord with the Syriac.“

The alterations from the Vulgate, says Eichhorn, are indisputable. Even the inscriptions of the books in the Vulgate have sometimes been translated.' Here and there, the text also has been corrupted from this source, though it does not always agree with the present readings of that version. But since we do not know what Greek text was the basis of the Armenian translation, we cannot, in all cases, determine how much has been taken from the Latin. In one instance, the Armenian text reads three hundred instead of two hundred, the common reading, and a marginal note refers to the Vulgate as authority for the alteration. But the reading is not in the common text of the Vulgate, though it is found in the edition of 1587. In the book of Daniel, it followed Theodotion, though it has peculiar readings.]

Bishop Uscan, the first editor of the Armenian Bible,

[Eichhorn, § 307, 308. Hug, § 86.]

[La Croze and others think Haitho II., an Armenian king, from 1224 to 1270, caused this version to be revised and corrected from the Vulgate, and Jerome's Prefaces to be translated. But Holmes, 1. c. ch. 4, does not admit this.]

[Eichhorn, § 307, 308, c.]

has been accused of making interpolations in this

version."

§ 53.

6. THE GEORGIAN OR GRUSINIAN VERSION.

In the sixth century, the Georgians procured themselves a translation of the Bible, after the example of the Armenians, from whom they had received the Scriptures. It is made in their sacred language and writing character, from Greek manuscripts, and, in the Old Testament, from the Septuagint. The authors are not known. In the Moscow edition' the text is altered from the Slavic version."

[Before the beginning of the fifth century, the Georgians, like the Armenians, -on whom they depended

iii. p. 3, sqq. Whiston, 1. c. p. x., sqq.

[ocr errors]

• La Croze, l. c. vol. ii. p. 290, Rosenmüller, Handbuch, vol. iii. p. 79, sq. EDITIONS OF THIS VERSION. Uscan's, (Osgan,) Amst. 1666, 4to., reprinted at Constantinople, 1705, 4to., [this edition was collated by Bredenkamp for Dr. Holmes's edition of the LXX. ;] Venice, 1733, fol., [with marginal notes.] The last edition at Venice, 1805, 4to. [contains the Old and New Testament, with various readings from about twenty MSS., and short Armenian scholia to explain the text. Hug, § 89.] The Psalms were published at Rome, 1565; Venice, 1642; Amst. 1661, 4to.; ibid. 1666 and 1672, 16mo.; Mars. 1673, 8vo. Obadias, Armen. et Lat. cum Annotatt. And. Acoluthi; Lips. 1680, 4to. [Psalms of David; Venice, 4to.; no date.]

[ocr errors]

According to Hug, § 89, the bishop of Erivan, the capital of Armenia, — the same who translated the Life of Miesrob into Latin,- was sent to Europe in 1662, by a synod, to print an Armenian Bible. "He took up his residence in the monastery of Usci," from which circumstance he was called Uscanus. But this may be, perhaps, a mistake; for he seems to have had the name from his bishopric, Erivan, (Yushavan.) He acknowledges, in his preface, that he altered the text of his MSS. to suit the Vulgate. See a list of the principal MSS. used in preparing Uscan's ed. in Holmes, l. c. ch. iv.] • Folio, 1743.

[blocks in formation]

made use of the

in political and ecclesiastical matters, Greek language and ritual in their religious services, and of the Greek alphabet in all their writings. But after Miesrob had invented the Armenian alphabet, about 420, at the request of Isaac Bartik, the Armenian patriarch, the Georgians made use of it, and since that time the Georgian alphabet has been formed out of the Ar

menian."

The proper literature of the Armenians begins soon after the invention of their alphabet. The Georgians expected advantages from this circumstance; but, before the Armenian patriarch could procure a translation of the Bible from the Greek into the Georgian tongue, the Armenians were subjected to the iron yoke of Persia, in 460, and their nascent literature interrupted. Even the influence of the Greeks ceased to affect them after 520; for the Persians separated them from the Greek church. But the Georgians soon returned to its bosom, and then their own literature commenced. Following the example of the Armenians, they sent promising young men to Greece to learn its language, and obtain a generous education. After their return, they seem to have translated the Bible and ecclesiastical books into the Georgian language.

[ocr errors]

Two dialects prevail in this country- the book language and the common language. The latter is, however, only a corruption of the former, in which the version of the Bible is made. There are likewise two alphabets, or kinds of writing. The one is called the sacred character, and is the same which Miesrob invented for the Armenians.

It is called Kuzuri, and the

[See Gruzii, Istoriczeskoje izobrashenije; Petersburg, 1802, 8vo. ch. iii. Allg. Bib. 1. c. Mosis Chorensis, l. c. vol. iii. p. 53—62.]

Scriptures are written and printed in this character. The other is called Kedvuli, and seems to have originated among the Georgians themselves, perhaps from simplifying the former characters. The early history of this version and the names of its authors are not known. It remained in manuscript till the beginning of the eighteenth century, when Waktangh caused the Psalms, Prophets, and the New Testament, to be printed at Tiflis. The whole Bible was printed at Moscow, 1743, in folio, but altered after the Sclavonic version. The Georgian names for the Scriptures are Zminda Zerili, the holy writing; Samkto Zerili, the divine. writing; Bibbia, the Bible; Zighni Zvelisa da akalio aghtikmisa, the book of the Old and New Testament.]"

§ 54.

7. THE SLAVIC OR SCLAVONIC VERSION.

The Slavic [or old Russian] version, also, — which is supposed to have been made by Methodius and Cyril in the ninth century, is commonly considered a descendant of the Seventy. But according to the ancients, it was originally made from the Itala, and in the Glagolitic character, and was, perhaps for the first time, corrected from Greek manuscripts in the fourteenth century.

[ocr errors]

[Eichhorn, Allg. Bib. vol. i. p. 153–169. Einleit. § 318, b.]

Eichhorn, § 318, a. Kohl, Introduct. in Hist. et Lit. Slavorum, &c. [Henderson, Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia; Lond. 1526. Horne, pt. i. ch. ii. sect. iii. § 4. See an article on the Russian dialects, in the Wiener Jahrbücher, vol. xcv. p. 186, sqq., 189, sqq.]

← Holmes, Præf. in LXX. ch. iv. [Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 153, sqq.]

EDITIONS OF THIS VERSION. The Pentateuch, by Franz Scornia; Prag. 1519. The whole Bible; Prag. 1570, fol., [revised, and in some places corrected ;] Ostrog. 1581, [revised after an old MS. of Wasiljewicz ;]

« PreviousContinue »