Sm

30 om. i Bus SM.^iSom. h,k T.Sr. SM— 4.i.;}^H-iVm Kvpic, SM— ««; ,u] x»; SM.— as i/>«Trir««-/,J iptnxin) ri SM— i/i»- ^>f] + A(y»SM. — 3^ 0 M/JiL/t M. — ^''pTtpCx flwTf .— ^ Aa'ya,- aCraS] -t-'hiit ye will turn back the words of the living God, the Lord of powers, our God. But thus say to the prophet (S die alinii) : wTiat answer made unto vou the Lord, and what spake the Lonl T If ye say," etc. So SM. The arrangement also in the Ann.

of verses and chapters of Jeremiah follows SM and not the LXX. Where S and M differ it is usually M which the Arm. follows ; but the basis of its text, even where it is BO copiously supplemented as in this chapter of Jeremiah, is clearly the LXX. It is certain, then, that in OT the Armenians translated the LXX, supplementing it, however, and adjusting it to the Massoretic text. Tlie only question remain- ing regards the medium through which they knew the Ma.ssora.

From their traditional account of the making of the version we might infer that they knew the Heb. through the Syr., and in the case of some few parts of OT this may have been so. But more often, and especially in the prophetic books, it is the Heb. rather than the Syr. text which directly or indirectly was used. This composite character of the Arm.

text is prob- ably due to the fact that the translators used the HexaplarictextofOrigen, whose obeli and asterisks, marking additions of the LXX to the Massora, or additions to the LXX from Aq. Sym. Theod. Gr. VS of the Massora, here and there survive in Arm. MSS,* as well as actual marginal references t« these Gr. VSS. used by Origen. The Armenians, then, must have made their version from a Hexa- plaric text such as we have in the Gr. Codices 22 and 88. ii.

In answering the first question, we have by implication answered also the second of those which we asked above, viz. as to the value for critical purposes of the Arm. version. It needs only to be added, that for beauty of diction and accuracy of rendering the Arm. cannot be surpassed. The genius of the language is such as to admit of a tr. of any Gr. document both literal and graceful ; true to the order of the Gr.

, and even reflecting its compound words, yet without bein^ slavish, and without violence to its own idiom. We are seldonr in doubt as to what stood in the Armenian's Gr. text ; therefore his version has almost the same value for us as the Gr. text itself, from which he worked, would possess. The same criticism is true of the Arm. NT as well. iii. Three Arm. writers of the 5th cent., Koriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses of Chorene, record that the Scriptures were translated between A.D.

396 and 430 by Mesrop, the elaborator of the Arm. alphabet, Sahak the Patriarch, Eznik, and others. According to Koriun (p. 10 of Ajin. edition of Venice, 1833), Mesrop, with the help of a Gr. scribe Rufinus, began a version in Edessa about 397 A.D., commencing with the Proverbsof Solomon. The context implies that they used a Gr. copy ; and they may have taken the second half of a Bible, complete in two volumes, of which the second began with Proverbs.

There can be no other reason why they began there. Later on Koriun and Eznik fetched back from Constantinople an accurate and sure copy of the Scriptures, and the work of trans- lation already begun by Sahak was resumed. Moses of Chorene says that Sahak's inchoate version was from the Syr., because the Pers. king Meroujah had burned, thirty years before, all the Gr. books of the Armenians.

Lazar, however, who is more credible, declares that Sahak's version of the Old and New Testaments was made from Gr. Lastly, Moses (iii. 60) declares that Sahak and Mesrop, not content with their Byzantine ' exact ' copies, sent himself to Alexandria for the purpose of completing their work in ways not clearly speci- fied. Moses also states that two of the translators, John and Artzan, on their way to Constantinople, stayed in CiEsarea (? of Cappadocia).

The ac- counts of these writers then add little to our know- ledge. We may only gather that texts from Edessa, Byzantium, and Alexandria were used by the translators. The translation itself was no doubt made in the basin of Ararat, where lay the earliest centres of Arm. Christianity, Valarshapat, with its convent of Edschmiatzin, and Twin. iv. The books of the OT in Arm. MSS follow the order given in Tischendorfs LXX (Lipsise, 1880) as far as 1 ajid 2 Es (except that 2 Es in Arm. = the Gr.

Ezra) ; then follow : Neh (called in th« 'E.g. in Ex 33 the Arm. = ' And the congregation having hear<l that e^il word, lamented lamenting" and" the man did not lake the ornament on his person.' If the Syr. Hexaplaric version of Paul of Tela had not been made nearly 200 yean after the Arm., the latter might almost have been regarded as ■ trannlation of it.

AKMENIAif VEKSION ARMENIAN VERSION 153 lower marj^in 3 Es), Est, Jth, To, 1 to 3 Mac, Ps, I'r, Kc, Ca, \Vu, Job, Is, the XII Truiiliets, Jer, Bar, La, Death of Jer, Dn, Ezk, Death of Ezk. In some codiees Job follows 3 Mac and precedes Psalms. Various Apocr. books also appear in the MSS, Wz. : The Testaments of the XII I'atriarclis, the History of Joseph and his wife Asenath, and the Hymn of Asenath.

All tliese are given in Lord Zouche's Bible after Gn and before Ex nnier the general title of ' Book of Parali- pomeca,' as if they were esteemed part of the same. In other XiSS the Testaments succeed Dt. These are not given in printed editions of the Arm. Bible, nor are they found in all codices. The same is true of the apocr. entitled ' the Death of the Twelve Prophets,' and ' the Prayer of Mana.sses.'

The Third Book of Ezra or Esdras, usually known as the Fourth, follows Nehemiah in the MSS which contain it, e.g. in the MS Bible of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Each book of OT is prefaced by a brief introduc- tion of unknown authorship, but coeval with the version ; and also by a summary of contents. Besides the usual preface to the Ps, some MSS introduce a passage of David the Philosopher, another of Athana.siuB, and a third of Epiphanius of Cyprus.

Dn is translated from the text of Theodotion. Sir was twice translated, first of all in the 5th century, and again, perhaps, in the 8th. The former version is printed in the Venice Bible of I860, and is the more complete and accurate though it does not comprise the whole of the Gr. text, ch. 8, for example, being omitted : the latter was printed in Zohrab's Bible, Venice, 1805. Uscan made and published in his Bible a third ver- sion in the year 1666. V. C. CoNYBEARE.

ARMENIAN VERSION OF NT The old Ar- menian wTiters (mentioned in § iii. ARMENIAN Version of UT) give us no special information in regard to the <iate and circumstances of their version of NT. Whatever statements they make apply to it as to OT. Co<lices of the four Gospels of great age are relatively common, written in large unciiUB for church use.

* Codices of the rest of NT separBle from the Gospels are rare, and will generally be found to have formed part of a larger MS containing the entire NT. They are not common at all before the 13th cent., before which epoch also codices of the entire Bible are very rare. The OT is never found ai)art from the New, and the extreme rarity of unci.al OT fragments in the bindings of later MSS suggests that the entire Arm.

Bible was never written out from beginning to end except in a small hand, though there were, of course, uncial lectionaries for church use, and the Biblioth6que Nationale contains such a lectionary written prob- ably in the 9th cent. In Edsclimiatzin there is an entire Bible on parchraentof 1151, and two more on paiier of 1253 and 1270. In Venice, one of 1220. The London Bible Society has a choice copy of about 1600, Lord Zoucho another not so old.

Separate co<lices of the Goajjcls rarely occur in which St. John precedes the Synoptists ; but in the library of M. Enf&ljans in "fillis there is a very old Bpeeiraen of such a codex. The order of the rest of the NT books in the oldest MS at Venice, written A.I). 1220, is as follows: Acta, Catholic Epistles, Revelation of John the Apostle, Epistles of Paul, at the end of which is added the letter of the Corinthians to Paul. The Ep. to the Hebrews •At .MoKcow In an Ev»n(roll»r ,d»t«<i 887.

At Vrnlc* In the Ban [.Azziiro Library are two, liauxl HC^ and 1006 res]>e€tivelv. At EUiu-hniiatzin, two of 080, lOSS. In Erzcroum, one of 086. In St. Anlhony'i convent in C'onMUntlnople, one of 060. In the Sevan mona.«tten" in Kntwlan Annenia, one of 066. In the HiT>lioth6qiie Nationale, In the Hritiiih MiiAeum, and in private oollc<:tionfl, are many more very ancient copies. precedes those to Tim. and follows Thess. lu a 13th cent. MS of the Brit. Mus. (Add. 19,730, Saec. xiii.)

, the order of books is this: Apocalypse, Epistles of Paul, Acts, Cath. Epistles. In this and in other codices the apocryphal rest of St. John usually follows St. John's Gospel. The Gospels invariably have the Canons of 'Amnionius added in the margin, and are preceded by Eusebius' letter to Carpianus, with the tables of the Canons. The Acts and Epistles of St.

Paul are preceded by the prefaces, summaries, lists of Testimonia and Colophons of Euthalius, whose marginal chaptering and subdivisions and calcula- tions of stichi in the text are also added in the older MSS. In these we also find a division of Acts and Cath. Epistles each into forty-nine chap- ters ; and in the case of Acts, this rather artificial system presupposes that of Euthalius. A collation of the Arm. text of the OT is given in the Septuagint of Holmes and Parson (Oxon. 1798-1827).

A collation of the Arm. NT was first published by Tregelles, and the same is given in Tiscliendorf's later edd. Moses of Chorene asserts that the NT, like the OT, was first rendered from Syr., and that this first version was, about A.D. 430, revised from more exact Gr. texts from Constantinople. This tradition is certainly correct, for Prof. Armitage Robinson (Euthaliana, Cambridge, 1895) shows that the Arm. NT bears traces of having been made from an ancient form of the Syr.

text, such as that which Mrs. Lewis recently discovered at Mount Sinai. This earlier version from Syr. may be the ' First translation ' of the Gospels to which Theodoros Chrhthenavor (Contra Majrafjoumatzi) refers in the 7th cent. as having contained the disputed verses Lk 22- . These references are so important that I translate them from the Venice ed. p. 148: 'TliL-y {i.e. the phontaaiai^tie) say, It was not hy weakness, but by strength, that He (i.e. Clirist) over- came the enemy.

So do ills own words testify. The house of the giant is not plundered, unless first the stronif man is bound.' • And if this be true, it is plain, they say, that the h\riit transla- tion is not to be acceptea, which in the (episode of Hie) praying relates the ' Illoody Sweat' of the almignty 'Word of God, and that He was encouraged by the angel.' Ibid. p.

154: 'The letter of the Gospel spoke of the iweftt allegorically, as It were of blood ; but not (as) a welliog-oiit of blood from a wound made with a weapon.' In the same context we read that the heretics In auMtlon con- tended that the ' old edition oj the Gogpel is not to De accept«d ' because Gregory the Illuminator, in his homitetic exposition of all the Oos_pel oracles which announced the economical passibiiity of the Di\nne Word, yet made no special mention of the ' Uloody Sweat' passage.

The answer of Theodore to this argument Is that neither di<l the Nicene Fathers nor the new recension of the Scriptures reco^'- nise more than fourteen Epistles of Paul ; yet that Gregory htul cited and so testified to the Third Epistle of the Corinthians to Haul, which the said Fathers had passe<l over in silence, and which wa3 * not adde<l in the new translations.' Tlie verve cited by Gregory is 3 Co II ; 'The lawless prince when he desired to be Oo-J bound all men under sin.' 'This' (i.e.

f^-^^ ""- t.....- tiut I 8 Co), aayi Theo- dore, was contained in the ancisnt trxt^ but not in the nev ed. ( = evyyfa;n). If, however, because of Its omission from the text of the nru>lt/ issued translations you reject the older Gospel as not true, you. In doing so, calumniate even the great sage Gregory, though you make a show of praising him.

But If the truthful Gregory did not in com|X)sing (his work) follow the chapters in liielr order of the entire Gospel, but wrote with peculiar simplicily to suit those who were weak in trnderstandin^ what they hcani, merely propounding testimnnies in a summary way to satisfy Immediate neefU, and oonHrming (the Oosim'I statements) by the uropbeciefl, then why do you make a stalking hone of himT' The above passages warrant two inferences, one certain, the other probable.

(1) The Armenians had a first or early version of N'T which contained the verses Lk 23'- and also 3 Corinthians. (2) Gregory had this early version. He quoted 3 Co from it, and ho would have quoted Lk 22"- also, only his literary purpose aid not re- quire him to do so. I do not Hcc how else we can interpret the last paragraph of Theodore. The same conclusion can Tills appean to be an extracanunlcal citation. 154 ARMENIAN VERSION ARMOUR, ARMS be reached by another way.

For the version of 3 Co belonged to the first translation of the NT. Gregory had this 3 Co, and cited it. Is it likely that he would have used an outlying portion of NT in a certain edition of it, and not have had the Gospels also ? We may note that the ' First translation,' as it contained Paul's Epistles, can- not have been merely an Arm. Diatessaron, though the statement that Gregory did not cite the texts in order is suggestive of such a supposition.

If these inferences are just, the first Arm. version af NT was made at the beginning rather than towards the end of the 4th cent., although the native historians of the 4th cent, are silent about it.* Parts of NT were translated in the 5th cent., but were omitted from the later Arm. Canon. Thus the Apocalypse was not read in church before the 12th cent., when Nerses of Lampron issued a much changed recension of the old version.

Similarly the last twelve verses of Mk were rendered in the 5th cent., for Eznik cites them about A.D. 435 ; but they hardly appear in the MSS before the 13th cent., and then not as an integral part of the second Gospel. In a 10th cent, codex of the Gospels at Edscbmiatzin they are headed by the title ' of Ariston the Pres- byter,' written in small red uncials by the first hand. Ariston has been identified with Aristion the teacher of Papiaa.

And the knowledge which the Armenians had that the verses were his and not Mark's, explains the hostile attitude towards them of the Arm. Church. The episode of the woman taken in adultery is likewise absent from the oldest MSS ; though it is cited as early as A.D. 950 by Gregory of Narek. The Edscbmiatzin codex of A.D.

989 is the oldest codex which contains it, though not in the form in which Gregory and the later codices give it, but as follows : — * A certain wonun wu taken in sins, against whom all bore witness that she was deserving of deatli. Tliey brougiit iier to Jesus (to see) what tie would conunand, in order that they might malign him. Jesus made answer, and said, "Come ye, who are without sin, cast stones, and stone her to death."

But he himseU, bowing bis head, was writing with bis finger on the earth, to declare their sins ; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones. And, filled with shame, they rleparted, and no one remained, but only the woman. Saith Jesus, " Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their law is written. This primitive form of text has the Arm. equiva- lent of Td T^s /ioixiMSos written against it in the margin by the first hand. It is probably derived from Papias or the Heb.

Gospel. One other reading of the old Arm, version deserves notice. It occurs in the oldest known codex, dated A.D. 887, preserved in the Lazareffski Institute at Moscow. It is in Mt 2", and as follows : & doT-^p , , . iardOrj itrdvijj toO (nrtjXaiou oS f/p ri Toudiof. The same text is found in the Prot- evangel, c. xxi., and accounts for the variant here found in the Codex Bez». The Arm.

Bible was first printed at Amsterdam in 1666, but from a single manuscript, and the printed text was in places adjusted to the Latin Vulgate. A later edition, issued in 1733 by Mecnitar in Venice, was mainly a reprint of the edition of 1666. "The first critical edition was issued in 1805 at Venice under the care of Zohrab, who used several codices, the best of them one written early in the 14th cent. The variants of the MSS used are given under the text ; but • A comparison of the Arm.

text of the Paulines with Kphrem's commentarj- (preserved in Arm.), with the Syr. and with the closely allied Georgian Version, demonstrates that the Arm. and Geo. versions were originally made from the pre- Peflhitta Syr. text used by Ephreni, and were afterwarris cor- rected from Or. texts. This revision of these two versions was probably made about 400 a.d., and was more thorough in the ««M of Arm. than of Georgian. without distinguishing in which codex whick variant is read.

However, one codex of the Arm. Bible differs very slightly from another. Other edd. have been published in Moscow, Constanti- nople, and Venice during this century ; those of Venice being particularly good and reliable. There is not the slightest foundation for the statement sometimes made, that the Arm. version was in the time of the Crusaders conformed to the Lat. Bible. At that time, indeed, the Lat.

chaptering began to be added in the margin, and the Prologus Galeatus of Jerome was translated, and in some codices affixed, to the Book of Kings ; but no changes were made under Lat. influence in the text itseli. F. C. CONYBEABB. AKMHOLE occurs Jer 38" and Ezk 13'« (RV 'elbows'). The meaning of the Heb. word (r»i<, see Ox/. Heb. Lex. and Davidson on Ezk 13'*) is doubtful, but the word in AV means the armpit, as it is now called. J. Hastings.