THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH: TOWARDS THE CHOICE OF THE BASE TEXT FOR AN EDITION Micuaet E. Stone 1 Background and Methodology It has long been the commonplace knowledge of those interested in the field that, from a textual viewpoint, the published editions of the Old Armenian Bible are unsatisfactory. The least inadequate is still the edition of J. Zohrabian published in 1805 on the basis of only nine manuscripts, few of which have any claim to antiquity.! For this reason as well as for its own requirements, the Armenian Church recently decided to undertake the preparation of a new edition of this version, to be based on all available manuscript evidence. In this connection, the authorities of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem asked the writer to attempt the present study. The Jerusalem Patriarchate has taken responsibility for the preparation of the edition of Isaiah and the study here is designed to investigate how to establish the base text for that edition. Scholars have been accustomed to regarding the Armenian Bible as a unitary textual tradition, exhibiting a text of primarily Origenie colouring. Surprisingly, latest investigations of some parts of the Bible, based on more manuscripts than those used by Zobrabian, contradict this view. They have, for example, revealed schisms or splits in the tradition, in which some Armenian manu- scripts read with one non-Armenian witness or group of witnesses, while the other Armenian manuscripts follow the reading of a different group of other versional witnesses.? Incidentally to their main purpose, the results presented 1 J, Zohrabian (ed.), Astuacasuné" Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac’ (Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments), Venice 1805, pp. x $x ~x 7x. 2° See, e.g, Bo Johnson, Die armenische Bibelibersetzung als Hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, 2), Lund 1968, particularly 474. Compare the writer's review of this book in Revue Biblique 77 (1970), 259-264, See also the independent observations in “The Testament of Jacob,” Revue des Etudes Arméniennes NS 5 (1968), 265-270. The complex origins of the readings found in108 MICHAEL E. STONE here also indicate that a concentration of such readings, which we term “ver- sional variants,” occurs in certain Armenian manuscripts or groups of manu- scripts. If study of broader samples of text shows such concentration to be systematic, with certain manuscripts or groups of manuscripts exhibiting versional variants clearly attributable, say, to a recognized Greek textual type, this phenomenon is to be best explained by a process of glossing or correction by Armenian scribes. Such versional variants, once they can be controlled, will increase manifold the importance of the textual tradition of the Armenian Bible for the study of the Greek and other versions.‘ It is to be presumed that, after due study, this version will be understood well enough to permit the utilisation of its readings as evidence for Greek readings, even in cases where they are not corroborated by any extant Greek witness. It must be stressed, ‘however, that today we are still far away from such a control or understanding of the Armenian biblical text. With basic dimensions of the history of the version, such as the phenomenon of yersional variants, still beyond our under- standing, it seems to be wisest to abandon the possibility of establishing an eclectic edition of the Armenian text of the Bible, Consequently a diplomatic edition is to be preferred. Available for the study are collations of some seventy manuscript witnesses (see below), a number vastly in excess of that previously available. A pragmatic problem of the first order of magnitude was consequent on this; how is the base text for a diplo- matic edition to be selected? It was decided to approach it by means of a process of gradual exclusion. First the possibility of exclusion of certain wit- nesses on stemmatic grounds was examined. Bearing in mind that the oldest witness available, Jerusalem, No. 417, dates to the year 1215 C.E. — eight the Armenian version of Il Maccabees were studied by S. Kogian, Makabayec'woc" B. Grk’in Hayerén T'argmanut'iwné (The Armenian Translation of II Maccabees, ‘Vienna 1923, passim and particularly 60 f. See particularly the comments in Revue Biblique 77 262. 4 Likewise, the existence of two or more recensions of certain books raises considerable iffculties in this respect but has great promise as well. Some books have been published, such as Chronicles (which its editor claims to be the ancient translation from Syriac), ‘Song of Songs, and Ben Sira. See G. Khalat'iance, Girk" Mnac'ordac’ ést Hnagoyn Hay T-argmanut'ean (The Book of Chronicles according to the Oldest Armenian Transla- tion], Moscow 1899; H. Oskian, Erg Ergoc’ Araj'in ew Erkrord T'argmanut'twné (The First and Second Translation of Song of Songs), Venice 1924; E. Durian, “Noragivt Gluxner Sirak‘ay Hin T’argmanut'ean,” [Newly Discovered Chapters of the Ancient ‘Translation of Sirach] Usumnasirut'iwnk* ew K'nnadatut'inwk* [Studies and Critiques], Jerusalem 1935, 320-326; G. Abgarian “Sirak‘i Girk'i Hnaguyn T’argmanut'yan Nora- hayt Hatvacner,” [Newly Uncovered Fragments of the Oldest Translation of the Book of Sirach] Etchmiadzine 23 Nos. 11-12, (1966), 58-70.THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH 109 hundred years after the date of the translation — it is not surprising that stemmatic considerations could not determine the manuscript to be used as the base text. The examination of the oldest witnesses shows that already in them the textual tradition is conflate. Therefore, other means must be employed to determine which manuscript represents the best preserved form of the text and should serve as the base manuscript for an edition. We presume that it is desirable to have as a base a text which shows as few individual idiosyncracies as possible, except such a8 are superior to the readings of the rest of the tradition. In view of this, the readings of the manuscripts were examined and classified. The following types of reading were regarded as weighing, in varying degrees, against the selection of a manuscript exhibiting them, a. spelling variants, that is cases of orthographic variation which do not affect the meaning of the word;5 b. clear corruptions; ©. indifferent variants which are not demonstrably either corruptions or more original readings than those of other manuscripts;5 4. versional variants of the type mentioned above. ‘The weight attached to these categories of variation is not equal. The operating principle of evaluation is simple: elimination of textually inferior manuscripts which are found unsuitable for the limited purpose of serving as a base text for a diplomatic edition of Isaiah, It is recommended that, in the actual edition, this base manuscript be followed closely. In cases of clear corruption, however, it should be emended and the emendation clearly marked by appropriate critical signs in the text. 5 Such variants, on their own, have of course very little weight. They achieve importance ‘only when they occur in large numbers or ina text which is marred by numerous variations of types b. and c, Nor is it intended, by use of this category, to imply anything about “original” Armenian orthography: on such spelling “anomalities” in earliest Armenian ‘manuscripts, compare the examples of A, G. Abrahamyan, Hay Gri ew Gré'ut'yan Patmut‘yun [History of Armenian Palaeography), Erevan 1959, 72 f. His examples of orthographic variants from the earliest manuscript witnesses can be supplemented and further strengthened by adducing the evidence of carly inscriptions. All other factors being equal, pragmatic considerations make it desirable to have, as a diplomatic text, one with as standard a spelling as possible. This creates least variants, 6 A tendency to be as conservative as possible in the evaluation of variants has led, doubt- Jess, to the inclusion of many readings in this category which a more venturesome spirit might have included in category b. 7 See below for the value of these.0 MICHAEL E. STONE, ml Data and Results The present pilot study was carried out on the text of two chapters. These ‘were selected from different parts of the book so as to obviate as far as possible the danger of ignoring a change of textual type in a given manuscript. The two chapters selected, Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 60, were collated by scholars in Jerusalem, Venice, Erevan, and Vienna from all the manuscripts available in the libraries in those cities. A list of all the manuscripts collated, with their dates and sigla, is appended. The collations were made against the text of Zohrabian’s Bible of 1805. These separate collations were then combined into a single apparatus, without changing the textual base. It was, of course, physically impossible for the writer to recheck these collations, so for purely practical reasons the collations were presumed correct. Naturally, once the base manuscript for the edition will have been selected, the manuscripts will have to be once more collated fully against it. From a total of seventy manuscripts, all manuscripts written before 1400 C.E. were isolated, approximately half of the total. The study of other biblical texts indicates that, while as a result of the prevailing conflation the readings of later manuscripts should and must be included in the apparatus, the chances of their having preserved a text altogether better than those of all the earlier manuscripts are very small indeed. ‘The manuscripts written before 1400 C.E. are, in chronological order: 1215 4 1315 P 1253-5 b 1317 m 1257 17 1318 h 1269 w 1319 1 1270 j 1323 ap 1272 y 1332 2 1282 B 1338 P 1292 © 1341 8 1295 d 1367-71 1 1297 b 1384 r XIII saec. asqk 1390-1400 k XII-XIV saec. 6 18 XIV saec. nt ¢ du dy 1303-4 e XIV-XV saec. 9 1309 B‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH iL Step I Nine clear corruptions were isolated in the Armenian texts of the samples and these were examined in all the above manuscripts. They are: 1, 1:18 om 4p 2. 1:27 thpybugh qhpmp}iG Gapw/be oqnpumepbunp] 3. 1:27 fa 4 quunbpu phppgha This reading is, in fact, composed of two elements, Some manuscripts show corruption in one, but not in the other. This special situation is indicated by the notation “4”. Ss pidwybughi 6. 60:14 qumphmphgnigsug a Abu 8. 60:14 om Upni % ibs The results of this examination are set forth in table A which follows.§ It should be observed that manuscript 1 served as Zohrabian’s text. It, is henceforth included as an equal witness. Corruptions Nos. 8 and 9 occur in Zohrabian’s text. The readings throughout are evaluated on the basis of inner- Armenian criteria or against the other versions, and not by the extent of their conformity with Zohrabian’s edition.» Manuscripts having 4-3} errors were excluded from further consideration,!! 4 errors: c d dm dp p 34 errors: 6 9 The remaining manuscripts show the following distribution of errors: I error: aWepdprt 2erors: g¢ 17 np kS pmhi 121 ¢ 24 errors: 8 Zeros: bom j qk kon Step H The readings of cach of the remaining manuscripts alone were examined against all other witnesses. We presumed that a manuscript which contains 8 Chapter 1:25 was excluded from our charts due to the extreme complexity of its textual condition. 9 For a danger involved in the evaluation of manuscript No. 1, see Conclusions and note 15 below. 10 One of the two corruptions of which the reading is constituted. 11 See Step V, below.‘MICHAEL E, STONE Distribution of Nine Egregious Errors TapLe A ‘Manuscript Error No. § _b_17 i Bdew de ke deb 5 6 1 P 1 x x 2 xe x 3 z xe x zo 4 nex ax x xm yo x x 3 x x 6 x xe x 7. x x xe % nex x at x ram x 3° & Gx Tomy 253% 2 3 2a ae 2a oes Pash t 2 Error No.1 4p _12 3 7k ¢ du dyn > 1 x 2 3 4 #0 x =F 30 3 x 6 x 7 x x x x x 8 Pee x x oes gs xe x Ey x x me ox aoe 21 2 Ea ferag es 34 * Against Zohrabian’s text.‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH 413 a large number of peculiar corruptions or of spelling variants would be un- suitable as a base manuscript, except in the most unusual situation of its also exhibiting a large number of unique superior readings. Equally, a manu- script which shows unique readings agreeing with a certain Greek or other versional witness against the other Armenian manuscripts which tally with a different Greek or other versional witness would not be suitable as the basis of an edition, although it might be of great importance for the textual criticism of the Greek Bible. Thus, spelling variants (Column D), corruptions (Column IN), and versional variants (Column TI) are three of the categories set out in table B. ‘Tapie B Rendings of a Single Manuscript Alone Against Other Witnesses I ve WM ria y, Manuscript Spelling Corruption Indifferent Versional Superior a td 2 18 2 3 2 © 2 t 2 1 ap r 1 1 t 1 = 3 17 1 4 1 4 PR 4 3 2 ib 1 5 P 1 m h 3 1 1 12 1 2 1 7 3 1 é 8 b 9 8 1 2 w 9 1 1 1 ij 1 1 2 q 1 2 E k 3 4 1 a 3 7 7114 MICHAEL E. STONE, Two other categories were distinguished: readings which were substantially indifferent or concerning which no decision could be made (Column IV), and readings clearly superior (Column V). The occurrence of the former type mitigates against the choice of a manuscript for our purpose. The occurrence of a substantial number of the latter would be decisively in its favour. On the basis of table B, the manuscripts showing a significant number of corruptions in Column II can be excluded. They are: 9 corruptions: w 8 corruptions: b 7 corruptions: 1 n 4 corruptions: 17 p ki? 3 corruptions: 18 ¢ There remain for consideration: a XIlls. t XIVe m 1317 8 1341 © 1303-04 y 1272 h 1318 i 1270 pb 1309 b 1297 1 1319 q Xills. ép 1323 5 XIIIs. 12 1332 & Xllls. rt 1384 Pp 1316 & XIVs. Step I We now examined the variant readings in which each of the remaining manu- scripts concurs with one or two other MSS. in a group against the rest of the witnesses. The results of this examination are incorporated in table C which presents a classification of the readings of these groups of two and three. ‘When the totals of table C are combined with the totals for single manuscripts, there emerges a picture of the extent of corruption and variation found in these manuscripts: This leads to the exclusion of the following manuscripts: a 12 8 j R4@.13 Step IV Thirteen manuscripts remain. These were examined with respect to all other readings in which they ocour. The results are shown below. They indicate the number of occasions on which a given manuscript concurs with 12 For this and the next group of manuscripts, see Step V, below. 13 Concerning the last two manuscripts, see Step V, below.‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH. Taste C Readings of Groups of Two or Three Manuscripts against Other Witnesses Spelling ‘Siglum variant Corruption _ Indifferent a 2 e 2 z 1 1 op r t 1 1 y 1 1 b 3 1 P m 2 h 1 1 12 6 3 1 é 8 3 3 1 j 3 4 1 & 3 1 Tame D Totals for Single and Small Group Variants ‘Sighun Spelling Corruption _ Indifferent a in 2 e 4 t f 2 1 ap r 1 1 t 1 1 1 x 1 1 i 1 5 3 1 P 1 m 2 h 3 1 1 1 12 7 5 1 é 8 3 3 1 i 4 1 2 4 1 1 2 i 3 1116 MICHAEL E. STONE a group larger than three and on which the manuscript is a) clearly corrupt, ») indifferent or indecisive, or, c) equivalent to another versional witness where the majority Armenian reading is to be found in a different version. Table F gives the results of the combination of all cases of variation, including the nine initial cases (Step I) in which each manuscript exhibits a reading included in one of the above categories. Tape E Readings of Groups Larger than Three against Majority of Witnesses ‘Siglum Corruption Indifferent Versional P 1 9 4 m 3 15 4 a 3 6 2 r 3 1 gE 4 6 é 4 e 4 2 1 4 ap 4 1 1 b 5 t 5 5 2 5 6 "7 5 h 6 5 5 Tae F Combination of All Variants jiglum Corruption Indifferent Versional ‘Totals Pr 3 9 4 16 m 7 15 5 2 x 6 1 2 15 r 4 2 6 k 8 6 1 15 é 6 1 7 e 5 2 1 8 1 6 6 b 1 1 8 op 4 1 nf 6 t 7, 6 2 15 5 9 17 5 31 h 8 6 3 7‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH. 47 It follows that manuscripts m and 5 should definitely not be selected as the text since they contain too many variants, particularly corruptions. Also the suitability of manuscripts h t E p- is to be regarded as most uncertain. Step V The decision to exclude manuscripts at each of the above stages had to be made on the basis of a simple arithmetical cut-off point. Since usually only a single reading differentiated between the manuscripts retained and those excluded, a measure of arbitrariness may be felt to be involved. There- fore a study of manuscripts which could be regarded as border-line cases in each Step was made. These were: for Step I, MSS. c d dm dy p 6 9; for Step I, MSS. 17 p k 18 q; for Step IIT, MSS. p and q. The totals for the readings in all these groupings are set forth in Table G. TapLe G Borderline Cases — Totals of Ail Readings I 1 1 Vv Total of Siglum Spelling Corruption Indifferent Versional ‘I-IV © 14 9 14 7 30 a 14 8 12 5 25 ou ai 8 3 1 2 an 6 10 8 7 25 DP 18 10 15 9 34 6 8 10 13 8 31 9 6 6 8 2 16 17 13 16 7 10 4a RB 9 14 16 8 38 k 2B 19 2 4 35 18 13 14 8 3 25 q 4 4 14 6 34 B 6 8 9 3 20 q 2 9 6 3 18 In this table, as in the preceding ones, in cases where the reading of Zohra- bian’s text is corrupt and the variant superior, or in cases in which variants of the indifferent or versional types occur in a majority of manuscripts while the minority agrees with Zohrabian’s text, the reading of the group including Zohrabian’s text has been recorded as a variant. It appears that, of these manuscripts, 4m 9 q should be considered further. ‘While none of the MSS. excluded is better than all of those included, or even better than the best of them, these three are better than some of those included.us MICHAEL &. STONE ‘Nonetheless, the results in general bear out the decisions made above, namely to exclude these MSS. from the discussion.14 rr Conclusions The practical recommendations which follow from the above procedure are quite clear. Of the manuscripts still under consideration in Step IV, m and 5 should be excluded absolutely from further study. On the other hand, manu- scripts dm 9 q, previously excluded, should be included. Moreover, the above results should be regarded as preliminary, and collations of a further pilot sample of two chapters should be prepared for the remaining fourteen manuscripts: p7 rk ¢e 1k dp t hdw 9 q, or at the very least for the seven MSS. which appear to be notably superior to the rest: rd c 1b dp du, It should further be borne in mind that the results for MS 1, Zohrabian’s base text, may be skewed by the inaccuracy which enters into collations.'5 It appears that MS r, Erevan No. 4113 of the year 1348 C.E. or MS dp, Jerusalem No. 1930 of the year 1323 C.E. are, on the basis of the present samples, most suitable for selection as the text. However, we would again emphasize that it is most desirable to make a careful study of all of these fourteen manuscripts in two additional sections of Isaiah. It would further be desirable to have their collations rechecked for the two chapters reviewed here. MS ép is almost totally identical with Zohrabian's text, and appears only once in the apparatus as containing a variant, in 60:18 impgh which reading is preferable. It seems that the method of exclusion has proved practicable for the specific aim set forth here: the isolation, by means of the analysis of sample collations of two chapters of Isaiah, of the manuscript or manuscripts most suitable for selection as the basis of a diplomatic edition of the book. The amount of text collated did not provide enough examples for a final decision between a group of seven manuscripts. The above study and recommendations have been communicated to the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, whose authorities are responsible for any future steps to be taken in this matter. 14 The differences in totals are very striking and, even if the writer’s judgement be challenged in one or another specific case as to the category to which a given reading should be assigned, this will not, it is submitted, substantially affect the overall picture obtained. 15. That is to say, a collation, which inevitably contains some inaccuracies, will tend not to note a variant which occurs in the MS. being collated. This will tend to make the MS. or text which served as a base of collation appear more like the other MSS. collated than it actually is.119 ‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH (wo FY, Wye ON “I “Ss TIAX 661 “ON - th p91 est “ON A Ado 1 "UD, ON I ‘S TIAX Tos “oN =m 1191 981 ‘ON 8 ss ON I 9691 ws oN 'S AIX 6989 ON ura Am 09 “YD 9e91 0601 oN «dp goss “ONS ‘ON “SZ “SIAX lece “ON -p llr ON 8 ADIIX ‘ON BL seor “ON “4P SOLz ON“ uszl ‘ON “LI zz-9091 “ON “bp tev ON“ 0691 ON OL ozor “ON “4P s8sz ON 0 OE = 468 “ON “ST AIX S57 “ON “tip ¥se ON 0 zs91 8szI ON “Pl 0ST L6z “ON “bP &s€ ON “WH Lost LOST ON EL ecer Oe6I “oN «dp we ONT Teer = LOOL “ON “ZI AIX OFIZ ON "mp EON W8Ihl 087 ON OT “SAIX SSE ON“? Ste ON SAXAIX OLE ON 6 oret Ie6t ON L0z “ON [rel Se6 ON 8 60S ly “ON +l 902 “ON {00 09 “UD 9sor sb ‘SIX = WE ON S591 0 ON °8 AX TIX 9 “mx Ors “ON -b 1-00rr rel ONS “STIX s Let OSE ON rer = Bl ON Ssor ¥ cet 908 oN sect os! ‘oN PB 8Y91 © sit Liv “ON + z6cI a 1991 z Tet OOS “ON UeAary «ud S-tSTI al ON 4 6IEl 1 ott = ST6L ON SIX = LI ON awa oma 2a wuaposniop ag ed smipaoddy ays ui papngour stdvuosnuopy120 MICHAEL E, STONE, APPENDIX Examples of Versional Variants ‘Some of the versional variants detected in the course of the above analysis are presented here. This is done with the express and sole purpose of adverting students of the textual history of the Greek and Hebrew Bibles to the potential importance of the Armenian material, The readings are set forth without any attempt at exhaustive investigation or evaluation. In particular, it became evident that no attempt should be made at this stage of study to isolate Armenian manuscript families allied to particular Greek families. For such a purpose, the examination of much larger segments of text is necessary. Moreover, no consistent attempt was made to establish whether a given reading is the product, of conjunctive error or development, or whether a real dependence is involved. (In some cases doubts have been expressed, in notes on the readings.) If the examination of a broader body of text should reveal which Armenian MSS. ‘or groups of MSS. share what types of versional alliances, this will become a key to this issue. In the presentation of readings, the following conventions were followed: In all cases the minority reading of Armenian has been given with the explicit MS. sigla, while the majority is denoted by “Arm (]”. This, of course, implies no determination of originality. LXX always refers to the text of Ziegler’s edition of Isaiah. All Greek MSS., groups, versional witnesses, as well as the Church Fathers are cited exactly as in that edition. Certain major lines of agreement of Greek and Armenian groups are set out in the table which follows the readings. At this point it suffices to note the strong non-Origenic connections of the Armenian tradition which these readings make evident. a ep Chis” in “his master”) Arm (] = MT :: om | = LXX. No inner-Armenian reason for the omission can be discerned. The reading may, of course, still be conjunctive and | may be independently corrupt within the Armenian tradition. 2. 1:4 pmqbf Arm [ = LXX éyxaradinere :: puqho TT watéhinov, 1379. This reading should best be compared with the following puphugntghG of III, a3 pers. plr. aorist, where Arm [) and LXX read a 2 pers. plr. of verbs with the same meaning, i.e. “to anger”. In this case, however, III does not have d1écvpov “disparage, ridicule” as does , which is closer in meaning to MT 1x3. MT =‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH 121 1:5 yuhopkinp peli dq [hm] 8 16 I = LXX avopiay:: pulopkGinep udu Arm (= § L'"-96-233 91¢-cl 403° 534 Chr. dvopiac, Note that the preposition j-is due to Arm’s interpretation of the preceding. pm reads a gen.-dat. form in the singular. p reads the same case in the plural. Both are due to inner-Armenian corruption. 1:13 dbpng (bpdv) Arm Q] = LXX :: om 3b = MT. 14 dbp 1° (OpOv 1°) Arm (] = LXX MT :: om b = VC. 315 yumopu Arm [) = LXX tiv dénow MT pbpn:: + dkp (6yOv) p V Co. 1:15 dbq (ony 2°) Arm] = LXX Bas. Chr. MT. 1:16 dbp (bndv following xovnpiac) Arm (= L""-233 87 534 Tht. :: om q db aq eb befkloqu67 161718 =LXX. 318 Iu 2° (kat 3°) Arm (] = LXX :: om b = MT. 1:25. fhq (68 2°) Arm D = LXX :: om mqqkpdqeqdkdpikl no 8 121416 17 181 I Ill = B-88-olf C = MT. omp éhacdmpu567 =L'-93 1:25 bu qumununfpun Yapmuhg (sods 88 aneiotvras dnohéca) Arm () = LXX :: om pq k dq én ikl 8 14 16 18 1 If = 88-off C=MT. The reading as cited here refers only to the words quoted. In broader terms, in the whole phrase, the reading of 88-olI C is formed of two features, 1) the omission of oe 2°, 2) the omission of 88 ... dnodéow. These produce a text which reads Kai mupdow cig xaapdv rods drei Gosvras. In Armenian, the longest text, that of Arm [] contains a doublet which reads like 88-o1/ C tods dneWobvras following mpdow, but adds the phrase tobs 8& éxeWodvtas dnodéow. Furthermore, the first occur rence of todg dre1Gotvtas is in the gen. case in Armenian, deriving from the interpretation “purification of the disbelievers.” The variants of Arm are, a) some MSS. which omit oe 2° and the whole repetitive phrase tods 3é dmeWBodvtas nooo, thus producing a text like 88-olT C, namely qb pq en ik 181416 18 1 INI; and b) some MSS. which omit only oe 2°, namely m q dt dp no 1217 II resembling B; and ©) twoMSS which omit only rods 32 dxeWobvrac axokéow namely p 4. Certain other readings in Armenian MSS. are to be disregarded in the present context as they do not have any potential versional importance. From the above follows that both the reading of Ziegler’s text and that122, 1 3s 14. 53 16. 7. 18. 19. ai. 22. 23. MICHAEL E. STONE of 88-01 C are represented in the Armenian tradition. The present com- plexitics resulted from a complicated process of correction, conflation, and the like. 1225 br quifbimj® ufpupmuniu jntuphhgmghg (kai xaveas onep- gavovg tansiveoo) Arm (] = LXX ::omadjmpu=B4l0. 1:27 thpybugh qkpmppr (cadfoetar 4 dxzuadwoia) Arm =LXX:: thpybughG qbpbf (captives will be redeemed) pc d p 5 67. qkphf “captives” might conceivably be related to MT may and the reading of the Arm. variant may have resulted from the correction of a text like Arm (] LXX towards a literal rendering of MT. This is not regarded as being definite, and the example is not brought into account in the following listing. Thus for (inpm “her” = abtijg of LXX, the same MSS. read #n “your”. MS j reads qhpntp}ullf “captivities”. 1:31 qnpof Arm [] = LXX at épyaotan; :: qupd q 17 = 710 olf 46 Syh Cyr 4 épyaota, 60:5 In 3° (xai 3°) Arm (] = LXX :: om oq 13 = 49, 60:6 ppb, (épovtec) Arm ] = LXX :: + fhq (coi) wn IIT = 147-93-233 Sa. 60:11 qqopntp pul Arm O]=LXX Sivepty:: qqopmep pulu (qopm-p prim f) fn I = olf Bvvdpeis. This may be inner-Armenian and conjunctive with olf. 60:13 thunmrnp wn, Arm [] = LXX bof éou : (okLovow) g ef. SoGacovw Syp Or. IV.220. This reading is uncertain as a versional variant and has not been taken into account in the following table. 60:15 ogGk# fbq (6 Bonddv cot) gy F dw dp dh dk dp h hm hp b 2 10 11 13 = 106 88 L’"-233 544 Co Syp Tht :: om fhq (cot) Arm 0) = LXX = MT. 60:17 qhzlomiu Arm 1] = LXX Gpyovrag :: pobmfineppa (rule, sing. | 10, plr. Jerus. MS.) | 10 Jerus. MS. = MT yn7zp (uncertain). 60:19 bin knhgh (otat éti) Arm 1] = O” L’”-233 C’-49 403’ 407 544 Syp Or. IV.220 Tht Hi MT :: om éti p dy 10 17 = LXX. 60:21 qinpmmmGy (cd gotevpa) Arm 1) = LXX cf. kétib oop :: qinpunnbtu (4 gvtespara) pq p dw dy oq b Fk 117 = 410, cf. géré oyun. 60:21 rpng (aitod) w pq p dw dq bp acdlm p56710131718 I= LXX :: bipbmlig (adtév) Arm 1] = S$ 534 @ :: pifng (you) p ghst349 1415 = I’-233 Tht MT. tpunutop wad‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH 123 The following table sets forth the cases of agreement of groups of half or less of the Armenian MSS. with groups of Greek MSS. differing from Ziegler's text, or with the MT. In the former case, the other Armenian MSS. agree with Ziegler’s text (or the MT); in the latter they agree with readings either of Ziegler’s text or his apparatus, and usually with an unanimous reading of both. The column marked LXX represents cases of this last type, in which the minority of Armenian manuscripts agrees with the unanimous witness of the Greek tradition. We should note the number of readings falling in the Origenic and Lucianic traditions — each group, it should be remembered, standing separately against the LXX, Furthermore, some MSS. have no Origenic readings, others no Lucianic ones. The limits of the present sample of text permit no genealogical conclusions at this point, but the amount and patterns of the versional variation are striking. Virtually all the Armenian MSS. are found in minority groups with variants of this type. The table does not include readings nos. 3, 8, and 21 as well as the first two of the three variants of which no. 23 is constituted. In these cases, the minority Armenian reading falls with Ziegler’s Greek text, a situation which does not lend itself to the present mode of tabulation. Reading no. 3 shows Arm [] agreeing with a group including Codex S, Luc., a Catena group, 534, and Chrys.; no. 8 has Arm (J agreeing with Luc. 534, and Theodoret (with whom 27 agreements are noted in the table); no. 21 with Origen, Luc., a Catena group and some other witnesses, all concurring with MT against LXX. These fit well into the pattern which emerges from the table. No. 23 varies from this norm, while nos. 13 and 18 are regarded as being too uncertain for inclusion.MICHAEL. B. STONE wu wu “wu or +r or ead or 1 1 1 Ter i I 1 I 1 1 1 Bate cr dee e 3 ONES AS HAS US OD IPKOWD SA HS OIY GD TIF ESL LM TT HOSS AE OWL 90K XXT LN is yuu, dn01p SOuOISI9A, soneg equ wuayeD orueron omsuO IVov Is ve ia 88 ox Gi STeIOL 125 “UZ EB We 9st OE OFZ OEE TTT AT host OC LT OO HON, ‘THE OLD ARMENIAN VERSION OF ISAIAH aa 7 1 [stop zt 1 Pena Ee or ti 1 or z eis iat |e or zw est z I or z © 3 a1 € sr or 1 1 1 T I tae creer z a or z SCH LT € 1 @ 1 1 I st or I aie 1 caret eh w sift Ea 1 1 I 1 1 1 er or 1 bara 1 uw o | t | 1 1 1 I 1 u or} t Gl t 1 1 1 I 1 I or & I 1 1 1 6 or zi ote 0 eas “ rr 1 1 1 L “ fia I 1 1 9 L 8 I 1 r s @ I 1 1 I v @ I 1 r 1 e ofr tat 1 1 1 1 1 ic L fi 1 1 1 I I n @ 1 I I I 1 @ I 1 I I s 0 1 rr t b L Pa I 1 1 1 1 a or 1 Erle 8 1 ° 101 1 1 vee. ee qa as I u L ie I 1 1 i Tr] ow om I z Cte 1 ree l or I z races tlk