In all these cases the Ann. is faithful, as against the Syr., to the LXX. In spite of tliis general con- formity, however, there are numerous cases in which the Arm. supplies omissions of the LXX ; e.g. Is dtp runs thus in the Arm. : ' But the law- less who offers to me an ox as ofiering [is just as if one should smite the head of a man, and he that offers the sheep as offering] is just as if one should slaughter a dog.' Here the words bracketed have droptout of the ordinary LXX text ; but they were added to the LXX text by Sym. and Theod.
In Jeremiah the traces of correction by direct or indirect use of the Massoretic or Syr. texts are fregiient, e.g. eh. IG- the Arm. =et ne gignantur tibi filii et filise. In v.* it = sed in exeraplum erunt super faciem terrae. In gladio cadent et in fame consummabuntur. Et erunt cadavera eorum in cibum volatilibus coeli et bestiis terroe. In the above the plural gignantur . . . filii et filife in v.', and in v.'' exemplum, belong to the LXX ; but the arrangement of clauses in v.*, as also the addi- tion cadavera eorum, are due to the Syr. or to the Massora. It may be noticed that Jerome, wlio con- sulted the Heb. text, combines it with the LXX in just the same way, only reading with the Heb. tlerquilinium for exemplum. In order to demon- strate this composite cliaracter of the Arm. text, I give a collation with Tischendorf's text of ch. 23. Wherever the variants of the Armenian reflect the Massoretic or Syr. texts, or both, I add M or S or SM.
Jer 231 ,iT^,] .\Tm.€n : men SM— ibid. add. nr) Kip,,, SM.
— » Kv^(Of Qtai 'Itf-^at^XSM — iw't rcijt wottjLt^eLt T*uf wot^iM,,»ofrx«
SM— i/^yJ-H/iyii Kiptoe SM. — 4 a-Tonfl.J-Hneque erunt neglecti : 8-(-neque aberrent: M + nequedcflcient.— 5 3i«<c;«,] J,««,o«-;„„ s. — 8 'Uff-ioi«]-f ,1 lixK'offtjtn iif^Si : iustitia nostra (i.e. losedek) SM — ibid.-fi> mc rpi>fnTaui, and w.7 », which in the LXX come at the end of the chapter, are added here by the Arm. as by SM.— » before n,itp:P.„ Arm. add. i»; t«U »,>«j,iT«(.— lo before It/ iri +nam impleta est tellus adulteris as in M ; (S adulteris H raptaribiu) — Tcirtn] 'of swearing' : M has periurii — rctrpii] i!t »«.V<".— " tr. »».». «. ;,p,i, M_,;5«,] ii7;»,.— i2,T„r». ,tiTi,]+ iij-i. Kufict SM.— 13 IccpLicft.it'! ' of Shnirn.' SM.— 16 KCpiti] + exeT- cituum erga prophetas S.M— »•;««.) ^itpirr-rc,. — 16 wfofr,Ti,)+ r«F ■■/•^Tit/fli-Ta.v SM — f4Arei,etiriy] + ixt7>t, itfjut and om. iavroit M
•^•'- *«/>3'*#_8M. — 18 ^,»,r.tf-«Ts]-(-uerbum meum : SM uerbum eius.— » ora. U, SM— om. niTt S — om. 'un i>— «iri ari iyxupir ^To<] iyxtipint^ SM — ^orceurit airij + »Mi;,Tif M. — 21 om. pr. ««/
«» Xmw fiMv SM. — 28 om. rpix tt'^rit 8. — 2» om. ivr^ pi yiypi fjuv 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 flwT*f .— ^ 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.