Scarcely any addition has been made to the Arabic versions since they were treated by F. C. Burkitt in vol. i. p. 13611".
Of the Gothic version ascribed to Ulfilas, only a few fragments of the OT are extant, from Gn S-''*", Ps 52=^, Ezr 15. 16. 17 (not 28-'=) ; but these are sufficient to show that Ulfilas, as might have been suspected, followed the recension used in Constan- tinople— that of Lucian. The best edition is that of Lppstrora (Upsala, 1854, 1857, 4°), the most con- venient that of Stamm-Heyne ('1896, in which, however, as in all, the order in Ezra must be re- versed in the way indicated above), or E. Bernhardt, 1884.* For the literature see Sw. p. 116; Urt. 119-121.
The recension of Lucian is the basis also of the Slavonic version (first printed at Ostrago, 1581). From the quotations in Holmes (on Gen.) one might almost conclude that its present form is based on the Aldine edition of 1518, so frequently does it agree with it. For literature see Urt. p. 215 (Leskien) ; Sw. p. 120 ; Holmes, Prwf. in Tent.
The Georgian version was nsed for Holmes (see Praef. in Pent.), but the fust edition (Moscow, 1743) was made conformable to the Slavonic Bible by the Prince Vakhusht, son of Vakhtang, king of Georgia. See Urt. p. 161 ; Sw. p. 120.
The Armenian version (sec the article of F. C. Conybeare in vol. i. p. 151) rivals, in importance for the textual criticism of G, the Sjriac, and will be used for the larger Cambridge edition of C
The version of the OT which came into common use in the 5yriac-speaking churches was made from the Hebrew, tnough it occasionally under- went intluences from (E (see art. SvRlAC Versions). But besides this common version (Pe-shitta), the zeal of this Church produced a translation of Ci, prob- ably the most literal that ever appeared in any language, and therefore of the greatest importance for the textual critic. It was the work of one Paul, bishop of Telia dhe Mauzelath (Coi stantine
* An American edition woj* published by O. 11. Balg, UIl waukee, 1891. That of Massmou is from 1865-1857.
SEPTUAGIXT
SEPTUAGIXT
447
in Mesopotamia), and was executed by liim in Alexandria in the years GlG-617 There he liad at his disposal several MSS, which went back — with few intervening links — to tlie very Hexupla or Tetrapla of Ori;,'en ; hence the usual name of this version, the Sijro • Hexaplnr. Andrew du Macs (Masius, tl573; see on his merits Sst. i. 13-16) possessed a copy containing part of Deut., Josh., Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and '_' Kings, Chron., Ezr., Esth., Judith, and part of Tobit. Unfortunately, this codex has disappeared ; but what, in all likeli- hood, is the second volume of it, is preserved at the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and was piven to the world through the labours of Ceriani and a generous gift of Frederick Eicld (see above, p. 443'') as the Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus in a photo-lithograiihic facsimile edition as torn. vii. of the Monumenta sncra et profaTia [Milano, 1874, fol.); while the other parts tliat survived of this version (from Gen., Ex., Numb., .Josh,, Judges, 1 and 2 Kings) have been most carefully edited in the la.st work of P. de Lagarde (Hililiutheca Syrincce a Paulo de Logardt collects quw ad Philo- loginm Sacram pertinent, (iottingae, 1892, 4°, finished by A. Kahlfs). Of the former publications — .see the list in Nestle, Litt. syr. p. 29 f. — only that of Thomas Skat Uordam {Librt Jud'uum et Ruth secundum versionem syriaco - hexaplarem, Haunise, 1859-61, 4°) deserves mention, on account of the ' Dissertatio de regulis grammaticis, quas secutua est Paulus Tellensis in Veteri Testamento ex Grneco Syriace vertendo' (pp. 1-57), together with Field's Olium Norvicensc, sive Tcntamen de Jicliquiis Aq^iilm Symmachi et Theodotionis e lingua Hyriftra in Gracam ronvertendis, Oxon. 1S64, 4°. On account of the MSS used by Paul, and the princiijles followed by him, this version forms our chief authority for the text of Origen's recension. Oa the Arabic translation based on it see above, p. 44;')'. For the literature see W. Wright, art. ' Syriac Literature' in Eney. Brit. vol. xxii. = Short history, p. 18 ; Field, llcxapla, L p. Ixviitf. ; Sw. 112ir. ; Urt. 117.
On other attempts to translate parts of (5 into Syriac, by Polycarp in the 5th cent. (Psalms), Jacob of Ede.ssa in the years 704-5, see Sw. p. 115f. ; Gwynn, Dirt. Chr. /Hog. iv. 433.
On the fragments of translations in the so-called Palestinian ilialect, we may refer to Sw. p. 114 f., and especially to F. C. I'.urkitt ('Christian Pale- stinian Literature' in JThSt, ii. 17411'. ). The frag- ments enumerated by Sw. p. 115, from Gen., Ex., Numb., 1 Sam., 1 kin"s, Psalms, Prov., Job, AVisd., Anuis, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Zech., Is., Jeremiah, have been augmented since by the publication of Palestinian Syriac texts from pal- impsest fragments in the Taylor-Schechtcr collec- tion, edited by A. S. Lewis and M. I). Gibson (l>ond. 1900, 4°), containing portions of Numb., Deut., Psalms, Is., Jer., and — as recognized by V. IJyssel— of Sirach (frag, xviii.). On the date and place of this whole literature see liiirkitt, I.e.
Up to the present day several of the Churches in which these various versions of G arose, have never emancipated themselves from them. But even in those parts where, as in the Latin West through Jerome, or in modern Europe through the influence of the Reformation, new Bible versions, based on the Hebrew original, came into use, there is still, in greater or less degree, an echo of (S to be licard through worship and theology. It may Kulliie to recall tlie Pnij'er-Book version of the I'snims, or even the latest revision of the English Bible, in which it is not the names alone of the lM)oks of the OT from Genesis to Ecclesiasticus that tell of this first and most remarkable of all bibli- cal versions.