Passing to the NT we find the Gospels preserved to us in a large number of MSS, many of which are lectionaries. Among them may be mentioned the Codex Zographensis .and C'uclex Marianus, both written in Glagolitic characters, and the Osiromir Codex, written in Cyrillic, and dated 1056-1057. A critical edition of St. M.ark, based on lOS MS.S, has been published by Professor Voskresenski. He groups the authorities for the text in four main classes. The history of the next division of the NT, t\\eApostol, ha.s been also caiefully studied by the same author. M.SS either of the continuous text, or of the parts used in services, go back as far as the 12th cent., and on these he published ,an elaborate monograph in 1879, and in 1S92 produced a critical edition of the Epistle to the Romans based on 51 manuscripts, man\- of which only give the Church lections. The only other part of the NT which has been examined is the Apocalypse. The MSS of this book are fewer and later, but the earliest is ascribed by Oblak to the 13th century.
iii. The Text of the Version and its Value. — For the OT the MSS do not show any great or important variations, but the characteristics of the translation they contain are dillerent in diflerent parts. 'The Pentateuch shows signs of very great antiquity, and probably embodies fragments of the original translation. The Books of Joshua, ludges, and Kuth also represent an old transla- iion. The Books of Samuel and Kings are less old and less exact. The Psalter is of course very old. Ecclesiastes and Sirach show a later but accurate translation. The Book of Job, Song of .'Songs, and the Prophets . . . show signs of glos.ses. While all the above were translated from the Greek, and the Book of Esther from the Hebrew, the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the other books of the Latin Bible were translated from the Vulgate towards the end of the 15th cent., and embodied in Gennadius' MS [i.e. of A.D.
* This >IS ia now in the Synodal Library at Moscow, and is fully de.-icribed by Gorski and Nevostruief id their description of tlie M^S in that library,
t For details of these writings see Philarefs Heview qf Spiritual Literature from 86t to 17S0(,ia Hussion).
1499]. This text was adopted for the edition ol the Bible published at Ostrog in 1581.'*
It will be seen from the lueceding words that the value and interest of the Version varies in ditierent parts of the OT. The only part which is of real interest is that based on the Greek, and, in regard to this, its relation to Lucian's recension is the most important point. This has been variously described, Lagarde asserting that Lucian was the basis of the Slavonic ; Buhl, that the Slavonic resembles the Ij text. The writer has examined this point, but only over a limited area, in reference to Lucian'a recension. t The results seem to vary in difl'erent books. The Slavonic text of the OT, in the books derived from the Greek, deserves a fuller and wider examination than it has yet received.
In regard to the NT the MSS of the Version are more numerous, and contain a number of varia- tions. These are, for the most part, of interest only in regard to the history of the Version itself, and consist of modiUcations in orthography, the removal of archaisms, and the translation of Greek words which in the earlier recensions had been simply transliterated. To the student of Slavonic these variants present innumerable points of in- terest. They also point to dilierences between the underlying Greek text, which are of wider interest, and it is well here to point out that the ordinary printed text of the Russian or of the Slavonic Bible often fails to indicate the important readings found in the older MSS. Among the passages where the oldest MSS ditl'er as to the Greek on which they are based, the following may be noticed : Lk 2^ 6' 14-", Jn 9» PJ" 2VK
It cannot be said that the Version has any great value for textual criticism, nor should we expect, remembering its close connexion with south- eastern Europe, to find it preser\'ing a text of any uniform or great im]jortance. Its chief value and interest are in connexion « ith the history of the development of the Slavonic language, and in this department it is not easy to exaggerate its im- portance.
LiTERATURB. — This is for the most part in Russian. See Scrivener's Introdurtion, ii. 157 ff. ; Church (Quarterly Hevieto, Oct. IS'J.'J. and the literature there referred to. Nestle, Urtrxt, etc., p. 211 ff., should also be consulted. There are numeroui articles dealing with details of this subject in the Archie fwt Slacische Philologie. LL. J. M. BEBB.
VERSIONS, GREEK (other than the LX.X).— It Avould seem from >\ hat has come down to us that many persons took in hand to make translations, if not of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, yet certainly of some books, and, as was natuial, particularly of the Psalms. But, unfortunately, little renuiins except detached fragments. The longest passages of a continuous text still extant and already published are two passages from 1,2 (3, 4) Kings (21 [23]'-" 23""") and one from 1 (3) Kings (14'-*'), all attributed to Aquila. The former have been edited by F. C. Burkitt, the latter ia quoted in its due order in Field's Hexnpla. Unfortunately, very few fragments of Origen's Hexnpla in its original form liave been found ; a considerable portion of the i'salter is, however, shortly to be edited by Dr. Mercati of the Vatican from a p.alimp.sest in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. It is nmeh to be wished that, amongst the treasures still perhai>s remaining to be un- earthed in Egypt and elsewhere, a i»py of at least some portions of Origen's work migdit be dis- covered. For the present we are indebted for the most part to the marginal notes of SeptuagintaJ MSS for the fragments which we do possess, tlie chief editors of which have been Montfaucon and Field. Fresh fragments are, however, being coi>-