^{page 208 note 1} Griesbach, J. J., Commentarius criticus, 1811, pp. x–xxxviGoogle Scholar.

^{page 208 note 2} [I had thought that this statement was contained in Hort's ‘Introduction’ to Westcott and Hort's text, but I cannot find it there and am disposed to believe that Dr. Sanday quoted it to me from a conversation he had had with Dr. Hort. K.L.]

^{page 208 note 3} Lake, K., Codex 1 and its Allies, in Texts and Studies, VIIGoogle Scholar; see especially p. lxxiii.

^{page 208 note 4} Lake, K., The Text of the New Testament, 1st ed., 1898Google Scholar; 6th edition, revised by S. New, 1928, see especially pp. 22 and 84.

^{page 208 note 5} Soden, H. von, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I. Teil, II. Abteilung, 1907, pp. 1042 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 208 note 6} See also p. 327.

^{page 208 note 7} Pp. 1276 ff.

^{page 209 note 8} Lake, K. and Blake, R. P., ‘The Text of the Gospels and the Koridethi Codex,’ in Harvard Theological Review, XVI, 1923, pp. 267 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 209 note 9} Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, London, 1924Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 7} In these and the other statistics presented in this article the reader must be warned that although great pains have been taken to make the figures accurate, yet absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Slight errors may have been made in computing, and the verification necessary for eliminating these would have produced no commensurate result in a matter where only considerable and noteworthy differences of number and proportion are practically significant. Moreover the statistics had to be made from the form in which the Tables were first completed. Later changes in judgment and corrections due to repeated verification of the Tables have in a very few instances been found necessary. These could not be allowed for in the statistics. To have taken account of them would probably have caused a slight, but not appreciable, difference in the statistics; it would not have affected in the least the inferences to be drawn from them.

^{page 254 note 8} That is to say, found in only one member of the family; they are, of course, not ‘singular’ in the usual sense of being wholly unsupported.

^{page 286 note 1} This is the Athos Codex Iveron No. 1; first described in detail by A. A. Tsagareli, . 1886, pp. 1 ff.; cf. also N. Marr, 1899, March, T. 822, pp. 1 ff., and Th. D. Žordania, T. 11 (Tiflis, 1902 r.), pp. 35–41, with Blake's, remarks in Harvard Theological Review, XIX, 1926, pp. 285–286.Google Scholar A detailed description of the MS. will shortly be published in this Review.

^{page 286 note 2} The chief studies of the Old Testament in Georgian are from the pen of N. Y. Marr in the series entitled 168–179, 268–274; 3 (1915) 249–262; 4 (1916) 229–245); particularly important is his article: ibid., 2 (1914), 878–888; cf. also Blake, R. P., ‘Ancient Georgian Versions of the Old Testament,’ Harvard Theological Review, XIX, 1926, pp. 271–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 286 note 3} In particular study, Conybeare's, ‘The Growth of the Peshittâ Version of the New Testament, illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions,’ in American Journal of Theology, I, 1897, pp. 883–912,Google Scholar and also, ‘The Georgian Version of the New Testament,’ in Zeitschrift f. d. neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XI, 1910, pp. 232–249,Google Scholar and ‘The Old Georgian Version of Acts,’ ibid., XII, 1911, pp. 131–140; further bibliography is given by Ropes, J. H., The Text of Acts (The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. III), pp. clxxxii-iiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 287 note 4} This point is especially emphasized by R. P. Blake in the article cited in note 2, especially pp. 288, 290 ff.

^{page 287 note 5} We give a partial list below (note 21), without making any pretensions to completeness.

^{page 287 note 6} This point is very interesting, and forms a striking contrast to the Greek tradition.

^{page 287 note 7} We possess two old MSS. of this translation, which is noted among the works of Euthymius in his vita (Peeters, P., Histoires monastiques géorgiennes, Bruxelles, 1925, pp. 8 ff.).Google Scholar Both of them belong to the 10th century, and must very probably have been copied from the archetype. The first is No. 1346 of the Society of History and Ethnography in Tiflis, which was written on the Bithynian Olympus in the monastery of Kranion in the year 978. This Ms. was formerly in the monastery of Shiomghwimé (see Bibliographie analytique des ouvrages de M. F. Brosset, St. Petersburg, 1887, col. 292). The MS. is by the same hand as the Athos Apostolos (Tsagareli, No. 11, I, pp. 76 f.) from which Conybeare published the fragments of Acts (above, note 3). Conybeare ascribes the Athos Ms. to the 13th century; its real date is 965. Euthymius is mentioned in the Tiflis Ms., but without any title. The date of the Ms. has caused some question, as it does not fit in with the customary chronology of the saint's life, but this latter needs rectification, as K. Kekelidze has shown (, 1923, pp. 183–184). The text on which the version rests is derived from that of the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea (which follows the text in the Ms.), and is a kite type (as Mr. H. C. Hoskier kindly informs us). Photographs of this Ms. are in the J. P. Morgan collection of Ms. photographs at Harvard. The second MS. is No. 397 of the Ecclesiastical Museum at Tiflis (Žordania, I, pp. 392–395). The text is of the same type, as Blake has determined from personal observation. A series of late (18-19th century) copies also exist at Tiflis, also a MS. of an earlier date on Mt. Sinai (No. 85 = 90, Tsagareli, cf. his II, p. 97). Another type of text is contained in the printed text of the Moscow Bible, but its textual affiliation has not been studied.

^{page 287 note 8} This is due presumably to Armenian influence. See Conybeare, P. C., The Armenian Version of Revelation, London, 1907, pp. 61 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 287 note 9} A detailed study of the sources and tradition, both Georgian and extraneous, is given in the recent article of K. Kekelidze, I ( 1926), pp. 1–53, now published also in German, Morgenland, Heft 18, Leipzig, 1928. An earlier critical study by (Tiflis, 1921), pp. 73–91. Other literature in K. Kekelidze, I, pp. 569 f., and A. von Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 1902, pp. 470 f.

^{page 288 note 10} The photograph was received by Professor N. Marr with no name on the cover of the package, but it subsequently transpired that it had been sent to him by F. C. Conybeare. The photograph was not perfectly clear as far as the Georgian text is concerned, and the Hebrew text, which belongs to the Jerusalem Talmud, was published by P. K. Kokovtsov, to whom Marr turned it over, in the vol. XI, 1899, pp. 195–205, and p. 413 note. A brief description of it is given in A. Neubauer and Cowley, A. H., Catalogue of the Hebrew MBS in the Bodleian Library, vol. II, Oxford, 1906,Google Scholar under No. 2672 (col. 74).

^{page 288 note 11} It is also listed as M8. Georgian 2.

^{page 288 note 13} ; Bulletin de l'Université de Tiflis II, pp. 392–424.

^{page 289 note 14} Djavakhishvili, pp. 317 ff.

^{page 289 note 15} Conybeare, F. C. and Wardrop, J. O., Catalogue of the Armenian and Georgian MSS in the British Museum, London, 1913, p. 406Google Scholar.

^{page 289 note 16} In connection with this our thanks are due to Professor F. C. Burkitt, who gathered together the scattered material before Blake's arrival and aided in identifying the vagrant and elusive passages. The manuscript fragments in question are in the Taylor-Schechter collection in the Cambridge University Library, Nos. 12, 183 and 12, 741; and contain Jeremiah 12, 10–17 and 27, 26–28, 6. They unquestionably belong to the same manuscript as the Bodleian leaf, which, though bought in Jerusalem, came from Cairo.

^{page 289 note 17} Exactly how many leaves in this dialect have survived in the Tiflis MSS. is not quite clear from Djavakhishvili's somewhat inconsistent statements; see N. A. Hencko in the article cited below, note 51, p. 369. Some recent discoveries of A. G. Shanidze have increased the scope of khanmeti literature considerably. A number of bits from John Chrysostom have come to light (from the readings for Lent), and furthermore the former Sinai Ms. No. 9 (Tsagareli, II, pp. 57–58), which is now in the 'University Library of Graz, proves to be a fragment of a khanmeti lectionary. Shanidze has published the Chrysostom fragments under the title in Bulletin de l'Université de Tiflis, VII (1926), 98–159,Google Scholar and is publishing the other document in facsimile.

^{page 289 note 18} The texts published by Djavakhishvili contain the following passages:

^{page 290 note 19} The literature on this MS. is given by Blake, R. P. in ‘The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of Mark,’ Patrologia Orientalis, t. XX, fasc. 3, Paris, 1928, Introduction, pp. 439 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 290 note 20} The oldest is the Sinai MS. of the year 864; see below, p. 372, note 64.

^{page 290 note 21} The following partial list makes no pretense to completeness:

(1) The Adysh Gospels (A.D. 897) at Adysh in Svanetia. Phototypic edition by E. Takaishvili (MAK, BmrycKl 14, Moscow, 1916).

(2) The Opiza Gospels (A.D. 913) at Iveron on Mt. Athos. See N. Marr, 322 (March, 1899), pp. 13–15. Used by Beneševič in his edition of the text of Matthew and Mark.

(3) The Djruč Gospels (A.D. 936). Now in Tiflis. See Brosset, M., Bibl. Analytique, col. 307.Google Scholar (4) The Urbnisi Gospels (10th cent.) at Tiflis, Žordania, I, pp. 21–23 (No. 28).

(5) The Cqarost'avi Gospels at Tiflis, Žordania, pp. 116–117 (No. 98).

(6) The P'arkhal Gospels (A.D. 970), now at Tiflis; cf. E. Takaïshvili, MAK 12, pp. 139–151.

(7) The Sinai Gospels No. 15 = 8 Tsagareli (A.D. 978); cf. A. A. Tsagareli, II, p. 57.

(8) The Sinai Gospels 16 = 7 Tsagareli (A.D. 992); 1. c, p. 56.

(9) The Tbet' Gospels at Leningrad (A.D. 995), used by Beneševič in his edition; cf. Tsagareli, I, p p. 17–22.

^{page 291 note 22} The literature dealing with these MSS. is cited in the introduction to Blake's edition of Mark (cf. note 19), pp. 443 f.

^{page 291 note 23} Quattuor Evangeliorum Versio Georgiana vetus. E duobus codicibus (aa. p. Ch. n. 913 et 995) edidit Vladimir Beneševič: fasciculus I, Evangelium secundum Mat-thaeum; fasciculus II, Evangelium secundum Marcum, Petropoli, 1909, 1911 (title also in Russian and Georgian).

^{page 291 note 24} This can best be seen by glancing through the apparatus of Beneševič's edition.

^{page 291 note 25} The influence of the Greek text is observable in the structure and turn of the Georgian phrase rather than in specific Hellenisms.

^{page 291 note 26} We shall return to this point below (pp. 301–302). This influence appears to have come in by way of the Armenian.

^{page 291 note 27} See below, p. 302.

^{page 291 note 28} See N. Marr, T. 322 (March 1899), pp. 10 f., and Beneševič's apparatus, passim.

^{page 291 note 29} We have discussed this point below, pp. 304–307.

^{page 292 note 30} See Georgian, Blake's text of Mark, Patrologia Orientalis XX, fasc. 3, pp. 573 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 292 note 31} This point was made by the late Goussen, H., ‘Die altgeorgische Bibelübersetzung,’ in Oriens Christianus VI, 1906, pp. 300–318,Google Scholar on the basis of the article of Dimitrii Bakradze, Tiflis, 1887, pp. 215–220. Goussen (p. 317) prints a photograph of the desinit of Mark in Codex A. Brief descriptions of the MSS. in question in Th. Žordania, I, No. 28 (pp. 21–23, the Urbnisi MS.) and No. 98 (pp. 116–117, the Cqarost'avi Ms.).

^{page 292 note 32} The Georgian scholar A. S. Khakhanov had been working before his death on the history of the Georgian gospels, but had only published the theses which he intended to sustain. Takalshvili repeats them in the introduction to his edition of the Adysh Gospels (Предисловіе, p. 1, note 1). Some scattered passages from photographs of Tiflis MSS. are given in the article of Conybeare cited above, p. 232, note 3. Much material on the gospels has been collected by M. G. Djanashvili, but has never been published.

^{page 292 note 33} The exception is formed by the tenth-century Ms. No. 4927 of the Society for the Extension of Literacy among the Georgians. An investigation of the text of this Ms. would be highly desirable.

^{page 292 note 34} A.D. 1054, written on the Black Mountain near Antioch, now Ms. 484 of the Ecclesiastical Museum at Tiflis. This is a magnificent codex with gorgeous miniatures and illuminations of the Byzantine type; on it see Th. D. Žordania, Описаніе II, pp. 46–51. On St. Euthymius and his work, see Peeters, P., Histoires monastiques géorgiennes, Bruxelles, 1923, pp. 8ff.Google Scholar; I, Tiflis, 1923, pp. 182 f. and some additional considerations by Blake, R. P., Journal of Theological Studies, October, 1924, pp. 54–57.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 34a} It is not included in the list of his works in the vita (Peeters, pp. 34–36).

^{page 293 note 35} This impression was confirmed by information from M. G. Djanashvili.

^{page 293 note 36} On George the Athonite, see Peeters, P., Histoires monastiques georgiennes, pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar; PP. 212 and Blake, R. P.. Journal of Theological Studies, 1924, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar The chief point of difference is that the pericope adulterae (Jn. 7,57-8,13) appears in this text, but in none of the earlier ones (Khakhanov, cited by E. S. Takalshvili, p. 1, note 1).

^{page 293 note 37} So Father K. Tsintsadze, who had charge of the printing of the recent editions, informed Blake. That this is true for the Tiflis edition of 1913 in Acts was verified by Blake, who collated the Ms. Eccl. Mus. 584 (A.D. 1083), a copy of George's autograph (cf. Žordania, I.e., II, pp. 97–99).

^{page 293 note 38} This is specifically stated in George's vita (Peeters, p. 110).

^{page 293 note 39} This is not a mere guess, but a deduction from the following facts:

(1) The vast majority of the Greek gospel MSS. on Mt. Athos are of the K-type, and according to von Soden a sub-species (K^r) seems to have originated there.

(2) The recension of the liturgical books produced by George was based on that of Constantinople (Peeters, p. 95), and Constantinople is the centre of the K-recension.

^{page 293 note 40} A detailed proof of this contention would lead us too far afield. Definite confirmation from the gospel text cannot be adduced, but the apostolic writings afford a cogent parallel. The older text of this section of the Ne w Testament seems to show such uniformity that we can take it to be a definite recension. The three oldest MSS. are as follows:

(1) Athos, Iveron No. 11, A.D. 965. Some pages of this are published in facsimile from photographs taken by K. Lake for F. C. Conybeare in the latter's article, ‘The Old Georgian Version of Acts,’ Zeitschrift f. d. neutest. Wissenschaft, XII, 1911, pp. 131–140.Google Scholar He ascribes them to the 13th century, but in fact they are of the year 965 and were written in the monastery of Kranion on Mt. Olympus in Bithynia by the same scribe who wrote the MS. of the Apocalypse (A.D. 978), now Cod. 1346 of the Society of History and Ethnography in Tiflis. Photographs of Cod. 1346 are in the J. P. Morgan Collection at Harvard.

(2) and (3) The other two MSS. are in Tiflis in the Library of the Society for the Extension of Literacy among the Georgians, Nos. 407 and 1139 (= Eccl. Mus. 346). Both these have Euthalian apparatus, and both are of the 10th century. The text is very similar in all the three MSS.

Now th e text of George is evidently based on the earlier version. The alterations consist for the most part in the addition of points omitted in the earlier MSS. The language, style, etc., are perfectly similar. George revised carefully on the Greek rather than retranslated, completing and rectifying the work of Euthymius. Similar conditions seemed to have prevailed in the descent of the gospel text.

^{page 294 note 41} On these and similar works see I, pp.57 ff., and the fragments of texts published by II pp. v-xxxxiv; see Blake, in Journal of Theological Studies, 1924, pp. 59–60Google Scholar.

^{page 294 note 42} See below, pp. 305 f.

^{page 295 note 43} See the passages cited in Blake's edition of Mark, , Patrologia Orientalis, XX, p. 416, note 1Google Scholar.

^{page 295 note 44} The word is used in the Armenian. The Georgian construction is wholly puzzling until the Armenian is compared. The later Georgian MSS. read with the Greek άλάβαυτρον.

^{page 295 note 45} The text of A and B is not yet published; the passage is on plate 159b of the Adysh us.

^{page 296 note 46} All three MSS.

^{page 297 note 47} It is dear that (1) u in closed syllables, (2) ü w in general, came to be represented as 3 and 30 in the Meskhian dialect, as we can see from Šota's work. Certain Tao-Klardjet'ian MSS., such as Eccles. Mus. No. 95 (10th cent.), show considerable variation (N. Marr, 3BO xvii (1906), pp. 285–344). In the majority of cases the normal tradition is meticulously maintained; hence I am inclined to think that the scribes came from the adjoining areas.

^{page 297 note 48} Doubts as to the rendering of certain of these were cleared up by Professor N. Marr.

^{page 305 note 49} So also om E 229 (Macler, p. 231).

^{page 305 note 50} hab AC arm (Macler, p. 232).

^{page 305 note 51} Z hab (Macler, p. 384).

^{page 305 note 52} om Z? (Macler, p. 597).

^{page 306 note 53} In the Armenian (Macler, p. 319).

^{page 306 note 54} arm D (Macler, p. 242).

^{page 306 note 55} hab arm Z (Macler, p. 242).

^{page 306 note 56} hab Z (Macler, p. 597).

^{page 307 note 57} Annales du Musée Guimet, XXVIII, Paris, 1919Google Scholar.

^{page 308 note 58} Texts and Studies, III. 3, Cambridge, 1895Google Scholar.

^{page 308 note 59} P. 403: “l'évangile arménien semble caiqué sur Ie grec.”

^{page 308 note 60} See Blake, Robert P., ‘Macler's Armenian Gospels,’ in Harvard Theological Review, vol. XV, 1922, pp. 299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 309 note 61} See Lake, K. and Blake, R. P., ‘The Text of the Gospels and the Koridethi Codex,' Harvard Theological Review, XVI, 1923, pp. 267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 309 note 62} See above, p. 255. The Georgian shows that the original Armenian must have been somewhat more literal and less idiomatic than the present texts.

^{page 312 note 63} Gwilliam, ‘The Place of the Peshitto Version in the Apparatus Criticus of the Greek New Testament,’ in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, V, 1903, pp. 189–237, finds (p. 208) that in Matt. 1–14, of the cases available for comparison, the Peshitto agrees with the “traditional text” 108 times, with Codex Vaticanus 65 times, while in 137 cases the Peshitto departs from both, usually with the support of the Curetonian or the Sinaitic Syriac or of the Old Latin, etc. He gives a list of 31 cases where the Peshitto stands alone (pp. 217 f.). In Acts the Peshitto contains “considerable survivals of a more primitive ‘Western’ Old Syriac in the midst of a text substantially like that of the Old Uncials”; see J. H. Hopes, The Text of Acts (The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. Ill), 1926, p. cxlix, and the tables, pp. 291–316.

^{page 326 note 64} Did such standards exist for the New Testament before the fifth century? The earliest fixed texts that we know with certainty are the Peshitto and the Vulgate. Did Lucian or Hesychius standardize in the same way that Jerome did?

^{page 343 note 65} We are, however, far from convinced that Codex Alexandrinus really belongs to this group.

^{page 345 note 66} It has sometimes been overlooked that the late standardized texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic represent revisions of the ‘central’ texts of the third or fourth century, not of those found in the outlying districts. The Vulgate is a revision of the European Latin; the Peshitto is probably based on a text drawn from Antioch, though in our ignorance of that text its exact relation to it is by no means clear; the Bohairic represents the text of Alexandria; the later Greek texts were apparently formed as the result of a compromise between Antioch and Alexandria. It is this last point which calls for more investigation. We have endeavored to show that there is reason to distrust von Soden's analysis of the later texts. If it be thought worth while, to borrow a classic phrase, to ‘do so much to learn so little,’ it will probably be possible to make generalizations from the small differences which divide the mass of late Mss. into divergent groups. It seems to us that the text which von Soden calls Ks is probably the oldest form of the late text. As Streeter has suggested, it may very well be the Lucianic text and it would not be at all difficult to reconstruct it with tolerable certainty. But we do not know whether the presence of a considerable number of K^a-readings in the Caesarean text means that the Caesarean MSS. have been corrected by the Ka-text, or that the K^a-text was partly based on the Caesarean. The point is not one of capital importance, but it affects our judgment concerning a certain number of readings in Caesarean MSS. Speaking generally, it seems to us extremely likely that the Caesarean text was really one of the ingredients which entered into the making of the later texts, and to those who think as we do — that the mental attitude of an age is apt to be reflected in its texts, we would commend a study of the difference between th e general character of the Caesarean and Neutral texts on the one hand and the Ka and Ecclesiastical texts on the other. The third and fourth centuries used the Neutral and Caesarean texts; both are marked by clearness of choice and decision between alternatives. It is not an accident that these centuries were those which formulated the great doctrines of Catholic Christianity, and that the fifth century, which used the Antiochian and Ecclesiastical texts, was in the East chiefly characterized by compromise in doctrine and by conflation in text.

^{page 358 note 1} Rufinus, Hist. Eccles. i. 10 (Migne, , P. L. 21,Google Scholar col. 480B-482C). On Rufinus in general see Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed., pp. 97–102, andGoogle ScholarGlas, A., Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia als Vorlage für die beiden letzten Bücher der Kirchengeschichte Rufinus, Leipzig, 1914Google Scholar(Byzantinisches Archiv, VI). If we grant that Glas has to some extent rehabilitated Rufinus, we must none the less follow the latter's statements with due caution.

^{page 358 note 2} Socrates, , H. E. i. 20Google Scholar; Sozomen, , H. E. ii. 7Google Scholar; Theodoret, , H. E. i. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 358 note 3} Full bibliography of the Russian and Georgian literature and monographs on this document in op. cit., I, pp. 569ff.;Djavakhishvili's study in his (. 2nd ed., 1921, pp. 85 f.) was formerly the most important discussion of the problem, but this has now been superseded by Kekelidze's study in the I, pp. 1–53 (see above, pp. 287 f.) We can afford to pass over the activities of the Apostle Andrew; see I. Džavakhov, 1901, v. 333 (January), pp. 77–113.

^{page 359 note 4} See op. cit., pp. 5 f., and especially N. Marr. 1905, pp. 66–148.

^{page 359 note 5} See Ter-Minassiantz, E., Die Beziehungen zwischen den armenischen und syrischen Kirchen bis zum 12ten Jahrhundert, Leipzig, 1904Google Scholar(Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. XI), pp. 2–3.

^{page 359 note 6} Cf. especially Marr's article (cited in note 4).

^{page 359 note 7} See above, pp. 293 f.

^{page 359 note 8} See Kekelidze, , op. cit., I, pp. 28 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 359 note 9} Critical edition by S. R. Gorgadze, 1917 ., with valuable notes.

^{page 359 note 10} P. 7,11.4-5.

^{page 359 note 11} In general on this topic see the book of A. A. Tsagareli, 1888 r. ( 10).

^{page 360 note 12} A. A. Dimitrievskii, Τυκικά, Kiev, 1895, I, pp. 222–223.

^{page 360 note 13} Vita S. Theodosii, ed. Usener, H., 1890, pp. 45–46Google Scholar.

^{page 360 note 14} Procopii de aedificiis v. 9, 6–7, ed. Haury, , III, 2, 164, 16–17Google Scholar.

^{page 360 note 15} This is the general statement in the tradition.

^{page 360 note 16} Marquart, J., Ueber den Ursprung des armenischen Alphabets in Verbindung mit der Biographie des hi. Mašt'oc', Vienna, 1917; anGoogle ScholarArmenian translation of this work has been published, Vienna, 1920Google Scholar.

^{page 360 note 17} Junker, Heinrich F. J., ‘Da s Awesta Alphabet und der Ursprung der armenischen und georgischen Schrift,’ in Caucasica, Heft 2, 1925, pp. 1–91;Google Scholar Heft 8, 1926, pp. 82 -189. Marquart had in general argued that the forms of the letters showed the influence of an Aramaic alphabet, but that they had been conventionalized and stylized under the influence of Greek writing and especially of the capital script. Junker, while accepting the second part of Marquart's thesis, makes out a good case for a Fehlevi origin of the characters. Much of the argument turns on the technicalities and peculiarities of the script of the Iranian idioms and must be judged by linguists; certain of the comparisons made of the Armenian and Georgian do not appear sound, but the general results of Junker's investigation seem convincing. Meillet suggested Pehlevi influence in his review of Marquart's, book (Rev. et. arm. I, fasc. 2, 1920, pp. 168–164).Google Scholar Much interesting material is contained in I. Djavakhishvili's (Tiflis, 1927); but the general theses: (1) that the Georgian alphabet is very ancient and an independent development, (2) that it is not connected with the Armenian, (3) that many of the letters are derived from ligatures, hardly seem to me tenable. I hope to discuss the whole question in detail in another place.

^{page 360 note 18} Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 85, 1915, pp. 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 361 note 19} See above, note 17.

^{page 361 note 20} It is a κοινή, which is superimposed upon, but has not supplanted, the dialects. See in particular N. Marr, Leningrad, 1922 r.

^{page 361 note 21} Georgian has been until modern times the written medium o! communication in Mingrelia and Abkhazia and in Swanetian territory.

^{page 361 note 22} The fundamental working out of this conception has been one of the great contributions which Professor N. Marr and his pupils have made to the scientific study of the Caucasus. His theory has naturally varied and altered from time to time as new materials turned up and new points of view presented themselves. A guide, in brief and compendious form, to the scattered and often enigmatic literature, is provided by the recently [published list, N. Marr, Leningrad, 1926.

^{page 362 note 23} Abkhasian and Swanetian belong to the first category, the rest of the group to the second.

^{page 362 note 24} Compare the table appended to the conclusion of Marr's article, Apx. T. xxii, 1914, pp. 31–106).

^{page 362 note 25} See in particular N. Marr, Leningrad, 1925, pp. III ff.

^{page 362 note 26} To the first class of these influences belong for example two layers or currents which have penetrated into Georgian:

(1) A series of words which are akin either phonetically or actually to Swanetian (N. Marr, II, 1 ff.; 1915, pp. 769–780, 821–852, 937–950).

(2) A series of words related to the Lazo-Mingrelian tongues (N. Marr, 1911–1914, 1916, 1918–19, passim), a stratum which strongly affected the Armenian. To the second class belong the attrition of the pronominal prefixes, the loss of the secondary vocalic element in vocalic noun-endings many categories of partially assimilated and erratically distributed loan-words, etc.

^{page 363 note 27} A good summary of the arguments in favor of this is given by K. Kekelidze, , v. I, pp. 37 f.

^{page 363 note 28} Cf. , v. 1, pp. 7ff.

^{page 363 note 29} A brilliant sketch of the later section of this development is given by N. Marr, in his , TP 7 ( 1911), pp. I ff. A general review of the situation in the Arab period in Djavakhishvili, II, pp. 1 f. and, for Armenia in general, Laurent, J., L'Arménie entre Byzance et Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu'en 886, Paris, 1919Google Scholar.

^{page 363 note 30} This point has been particularly emphasized by Kekelidze, , op. cit., I, pp. 41 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 363 note 31} Certain dialectal phenomena in the Adysh MB. perhaps reflect this change; see above, pp. 296 f.

^{page 364 note 32} On this point in particular see N. Marr's brochure, Leningrad, 1922.

^{page 364 note 33} It is reasonably clear that the original literary dialect of Armenia must have been located in the south, as the earliest translations are those from the Syriac (Eusebius, Ephrem, etc.). Later on, after the Arab conquest, the literary centres shifted to the north and west, where the Grecophil school of teachers began its activity. With the destruction of the national kingdom in the 11th century, the centre of activity was transferred to Cilicia. All of these movements have left their trace on the manuscript tradition, but owing to the complete absence of early MSS. we cannot ascertain the true dialectal character of the early texts.

^{page 364 note 34} Cf. N. G. Adonts, Petrograd, 1915.

^{page 364 note 35} On this point many Armenists remain stubbornly blind. In one case the facts observed brought home later the true state of affairs, namely to J. Karst, Historische Grammatik der kilikisch-armenischen Sprache, Strassburg, 1900. The earlier chapters of this work appeared separately, but the palinode of the author is to be found on pp. 132 ff.

^{page 364 note 36} The nearest approach to this came in with the neo-scholasticism of the 18th century, when the Kat'olikos Antoni sought to reintroduce a somewhat altered form of John Petritzi's style into Georgian literature. The old scholastic literature had been snuffed out by the invasion of the Mongols; the new shipwrecked on the popular romantic movement. Hence no grammatical literature appeared in Georgian until the 18th century.

^{page 365 note 37} See above, pp. 288 f.

^{page 365 note 38} The best and clearest exposition of this (from the point of view of the modern tongue) is by A. Dirr in his Grammatik der grusinischen Sprache, , Wien o. J., pp. 68 ff.Google Scholar; also his Einführung i. das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1928, pp. 61 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 366 note 39} In the tables, when the subject is in the plural in regimens II and III, the case or form is the same in both types. The philosophical present, or (in Shanidze'sterminology) permansive, is a form (confined to the 3rd person) which expresses continuous or customary action. The pronominal prefix becomes before dentals or their palatalized equivalents, before Tzischlaute, and disappears before vowels.

^{page 366 note 40} For example, etc.

^{page 368 note 41} In other words the subjective prefixes are wholly different bu t the objective prefixes in part the same.

^{page 368 note 42} This colophon has frequently been printed, but the last and only critical edition is by A. Shanidze in his article, Bull. Univ. Tifl., II, 1923, pp. 402–403.

^{page 368 note 43} Shanidze enumerates a most amusing series of guesses, pp. 407–409.

^{page 369 note 44} Djavakhishvili, pp. 320 f.

^{page 369 note 45} E. Takaīshvili, II, p. 721.

^{page 369 note 46} Pp. 321 f.

^{page 369 note 47} 1901, p. 181, 1, 2, .

^{page 369 note 48} Djavakhishvili, pp. 324 f.

^{page 369 note 49} Djavakhishvili, plates viii-ix.

^{page 369 note 50} Ibid., plates viii-i x and pp. 365 f.

^{page 369 note 51} N. A. Hencko, Leningrad, 1925, pp. 35–49.

^{page 369 note 52} Hencko, pp. 35–36.

^{page 370 note 53} Ibid., pp. 38–41.

^{page 370 note 54} Hencko, pp. 44 f.

^{page 370 note 55} Ibid., p. 45.

^{page 370 note 56} Ibid., pp. 45–47.

^{page 370 note 57} Ibid., facing p. 48.

^{page 370 note 58} Ibid., pp. 46–47.

^{page 370 note 59} Ibid., p. 48.

^{page 370 note 60} Ibid., p. 47.

^{page 371 note 61} Ibid., p. 47.

^{page 371 note 62} p. 183,11. 15–22:

^{page 371 note 63} In III, No. 3–4 (known t o me only from Kekelidze's review ibid., No. 9). Č'ikobava showed that the closed b was a rather frequent phenomenon in the older MSS.; see also I, 1926, pp. 262–267.

^{page 372 note 64} This was inspected by me during a visit there in April, 1927. A large number of the disputed letters were examined by all members of the party and by the σχενοΦύλαξ, Father Ioakim.

^{page 372 note 65} In about 80 per cent of the cases of the letter b and in about 15 per cent of the other letters.

^{page 372 note 66} Bulletin de 1'Université de Tiflis, II, pp. 417 f.

^{page 372 note 67} See below, p. 375.

^{page 372 note 68} A careful comparison of the text in Mark and Matthew with the Adysh Ms. was undertaken by B. H. Streeter and B. P. Blake. For the most part the fragments come from the parables, and are textually not very interesting.

^{page 373 note 69} See above, note 26.

^{page 373 note 70} Djavakhishvili, pp. 346 f.

^{page 373 note 71} Baron P. von Uslar's sketch of Swanetian grammar in his Tiflis, 1887 r, is unfortunately not accessible here, and the sketch by [B. Nizaradze] in , II, pt. II, p 84–98, has been used.

^{page 373 note 72} N. Marr, p. 388.

^{page 373 note 73} In a letter from R. P. Blake to N. Marr, quoted by Hencko, p. 36, and Djava-khishvili, pp. 861–362.

^{page 374 note 74} See above, note 66.

^{page 374 note 75} See above, note 66.

^{page 374 note 76} Pp. 361 f.

^{page 374 note 77} See Deeters, Gerhard, ‘Armenisches und Süd-kaukasisches’, in Caucasica, Heft 3, Leipzig, 1926, pp. 37–82;Google Scholar Heft 4,1927, pp. 1–64.

^{page 374 note 78} Bull. Univ. Tiff. II, 1923, pp. 410–411Google Scholar.

^{page 375 note 80} See above, note 27.

^{page 375 note 81} So Shanidze, , Bulletin Univ. Tifl. II, 411Google Scholar.

^{page 375 note 82} Some evidence is afforded by the language of the Georgian epic Vep'khis Tqaosani by Sota Rust'aveli, but the uncertainties of the textual tradition make any deductions highly dubious. Cf. J. O. Wardrop in the Introduction to his sister's translation, The Man in the Panther's Skin, London, 1912, pp. viii-ix, and N. Marr, 1917, pp. 415–446, 475–506; see above, p. 297.

^{page 375 note 83} A point insisted upon by Hencko; see above, note 51.

^{page 375 note 84} A good instance of how expressions came to be replaced is found in the colophon of Cod. Jerus. 86, discussed by N. Marr, 614 r. TP ix ( 1909), p. 69.

^{page 376 note 1} [The bearing of this Excursus on the views presented in the treatment of the Philoxenian and Harclean versions in J. H. Ropes, The Text of Acts (The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. III), 1926, and especially in respect to certain assumptions therein made without adequate discussion, will not be overlooked by the student of these subjects. J. H. E.]

^{page 376 note 2} Adler, J. G. C., Novi Testamenti versiones Syriacae, Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana, Copenhagen, 1789Google Scholar.

^{page 384 note 3} This view is accepted by Clark, A. C., ‘The Michigan Fragment of the Acts,’ in Journal of Theological Studies, October 1927, p. 19Google Scholar.

^{page 385 note 4} Gwynn, John, articles ‘Polycarpus Chorepiscopus’ and ‘Thomas Harklensis’ in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. IV, 1887Google Scholar; Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, 1909Google Scholar; The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac Version hitherto Unknown, 1897Google Scholar.

^{page 385 note 5} Gwynn, , Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions, pp. xxiii ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 387 note 6} Gwynn, , Remnants, p. xxxiGoogle Scholar; Field, , Hexapla, II, p. 448.Google Scholar The note in the Syro-hexaplar codex at Milan stands at Is. Ix. 6.

^{page 389 note 7} A third colophon, appended to the Harclean text of the Pauline epistles, was published (without translation) from the Mohl MS. at Cambridge, England, by Bensly, R. L., The Harelean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. xi. 28-xiii. 25, Cambridge, 1889.Google Scholar This Pauline colophon is longer than the others and deserves full critical investigation in conjunction with the other colophons and with those found in the Syro-hexaplaric Old Testament. It contains a statement (apparently about the codex from which the version made for Philoxenus was translated) which seems to have been drawn from the ‘Euthalian’ material (see Hopes, J. H., The Text of Acts, p. clii note 2).Google Scholar In the Pauline colophon it is a cause of suspicion that the writer refers to Thomas not as “me, miserable Thomas,” but in the third person as “Thomas bishop of Mabog.” The statement ( Ropes, J. H., The Text of Acts, p. clxxvi note 1)Google Scholar with regard to varying use of ethpacham (‘collatus est’) in the Pauline colophon is subject to reëxamination.

page 397 note 2 εν τω ησαια 565 αποστελω θ

page 397 note 3 vox clamoris Grg^1-2

page 397 note 4 om βαπτιξωνGrg²

page 397 note 5 om ηθ pagi Indaeae Grag² om παντεѕ θ 69 παντεѕ και παντεѕ fam¹³ 565 Greg² εν τω ιορδανη υπ αυτου θ 700 ab eo in Iordane flumine Grg^1.2

page 397 note 6 ην δε ο ιωαννηѕ θ fam¹ 69 700 ο δειωαννηѕ ην 28

page 397 note 7 ερχεται] ecce venit Greg²

page 397 note 8 νμαѕ εβαπτισα fam¹² baptizo vos Grg^1.2 om νμαѕ(2⁰) Grg^2B

page 397 note 9 ναζαρεθ Θ fam¹ fam ¹² εν τω ωρδανη fam¹³ 28

page 397 note 10 caelos apertos Grg^1-2 descendentem tamquam columbam Grg^1.2

page 397 note 12 ενθεωѕ Θ fam¹ 700

page 397 note 13 εκει] εν τη ερημω Θ fam¹³ quadraginta dies Grg^1-2 σατανα] διαβολον Θ Grg^1.2

page 397 note 14 μετα δε] και μετα Grg² om τον Θ om ο Θ 700

page 397 note 16 και παραγων] παραγων δε 28 565 700 τον σιμωνοѕ fam¹ fam¹³ αμΦιβαλλονταѕ τα δικτνα] αμΦιβληστρα βαλλονταѕ fam¹ αμοιβληστρον βαλλονταѕ 700

page 398 note 20 ενθεωѕ εκαλεσεν αντουѕ και ευθουѕ αΦεντεѕ fam¹³ Grg¹ ευθѕ εκαλεσεν αυτουѕ και αΦεντεѕ 28 απηλθον οπιοω αυτου] secuti sunt eum Grg² ηλθον pro απηλθον

page 398 note 21 ενθνѕ Grg² ειѕ την σνναΥωγην εδιδασκεν αυτονѕ Θ 700 in synagogas eorum et docebat eos Grg²

page 398 note 24 sine nos Grg^1.2B

page 398 note 25 om και (1⁰) Grg² απο του ανθρωπου] απ αντον 565 700 Grg^1.2

page 398 note 27 λεγοντεѕ Θ διδαχηκαινη]καινη διδαχη 700 τιѕ διδαχη καινη 28 τιѕ η διδαχη αντη fam¹³

page 398 note 28 αυτου ] +ευθυѕ πανταχον fam¹³

page 398 note 29 om ευθυѕ Grg^1.2 εξελθων εκ τηѕ συναγωγηѕ ηλθεν Θ e synagoga exiit et venerunt Grg^2B et exiens e synagoga venerunt Grg^2A exierunt abhinc e synagoga et venerunt Grg¹ 30 om ενθνѕ

page 398 note 31 και ] + ευθυѕ Grg^2B πυρετοѕ] + et surrexit Grg₂ αυτοιѕ] αυτω Grg_2B

page 398 note 32 οτε εδνσεν] και εδν Grg₂

page 399 note 33 η πολιѕ ολη συνηγμενη ην&rsqp; η η πολιѕ ολη ην συνηγμενη fam₁₃ η πολιѕ ολη συνηγμενη ην 565 omnis 565 omnis ilia civitas congregata erat Grg^1.2ην ολη η πολιѕ επισυνηγμενη Θ

page 399 note 34 τον χρωτον fam¹⁷ 700

page 399 note 35 εξηλθε&rsqp; egressus est et venit Grg¹ et egressus est illinc et abiit Grg²

page 399 note 37 σε ξητουσι&rsqp;quaerimus te Grg^2B

page 399 note 38 και λεγει] om και 700 et dixit Grg¹ Iesus autem dixit Grg² εληλυθα] εξηλθον Θ in synagoga Grg^1-2

page 399 note 40 θελησηѕ 565 θεληѕ κυριε 28

page 399 note 41 χειρα] + αυτου Grg^2B

page 399 note 42 εκαθαρισθη] + a lepra ilia Grg^2B

page 399 note 43 om ευθεωѕ Grg^2B

page 399 note 44 ειπων] και ειπεν 28 et ostende temet ipsum Grg^1.2 ιερει] αρχιερει fam 13

page 399 note 1 om εκειθεν και ερχεται W

page 399 note 2 in synagoga docere eos Grg² ινα&rsqp; και fam¹ fam¹³ 565 W Grg^1.2

page 399 note 3 ο του τεκτονοѕ υιοѕ μαριαѕ&rsqp; ο του τεκτονοѕ ο υιοѕ και τηѕ μαριαѕ fam₁₃ ο τεκτων ο υιοѕ τηѕ μαριαѕ Θ W οο τεκτων ο υιοѕ μαριαμ 28 οο τον τεκτονοѕ υιοѕ και μαριαѕ 700 Grg₂ μαριαѕ] + και Grg₁ ιωσητοѕ] Josebi Grg₂

page 400 note 4 om τη (2^o) fam¹³ om και εν τηοικια αυτου Grg^1.2B

page 400 note 5 om εδυνατο Grg² ποιησαι ουδεμιαν fam¹ om ουδεμιαν θ Grg² εκει ουδεμιαν] ουκετι W quicquid potestatis facere Grg¹

page 400 note 7 δονς] και εδωκεν W

page 400 note 9 μηδε] et Grg² μητε Θ

page 400 note 11 αν] εαν 700 om αν τοπος Θ

page 400 note 14 βασιλευς] + την ακοην ιησου fam¹² ηγερθη εκ νεκρων Θ

page 400 note 15 om ελεγον οτι ηλιας αλλοι δε Grg^2B

page 400 note 16 om ουτος εστιν 28 W Grg^1.2

page 400 note 17 την φυλακην 565

page 400 note 18 om την W την γυναικα εχειν του αδελφου] fratris uxorem habens Grg^1.2

page 400 note 20 ακουων 28

page 401 note 22 om δε 565 θυγατρος]+αυτου 565 om της (2^o) 565 W

page 401 note 23 ante εως add και ωμωσεν (ωμωσας 28) αητη (om αυτη 28) πολλα οτι ο εαν (αν 565) με (om με fam¹³) αιτησης δωσω σοι Θ fam¹³ 28 565 700 Grg¹ βασιλειας]+καιωμωσεν αυτη fam¹

page 401 note 24 αυτη] αιτησαι W Grg²

page 401 note 25 om ενθνς fam¹ W ειπεν εΖαυτης] λεγουσα Grg^1.2 om ειπεν εΖαυτης W om εΖαυτης fam¹ 28 Grg^1.2

page 401 note 27 αυτου]+επι πινακι W

page 401 note 32 απηλθεν gfam¹³ 700 εις ερημον τοπον εν πλοιω 565 700

page 401 note 33 om και συνηλθον αυτω W συνηλθον] ηλθον fam¹ 565 προσηλθον Θ προσηλθεν fam¹³ αυτω] αυτους fam¹³ αυτου 565 αυτου 565 αυτοις Θ om fam¹

page 401 note 34 ηρΖαντο Θ W

page 401 note 35 ελεγον Θ Grg² κωμας και αγρους fam¹ om αγρους κακωμας]+αργους 565 εαυτοις]+βρωματα Θ αγορασωσιν εαυτοις] καταλυσωσι fam¹ τιαγωσιν] φαγειν 565

page 402 note 40 ανεπεσαν Θ fam¹ 28 700 W

page 402 note 43 ηραν]+ το περισσευσαν των κλασματων 700

page 402 note 44 om ως fam¹² W Grg¹

page 402 note 45 απολυσει fam¹³ 28 700 απολυει fam¹

page 402 note 48 περι δε 565 700 ερχεται]+προς αυτους ο ιησους Grg² προς αυτους]αυτοις 565

page 402 note 51 περισσως] εκπερισσως fam¹ εκ περισσου 28 W εΖεπλησσοντο]εΖιοταντο Θ

page 402 note 53 γενησαρε Grg¹

page 402 note 54 om ευθυς 565 700 τοπου]+εκεινου fam¹

page 402 note 55 περιεδραμον] εκπεριδραμοντες fam¹ περιχωραν Θ om εκει Θ

page 402 note 56 οποταν] οταν 565³ αγρους η κωμας] κωμας η αγρους 700 om αγρουη fam¹ διεσωζοντο] εσωθησαν 565

page 403 note 1 ηγγωσαν fam¹³ ιεροσολυμα]+και (om και Θ fam¹ fam¹³) εις βηθφαγη (βηθσφαγη fam¹ fam¹³) και Θ fam¹ fam¹³ 565

page 403 note 2 λεγων] et dixit Grg^1.2

page 403 note 3 λυσατε[ και λυσαντες fam¹³ 28 αγαγετε]+μοι Grg¹ om λυετε τον πωλον fam¹ W Grg^1.2 αποστελλει Θ fam¹³ 28 565 αποστελλει]+αυτον Θ Grg^1.2

page 403 note 4 και ανελθοντες] απηλβον ουν και fam¹ fam¹³ 28

page 403 note 5 εστωτων W

page 403 note 8 δε (2^o) και Grg^1.2 om fam¹ om αλλοι δε στιβαδας εκοπτον εκ δενδρων και εστρωννυον εν τη οδω W

page 403 note 9 om Ωσαννα τω υψιστω W

page 403 note 10 om ερχομενη fam¹ om ερανω και δοζα 28 700 W

page 403 note 11 παντας 565

page 403 note 12 απο βηθανιας] ειβηθανιαν W om fam¹

page 403 note 13 απο μακροθεν συκην W ως ευρησων τι] ει αρα τι ευρησει fam¹ 28 W ελθων δε επ αυτην] και 700 Grg² μονα 28 ει μη φυλλα μονον] in ea Grg^1B om Grg^2A ου]ουνω fam¹

page 403 note 14 αυτη]+ οιησους W καρπον μηδεις fam¹ W

page 403 note 15 ερχεται]+Jesus Grg^1.2

page 404 note 17 om πασι τοις εθνσιν 28

page 404 note 18 απολεσουσιαυτον] populum Grg²

page 404 note 21 αντω] Iesu Grg²

page 404 note 22 τον θεον W om θεον 28

page 404 note 23 εσται γενησεται αντω] γενησεται εσται ουτος Grg² om οσα αν ειπη fam¹ 28 W Grg^1.2

page 404 note 24 αιτησητε 565 700 ελαβετε W Grg¹

page 404 note 25 αφησει] ανη fam¹ W

page 404 note 28 εδωκεν ταυτην την εΖουσιαν fam¹ ταυτην την εΖουσιαν εδωκεν W την εΖουσιαν ταυτην δεδωκεν fam¹³

page 404 note 32 εαν]+δε 565 αλλα fam¹ ηδεισαν] οωασι 700 ειχοσαν 28 ιωαννην]+οντως fam¹³

page 404 note 33 λεγει αυτοις ο ιησους 28