Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
The well-known Armenist of the École Nationale des Langues Orientales Vivantes at Paris, Professor Frédéric Macler, has laid New Testament scholars and those who are interested in the Caucasian languages, more particularly Armenian, under a decided obligation by the publication of this elaborate study of the text of Matthew and Mark in the Armenian version. What makes the book of especial value is the fact that we have here a large number of variants drawn from Mss. which were inaccessible to the editor of the only variorum edition of the Armenian text hitherto published — that of Zohrab, Venice, 1805. This is peculiarly grateful to the Armenist, while the New Testament critic finds a large body of readings from various Armenian Mss. or manuscript groups collected, translated, analyzed, and compared with the Greek, the Old Syriac, and the Peshitto by a competent scholar.
1 This Ms. is described by Macler in Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques, N. S., fasc. 2, Paris, 1910, pp. 27–37.
2 Duval, R., La littéature syriaque,3 Paris 1907, pp. 37–42Google Scholar.
3 Μатеріалы по археологіи Кавказа, выпускъ 16, Moscow, 1916. The date of the Ms. is disputed, but the preponderance of evidence for the earlier date as given in the text is very decided.
4 See Burkitt, F. C. in Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, II, pp. 161–164, Cambridge, 1904Google Scholar.
5 See the tractate of the Georgian Katalikozi Arseni on the schism between Armenians and Georgians in Žordania, Kronikebi, etc., I. Tiflis, 1892, pp. 313 ff., especially p. 325.
6 This word is a very problematical expansion of an obscure contraction, nor is Τεϕρικη certain either. See the text of the adscription, p. 498, and Beermann's discussion of the same, pp. 569 ff. in Beennann and Gregory's edition, Leipzig, 1913.
7 This form is found in the Georgian version of Epiphanius, περὶ τῶν ιβ᾽ λίθων, Ms. 1141 (ca. A.D. 970) of the Georgian Literary Society (Šatberd Ms.) p. 129a = ed. Джанашвили, p. 26; in the Passio ss. martt. Ivlianos et Evbulos, Tevdoros et Malkamon, Mokimen et Salamone, Ms. 341 (inc. aetatis) of the Georgian Society of History and Ethnology, f. 209r; in Acts 16, 21 of Ms. 407 of the Georgian Literary Society, quaternio 30, f. 2r (236).
8 Cf. Chapot, V., La frontière de l'Euphrate de Pompée à la conquête arabe, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’ Athènes et Rome, fasc. 99, Paris, 1907, pp. 100–108Google Scholar.
