criticism, on account of the interpolations from the Slavonic, introduced by the Georgian Princes, Arcil and Wacuset, when it was first printed in 1743.

XI. THE SCRIPTURES IN SLAVONIC.

THE Slav literature originated, in the ninth century, with Cyril of Thessalonica, and his brother Methodius, two missionaries, of noble birth and ardent zeal, who had been sent among the Mosians and Bulgarians by the empress Theodora. Like Ulfila and Miesrop, these messengers of the truth invented an alphabet, and embodied the scriptures in the newly-written tongue. They made the Slavonian version from the Septuagint Old Testament, and the Constantinopolitan Greek of the New. Professor Alter, indeed, says, that the Old Testament was done from the Vetus Itala, and altered, in the fourteenth century, from Greek manuscripts; but this is an erroneous opinion. There seems an absurdity in the idea that these native Greeks would have recourse to the Latin translation as the basis of their work. Many useful points of information on this version may be found in Dr. Henderson's "Researches in Russia," &c.; but the most elaborate account of the Slavonic scriptures is that published by Dobrowsky, in the Neue Orientalische Bibliothek, vol. vii. p. 155, and of which Bishop Marsh has given the following summary: "1. The Slavonian version is very literally translated from the Greek; the Greek construction being frequently retained where it is contrary to the genius of the Slavonian; and resembles in general the most ancient manuscripts. 2. In the Gospels it agrees with the Codex Stephani more frequently than with any other Greek manuscript. 3. In the Catholic epistles it agrees in general with the Codex Alexandrinus, and often in the Revelation. 4. In the Acts, and in the Epistles

D

of St. Paul, it agrees in general with the most ancient MSS.; but sometimes with one, sometimes with another, yet most frequently with Wetstein's Codex E. 5. Of the readings adopted by Griesbach in the text of his Greek Testament, the Slavonian version has at least threefourths. 6. Where the united evidence of ancient Mss. is against the common printed reading, the Slavonian version agrees with the ancient manuscripts. 7. It has not been altered from the Vulgate, as some have supposed, though the fact is in itself almost incredible. 8. It varies from the text of Theophylact,* in as many instances as they agree; and their coincidence is to be ascribed, not to an alteration from Theophylact, but to the circumstance, that both Theophylact and the author of the Slavonian version used the same Greek edition. 9. The Slavonian version has no readings peculiar to itself, or what the critics call lectiones singulares.”

From the account given by this eminently competent writer, it is easy to conclude, that the high estimation in which it has been held by those who have been able, through their knowledge of the language, to avail themselves of this respectable version, has not been exaggerated. Of the Old Testament, the earliest manuscripts in Slavonic do not go beyond the fifteenth century; but there are copies of the New which date so far back as the eleventh. The version was first printed at Ostrog, in 1581.

XII. ARABIC VERSIONS.

WHILE the residence of a multitude of Jews in Arabia afforded a medium for the early preaching of the gospel, it occasioned, at the same time, a formidable obstacle to

*Archbishop of Acrida, in Bulgaria, about A.D. 1077. His commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, are in much repute for the assistance they give in the literal explication of scripture.

its success. Whether Paul soon after his conversion preached in that country, or spent his time there exclusively in study and devotion, cannot now be determined. The apostle Bartholomew, according to old tradition, preached in Arabia, as did Pantænus, the catechist of Alexandria, in the following century. Origen, also, may be traced in this department of evangelical labour, and from his time the Christian church included many congregations of Arabians; but the wandering manner of life peculiar to that people, as well as the active hostility of Jewish and Pagan opposers, prevented any extensive or permanent manifestation of Christianity among them. Nor did that which they received long retain its native character; the lustre of the truth was obscured; a false gospel, even in the letter, usurped the place of the true one, in the shape of apocryphal records. Thus the distorted representations which Mahomet himself gave of the gospel, might have seemed to him to be genuine, he having derived them from the corrupt vehicles of information, then currently received in those lands as authentic witnesses of the events and doctrines of the Christian faith.

Of the canonical scriptures themselves, no portions appear to have existed in Arabic till some time after the Mahometan epoch.* But between the period of the Saracenic conquests and the fourteenth or fifteenth century, several versions were made of different portions of the Old and New Testaments; from the Hebrew and Greek originals, from the Septuagint, from the Peschito Syriac, and Coptic, and from the Latin.

* There is an obscure account in a biography of the prophet, by Ibraham, of Haleb, (published at Cairo in 1839,) that the gospel had been translated by Warka ibn Naufel, a relative of Khadija, shortly before Mahomet commenced his career; but I am not aware that this statement has any trace of authentic corroboration.

I. Of the first class of these are,

1. The Pentateuch, by Rabbi Saadia, surnamed Haggaon, or the Illustrious, who was rector of the Jewish academy at Sora, and died A.D. 942. It was printed at Constantinople in 1546, and reprinted, though not without interpolations, in the Paris and London Polyglots. It has been well designated an honourable monument of the biblical philology of the tenth century.

Beside the Pentateuch, there are also extant, by the same translator, a version of Job and of Isaiah. The former exists in manuscript at Oxford; but the Isaiah was printed at Jena in 1791. R. Saadia translated the prophet Hosea also, as appears from a quotation of it by Kimchi.

2. The Pentateuch of Abu Said, a Jew, or rather Samaritan, of the twelfth century. This was made, it is thought, in rivalry of that of Saadia Haggaon. It is based on the text of the Hebræo-Samaritan Pentateuch. Only parts of it have been printed; but manuscripts may be found at Oxford and Paris.

3. The Pentateuch, accomplished by a Moorish Jew of the thirteenth century, and distinguished for its extreme closeness; it was printed by Erpenius, at Leyden, in 1622.

4. The Books of Genesis, Psalms, and Daniel, "by the hand of Saaidia ben Levi Aznakút," a Moorish Jew. MSS. in the British Museum. (Harl. No. 5,505.)

5. The Book of Joshua; by whom, or when, rendered, unknown. It is printed in the London and Paris Polyglots; where also may be found some Arabic fragments of the Books of Kings, (first book, chap. xii., to second book, chap. xii. 16,) and the first nine chapters of Nehemiah.

All these translations of the Old-Testament scriptures are valuable, from the relation of the two languages, in

illustrating the import of various words and formulæ in the Hebrew original. The work of Abu Said, (No. 2,) would doubtless be of acceptable service in a critical edition of the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, for the emendation of which so few materials are in existence.

6. Of the New Testament from the Greek there is a version of the Gospels; age unknown. It has been retouched from the Peschito and Memphitic. This, with the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, of the eighth or ninth century, is printed in both the Polyglots.

7. Erpenius edited the New Testament in Arabic, at Leyden in 1616, from a manuscript of the fourteenth century; but whether this was made from the Greek or Syriac, is disputed. The Rev. Henry Martyn pronounces it, as a version, to be "indescribably bad. It is not a translation," says he, "but a paraphrase, and that always wrong.'

II. Of the second class, comprising those founded on the Septuagint, we have, 1. A version of the prophets, made subsequently to the tenth century. 2. The Psalms, printed by Dr. Sionita at Rome in 1614, but before him by Justiniani at Geneva in 1516. 3. The Psalms, made, perhaps, in the eleventh century, by Abdallah ibn al Fadhl they were printed at Aleppo in 1706, and London in 1725; and, 4. The Psalms, as printed in the Polyglots.

III. While, from the Peschito, a version in Arabic exists of Job, Chronicles, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and fragments of the Psalter; printed at Kashaia, near Lebanon, in 1610; there are translations, also, of various parts of the New Testament from the Syriac and Coptic, copies of

* Journals.