The Holy Bible

g. We chose to provide reasons for the confusion of our readers. For this reason, we did not include everything we found written in our source without distinction; rather, we left some things out. For example, in the Old Testament, we omitted the redundant prefaces to some books, as well as the blessings of the canons of the Psalter and the brief histories of the prophets. In the New, we omitted the canons of the Eusebian harmony in the gospels, and the lists of readings and testimonies in the epistles, along with others, of which we did not hesitate to inform the reader one by one in each place. But so that some useful materials might not be left out, the absence of which might perhaps bring a sense of incompleteness to this work, we deemed it appropriate to include such remnants at the end of the book as an appendix, organizing therein also what was found in other manuscripts outside of our prototype. Among these, the principal one was the book of Sirach, which is undoubtedly honored in the canon of the Latins as a holy book, and others in order, regarding which the notice placed there beforehand makes clear.

d. Third, having the frequency of manuscript copies before us, as we showed above, for the sake of publishing the present work with the most perfect circumstances, we were not satisfied only with correcting the copy placed before us from the errors of the scribe—where we saw it had failed due to human circumstances—but also, apart from precise annotations regarding the method of his writing, we decided it was appropriate to place the difference of other copies near it for the sake of our researchers, who might have the occasion to use the volumes on various occasions, whereby, as if in a mirror, they have it before them to see the various copies compared. These we have decided and noted in such an order: First, wherever, according to our statements, we corrected the obvious mistakes of our scribe’s writing by the unanimous writing of all other manuscript copies, there, for the sake of showing fidelity, and simultaneously wishing to bring to the fore those errors with greater caution, we placed: * (In the copy, thus, or thus). Second, having taken care to inform also those which were noted on the margins of our copy by the same scribe as differences of other copies, we made it clear by writing them in the sequence of the flow, exactly as we found them in agreement with those we have placed: * (In the margin, thus, or thus, in agreement with some, or many from the start). But for those noted in the margins here, which were merely explanations of words, or differences of translations, we placed them simply without addition.

of them, then we placed: * (Many thus, or thus). Third, where all the copies we have were in agreement on things separate from ours, we noted: * (Others thus, or thus). In such cases, one should perhaps have altered our source text, doubting the errors of the scribe, if, due to multiple considerations, our goal had not been to choose only one best prototype, merely correcting the same from the obvious errors of the scribe. Let it be, for even in some places a single difference in ours holds a better place than all the others, as is clear to those who apply their minds to the investigation of Hellenistic readings. And furthermore, perhaps having other manuscript copies before us, it was possible to see in those places the agreement of this one with them, and thus it did not seem to speak alone. Fourth, we did not deem it improper in many places to bring into the middle and note the difference of a single copy that deviates from the common view: * (One copy thus, or thus). Lest such differences, which appeared at times in the most ancient and esteemed manuscripts, be lost, we wished to keep their mention preserved, so that upon the manifestation of perhaps other similar copies, the truth might be verified by their confirmation. And again elsewhere, for the sake of the skill of the reader, it is good to understand that many times differences encountered in manuscripts do not arise only from the hesitation and poor habit of the copyists, but also from their willful boldness, who with their own minds set out to alter them according to their whims. For the same reason, it was primarily our concern to bring forth also the differences of the Oskan referring to Oskan Yerevantsi's 1666 edition [Bible], as proof of the aforementioned regarding him, in small measure. For this reason, in our notation: * (Oskan thus, etc.), it indicates that he alone deviated from all manuscript copies, sometimes for the sake of agreement with the Latin, and sometimes in the reduction of newly invented rules of Armenian grammar, he managed to "correct" according to that model. Where we do not hesitate to make the researcher aware of this as well, that we do not promise to place all the differences of other copies in this, but only the greatest part, so that the few useful things remain outside, which in our view were inadvertently missed, and those which we indeed intentionally passed over, having undoubtedly acknowledged their erroneousness, formed from the defects of the scribes.

e. But above all the aforementioned, we do not deem it strange, as if acting contrary to our promised precise fidelity, to proceed in the alteration of the material writings of the volume according to these three chapters. First, so that it may be more easily received by our current researchers; especially so that we do not give cause for excessive, groundless dissatisfaction to those who have little skill in the writings of the ancients, due to every new-fangled change to which they were accustomed until now. Following the custom of this latter century, we used the sign (՞) a question mark/intonation mark for common sung names. But for some unusual ones, for example, "day", "day-blessing", "to bless" Armenian: or, orhnel, etc., in which our copy had the diphthong (au) according to ancient propriety, written: "day" (aur), "laws" (aurenk), "to bless" (aurhnel), etc. But in proper names, which were transferred to us from other nations, we indeed considered it improper to descend to this subsequent habit, even if the first one sounds unpleasant to the ears of those learning foreign languages. Therefore, we did not hesitate to place them according to our manuscript copies: "Aunan" (Awnan), "Augustus" (Awgostos), "sandy" (Awazot), "Paul" (Pawghos), etc. Likewise also for names: "Esau" (Esaw), "Eve" (Ewa), "George" (Geworg), "Acheau" (Acheaw), "Osee" (Owse), "hundred" (hawr-iwr), "harm" (vnas), "archbishop" (arkeps), etc., which we agreed according to each place in our copy.
Second, regarding punctuation, we did not follow our copy in every respect; for it was not punctuated with a uniform rule everywhere. But sometimes, especially if it was frequent throughout the whole book, it had the punctuation; and in other places, it omitted it even in important parts. It ended similar paragraphs of the text in the same place sometimes with a comma, sometimes with a semicolon, and sometimes with a period without distinction. For the same reason, it seemed appropriate for us to punctuate uniformly in all places as much as possible, except for those that could alter the meaning of the text, in which we were careful not to be heavy-handed. Similarly, the accent marks on the words were not placed uniformly; but in some books, it was very frequent, and in others it diminished it entirely. In these, we removed the superfluous ones and filled in the missing ones from elsewhere, especially in those that serve to assist correct reading, and thereby the clarity of the meanings themselves. Where it seems like a wonder, in agreement with almost all manuscripts, the accent mark on the names of the apostles in the gospel text is placed according to Hellenistic intonation: "Peter" (Petros), "James" (Yakobos), "John" (Yovhannes), etc., outside of our Armenian custom, according to which we learned to accent the last syllable in multi-syllabic names, writing "Peter" (Petros), "James" (Yakobos), "John" (Yovhannes), etc.
Third, we considered it important to divide each book of the Astvatsashunch Holy Bible volume according to the Latin chapter arrangement and numbering, such as those that had also been handed down from the prototype of Lazar of Baberd Lazarus of Baberd, made in the use of lists, and apart from them also others, only according to the chapter arrangement. For such a detailed division of the biblical source texts greatly contributes to the ease of those who wish to use them for their own needs, in order to seek and find without delay, and to readily note in it what they seek. For this same reason, having been shaped initially on the translation of the Latins called the Vulgata Vulgate, after that the same division was kept unchangeable, even unto the publication of the printing of the Hebrew and Hellenistic source texts, which we promised to fulfill with complete fidelity from the manuscript volumes.

Having brought into the light such an edition of the genuine Armenian translation of the Astvatsashunch Holy Bible according to the best copy, we hope to present our labor as acceptable to our sound-judging scholars, especially as it suitably meets their many-needed desires; and to find forgiveness with compassionate regard, if due to the limitations of human condition, we have inadvertently failed in the care of this great work, deviating sometimes from the proposed goal, which we promised to carry out precisely. We have willingly taken on the labor of this for the benefit and pride of our nation, as truly faithful guardians of the glorious heritage left by our virtuous ancestors, bringing it back whole and unharmed, as much as possible purified from incidental alterations and corruptions, to be offered to the children who succeed them, for eternal memory, to the glory of the Most High.