The translation of the Bible by Miesrob is the earliest monument of the Armenian or Haikian language that has come down to us. The dialect in which this version is written, and in which it is still publicly read in their churches, is called the old Armenian. The modern Armenian not only departs from the elder form by dialectical changes in the native elements of the language itself, but also by the great intermixture of Persian and Turkish words which has resulted from the conquest and subjection of the country. It is, perhaps, this diversity of the ancient and modern idioms which has given rise to the many conflicting opinions that exist as to the relation in which the Armenian stands to other languages. Thus Cirbied and Vater both assert that it is an original language, that is, one so distinct from all others in its fundamental character as not to be classed with any of the great families of languages. Eichhorn, on the other hand, affirms that the learned idiom of the Armenian undoubtedly belongs to the Medo-Persian family. Whereas Pott says that, notwithstanding its many points of relation to that family, it cannot strictly be considered to belong to it; and Gatterer actually Armenian classed it as a living sister of the Basque, Finnish, and Welsh languages.

To form it is said to be rough, and full of consonants; to possess ten cases in the noun—a number which is only exceeded by the Finnish; to have no dual; to have no mode of denoting gender in the noun by change of form, but to be obliged to append the words man and woman as the marks of sex—thus to say prophet-woman for prophetess (nevertheless, modern writers use the syllable ould to distinguish the feminines); to bear a remarkable resemblance to Greek in the use of the participle and in the whole syntactical structure; and to have adopted the Arabian system of metre.

Until the third century of our era, the Armenians used either the Persian or Greek alphabet. In the fifth century, however, the translation of the Bible created the necessity for characters which would more adequately represent the peculiar sounds of the language. Accordingly, after a fruitless attempt of a certain Daniel, and after several efforts on his own part, Miesroh saw a hand in a dream write the very characters which now constitute the Armenian alphabet. The 38 letters thus obtained are chiefly founded on the Greek, but have partly made out their number by deriving some forms from the Zend alphabet. The order of writing is from left to right. Miesroh employed these letters in his translation of the Bible, and thus ensured their universal and permanent adoption by the nation. (Gesenius; article Palaeographie, in Erich and Gruber.) (i.s.)

Armenian Version. The Armenian version of the Bible was undertaken in the year 410 by Miesroh, with the aid of his pupils Joannes Ecclesis and Josephus Palnensis. It appears that the patriarch Isaac first attempted, in consequence of the Persians having destroyed all the copies of the Greek version, to make a translation from the Peshito; that Miesroh became his coadjutor in this work; and that they actually completed their translation from the Syriac. But when the above-named pupils, who had been sent to the ecclesiastical council at Ephesus, returned, they brought with them an accurate copy of the Greek Bible. Upon this Miesroh laid aside his translation from the Peshito, and prepared to commence anew from a more authentic text. Imperfect knowledge of the Greek language, however, induced him to send his pupils to Alexandria, to acquire accurate Greek scholarship; and, on their return, the translation was accomplished. Moses of Chorene, the historian of Armenia, who was also employed, as a disciple of Miesroh, on this version, fixes its completion in the year 410; but he is contradicted by the date of the Council of Ephesus, which necessarily makes it subsequent to the year 431.

In the Old Testament, this version adheres closely to the LXX. (but, in the Book of Daniel, has followed the version of Theodotion). Its most striking characteristic is, that it does not follow any known recension of the LXX. Although it more frequently agrees with the Alexandrine text, in readings which are peculiar to the latter, than it does with the Aldine or Complutensian text; yet, on the other hand, it also has followed readings which are only found in the last two. Bertholdt accounts for this mixed text by assuming that the copy of the Greek Bible sent from Ephesus contained the Lucian recension, and that the pupils brought back copies according to the Hesychian recension from Alexandria, and that the translators made the latter their standard, but corrected their version by aid of the former. The version of the New Testament is equally close to the Greek original, and also represents a text made up of Alexandrine and Occidental readings.

This version was afterwards revised and adapted to the Peshito, in the sixth century, on the occasion of an ecclesiastical union between the Syrians and Armenians. Again, in the thirteenth century, an Armenian king, Hethom or Haitto, adapted the Armenian version to the Vulgate, by way of smoothing the way for a union of the Roman and Armenian churches. Lastly, the bishop Uscan, who printed the first edition of this version at Amsterdam in 1666, is also accused of having interpolated the text, by adding all that he found the Vulgate contained more than the Armenian version. The existence of the verse 1 John v. 7, in this version, is ascribed to this supplementary labour of Uscan. It is clear from what has been said, that the critical uses of this version are limited to determining the readings of the LXX. and of the Greek text of the New Testament which it represents, and that it has suffered many alterations which diminish its usefulness in that respect. (i.s.)