^{page 82 note 1} ‘The Old Georgian version of the Gospel of Mark, from the Adysh Gospels with the variants of the Opiza and Tbet' Gospels. Edited, with a Latin translation, by Blake, Robert P.’, Patrologia Orientalis, XX, 3, 1928.Google Scholar‘Gospel of Matthew…’, Pair. Orient., XXIV, 1, 1933.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 2} ‘… Gospel of John … Edited, with a Latin translation, by Blake, Robert P. and Brière, Maurice’, Pair. Orient., XXVI, 4, 1950.Google Scholar—‘La version géorgienne ancienne de l'Évangile de Luc, d'après les Évangiles d'Adich avec les variantes des Évangiles d'Opiza et de Tbet’. Éditée avec une traduction latine par Brière, Maurice’, Patr. Orient., XXVII, 3, 1955.Google Scholar—Canon Brière is now engaged on a collation of the various Georgian versions of the four Gospels with the Greek.

^{page 82 note 3} See the suggestive article by Deeters, Gerhard, ‘Das Alter der georgischen Schrift’, Oriens Christianus, XXXIX, 1955, 56–65.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 4} Vööbus, Arthur, Early versions of the New Testament: manuscript studies (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 6), Stockholm, 1954, 181;Google Scholar the relevant passage in the Passion of St. Eustace is translated in Lang, D.M., Lives and legends of the Georgian saints, London, 1956, 105–10.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 1} This view is expressed by Shanidze and now generally accepted: see Brière in the Introduction to his edition of St. Luke, Patr. Orient., XXVII, 3, 291. The present writer would hesitate to follow Shanidze as far as attributing the idiom of the Adysh Gospels to the fourth century, however, since our knowledge of Georgian does not extend so far back.

^{page 83 note 2} Lyonnet, S., Les origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron (Biblica et Orientalia, 13), Rome, 1950, 144–65.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 3} These texts are conveniently assembled in Shanidze, A., Dzveli k‘art‘ulis k‘restomat‘ia lek‘sikonit‘urt‘, Tiflis, 1935Google Scholar (Caucasus Polyglottus, No. 1). DrMolitor, J. has just published a critical edition of them in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 166, 1956.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 4} Molitor, J., ‘Die georgische Bibelübersetzung: ihr Werdegang und ihre Bedeutung in heutiger Sicht’, Oriens Christianas, XXXVII, 1953, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} Shanidze's edition gives the Adysh text and the Jrutchi/Parkhali version in parallel columns: K‘art‘uli otlkht‘avis ori dzveli redak‘tsia sami Shatberduli khelnadseris mikhedvit‘(897, 936 da 973 dsds.), Tiflis, 1945Google Scholar (Dzveli k‘art‘uli enis dzegkbi, No. 2). Discussion of this edition will be found in the Introductions to Blake and Brière's editions of St. John and St. Luke.

^{page 84 note 2} Oriens Christianus. Hefte für die Kunde des christlichen Orients. Im Auftrag der Gōrres-GeseUschaft herausgegeben von Georg Graf … Bd. XXXVII = Vierte Serie, Erster Band. Wiesbaden, 1953 ff.

^{page 84 note 3} ‘Das Adysh-Tetraevangelium. Neu übersetzt und mit altgeorgischen Paralleltexten verglichen von Joseph Molitor.’ So far, the Gospel of Matthew has appeared complete in four parts in Bd. XXXVII–XL, 1953–6.

Attention should also be drawn to Dr. Molitor's article, ‘Evangelienzitate in einem altgeorgischen Väterfragment’, Oriens Christianus, XL, based on a Georgian palimpsest collection of patristic texts.

^{page 85 note 1} Clark, Kenneth W., Checklist of manuscripts in St. Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, microfilmed for the Library of Congress, 1950, Washington, 1952.Google Scholar The Georgian manuscripts in Jerusalem have also been catalogued and similarly made available through the Library of Congress Photoduplication Service.

^{page 85 note 2} This date is given by Kekelidze, K.S., Dzveli K‘art‘uli mdserlobis istoria, I, third edition, Tiflis, 1951, 384,Google Scholar though the particulars given in the original description of the manuscript by Blake, R.P. and Nersessian, Sirarpie Der (‘The Gospels of Bert'ay: an Old-Georgian Ms. of the tenth century’, Byzantion, XVI, 1, 1942–1943, 226–85,Google Scholar with 8 plates), scarcely seem to permit of such precise dating.

^{page 85 note 3} Blake, and Nersessian, Der, Byzantion, XVI, 285.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 4} K‘art‘uli enis istoriuli k‘restomat‘ia: V–X sauicuneebis dzeglebi, Tiflis, 1949;Google Scholar in the second edition of 1953, the extracts from the K‘sani codex have been replaced by sections of the Tbet‘i manuscript, already sufficiently well known through the Pair. Orient. edition of Blake and Brière.

^{page 85 note 5} ‘K‘snis ot‘kht‘avis redak‘tsia‘, Literaturuli Dziebani, V, Tiflis, 1949, 291–321.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} Lang, Lives and legends of the Georgian saints, 161.

^{page 86 note 2} Tarchnišvili, M., ‘Die Anfänge der schriftstellerischen Tätigkeit des hl. Euthymius und der Aufstand von Bardas Skleros’, Oriens Christianus, XXXVIII, 1954, 118;Google Scholar see also the same author's Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, Vatican City, 1955, 131.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 3} Imnaishvili, K‘restomat‘ia, second edition, p. iii; see further Kekelidze, Dzveli k‘art‘ulimdserlobis istoria, I, third edition, 171.

^{page 87 note 1} Vööbus, Early versions of the New Testament, 193–7; the same author's Zur Geschichte des altgeorgischen Evangelientextes, announced as No. 5 of the Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, Stockholm, 1953, is not to hand at the time of writing.

^{page 87 note 2} L'ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres, d'après deux manuscrits du Sinaī (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 38), Louvain, 1955.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} Sak‘me motsik‘vlt‘a, dzveli khelnadserebis mikhedvit‘, Tiflis, 1950Google Scholar (Dzveli k‘art‘uli enis dzeglebi, No. 7).

^{page 88 note 2} See also Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 186.

^{page 88 note 3} Early versions of the New Testament, 190–1, 195–6.

^{page 89 note 1} Actes des Apôtres, 18.

^{page 89 note 2} Sak‘me motsik‘ult‘a, ed. Abuladze and Shanidze, p. 021; in Blake's Athos catalogue (Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, XXIX, 1934, 237),Google ScholarBert‘a(s) is read as the genitive plural of beri, i.e. ‘of the monks’, but this was before Blake himself had discovered the now well-known Bert‘a Gospel manuscript, mentioned earlier in this essay.

^{page 89 note 3} See Ingoroqva, P., Giorgi Merchule, k‘art‘veli mdserali meat‘e saukunisa, Tiflis, 1954,Google Scholar a remarkable study of Georgian history, literature, and religion in the tenth century; over 1,000 pages in length, this book contains the text of a number of early Georgian hymns.

^{page 90 note 1} Garitte, Actes des Apôtres, 18.

^{page 90 note 2} This admirable work of reference is now to hand: ‘Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï‘, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 165, 1956. A number of the manuscripts described contain books of the New Testament: Nos. 15 (Four Gospels, A.D. 978), 16 (Four Gospels, wrongly dated by Tsagareli A.D. 992, should probably be c. 1042), 19 (Four Gospels, A.D. 1074), 30 and 38 (Four Gospels in two sections, A.D. 979), 81 (Four Gospels, 12th–13th cent.), 39 (Acts and Catholic Epistles, A.D. 974), 58–31–60 (Pauline Epistles and Acts, A.D. 977), 85 (Apocalypse, 12th cent.), in addition to other codices containing prescribed Lessons from the New Testament, commentaries, and works of New Testament exegesis.

^{page 90 note 3} Dr. Vööbus has compared the Khanmeti fragment of Galatians with the corresponding passage in the Sinai lectionary (Georgian MS No. 37), and reports the Sinai text to be the more archaic (Early versions of the New Testament, 198–200).

^{page 90 note 4} Further details in Kekelidze, Dzveli k‘art‘uli mdserlobis istoria, I, third edition, 198–200, 385–6; Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 161–3, 315.

^{page 91 note 1} Imnaishvili, I.V., K‘art‘uli ot‘hht‘avis simp‘onia-lek‘sikoni, edited by Shanidze, A., Tiflis, 1948–1949Google Scholar (Dzveli k‘art‘uli enis dzeglebi, No. 6); Molitor, J., Altgeorgisches Glossar zu ausgewählten Bibeltexten (Monumenta Biblica et Ecclesiastica, No. 6), Rome, 1952.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} The Sinai manuscripts were catalogued by Marr and Javakhishvili in collaboration in 1902, each tackling one portion. Marr's catalogue of his section was published posthumously by the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1940: Opisanie gruzinskikh rukopisey Sinayskogo Monastyrya; Javakhishvili's catalogue of his portion of the manuscripts was published, also posthumously, at Tiflis in 1947: Sinis mt‘is k‘art‘ul khelnadsert‘a aghdseriloba. See further Tarchnišvili, M., ‘Kurzer Überblick über den Stand der georgischen Literaturforschung’, Oriens Christianus, XXXVII, 1953, 89–99.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 3} Sak‘art‘velos sakhelmdsip‘o muzeumis dzvel khelnadsert‘a satsavebis gzamkvlevi, Tiflis, 1951.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 4} The standard work on Georgian paleography is by Javakhishvili, I., K‘art‘uli damdserlobat‘amlsodneoba anu paleograp‘ia, second edition, Tiflis, 1949.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 5} See further on early Georgian illuminated Gospel manuscripts, Amiranashvili, Sh. Ya., Istoriya gruzinskogo iskusstva, I, Moscow, 1950, pp. 202–8,Google Scholar and plates 91–103.

^{page 92 note 1} K‘ut‘aisis sakhelmdsip‘o istoriuli muzeumi: Khelnadsert‘a aghdseriloba. Tom. i, compiled by Nikoladze, E. and edited by Kekelidze, K., Tiflis, 1953.Google Scholar Note that the colophon to an eleventh century manuscript of the Epistles and Homilies of Macarius of Egypt, No. 181, gives the essential clue to the meaning of the title niap‘ori, encountered in the Life of St. Nino, and previously translated by the present writer as ‘the venerable’ (Lives and legends of the Georgian saints, 20); this colophon, published on p. 335 of the present catalogue, states the manuscript to have been copied by Gregory the Priest at the Church of the Holy Virgin at Dari-Dert‘up‘a, during the niap‘oroba of T‘ebronia (Fevronia), daughter of Vache Mkhweli. This clearly shows that niap‘ori signifies ‘abbess’ or some closely related ecclesiastical rank. The word is possibly a distorted form of the Greek νєωκóρος, which has both masculine and feminine gender, and was used in pagan times to designate a temple-warden, but taken over by the Christians, according to Du Cange, as a modest ecclesiastical grade. (This observation was kindly suggested to me by Professor W. B. Henning.) The change of k into p‘has been explained as having possibly occurred through a Syriac transcription, in which alphabet the letters kaf and pē bear a close resemblance. This hypothesis was used by Conybeare as a basis for asserting that the Acts of St. Nino may have been originally written in Syriac (see Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, p. 410, n. 5); this view, scarcely convincing in itself, is seen to be even more unrealistic now that we know niap‘ori to represent a regular rank in the Georgian Church hierarchy.