z, k, m, n, o.

These conclusions are formed from a careful examination of the letters in use among the Greeks and Romans from the first to the sixth century.*

From the Runic was taken the character u.

The letters common to the Latin, Greek, and Runic are a, b, i, r, s, t, f.

He invented 4, th, and O, hw, or took them from an old Germanic alphabet now lost.†

The word invention, as used by the Greek historians must merely signify an adoption by Ulphilas of other alphabets for the written Moeso-Gothic. The Greeks had probably never heard of the Gothic alphabet until brought among them by Ulphilas. The introducer at once became the inventor.‡

These Gothic characters after the fall of the western empire were extensively used throughout Europe, but were thrown aside soon after the French adopted the Roman letters. At a meeting of the synod, held in Lyons in 1091, the Spaniards totally abolished their use.

The voice of history unanimously proclaims Ulphilas to be the translator of the Scriptures into his own tongue. One historian states that the book of Kings, (which then included the two books of Samuel,) was omitted because its nature was such as to excite the fierce and warlike passions of the Goths. But the books of Moses, Joshua, and Judges are open to the same objection. And the other historians are always particular in speaking of τὰς θείας γραφάς, ἱερὰς βίβλους, divinas scripturas. The time occupied in translation has been variously stated, many supposing it to have been the work of twenty years, from 360 to 380. But Socrates intimates,** and the language of the version proves, that it was done after the Goths settled in Moesia. If then the death of Ulphilas took place in 379, as is generally believed, the task must have been accomplished be

* See Baumlein's Tables at the end of his Untersuchungen.

The Greek appears to have been the ground work: eighteen letters are common to the two alphabets. The connection of the Goths with the Greeks was more intimate than with the Romans.

Mallet's Northern Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 311.

§ Priestley's Lect. on Theory of Languages, etc. p. 41. Philostorgius. Hist. Eccl. II. 5.

¶ This question is definitely settled by the discoveries of Maio. **L. IV. c. 33.

tween 376, the year of emigration beyond the Danube, and that year. Industrious and learned, a perfect master of his own language, though no grammatical treatises probably existed, he found little difficulty in expressing exactly the sense of the original.

It was long a matter of dispute whether the translation was made from the Greek or Latin; but the question is now pretty generally decided in favor of the Greek. We shall briefly sum up the arguments for the latter belief.

1. The orthography observed. EII: T before I and K=N. 2. The etymological care. Ulphilas took the greatest pains to render as literally as possible the sense of the Greek, particularly in accordance with the etymology. Thus he translates πάντων ὁλοκαυτωμάτων, ALLAIM THAIM ALLBRUNSTIM, Mark 12: 33. Examples of this nature are to be met with on every page.*

3. It is to be observed that the order and language of the Greek text was most scrupulously followed as far as the Gothic idiom would allow. The translator frequently uses the article sa, so, thata, to correspond with the Greek article, and places it in the same relative position. An instance of this is found in Mark 15: 39, ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος υἱὸς ἦν θεοῦ, sa manna sa sunus was goths. The article is likewise often omitted, where it is wanting in the original, as où ripe vios, goths im sunus.t In many passages the Gothic remains faithful to the Greek, when all Latin versions leave it; e. g. οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ποιμένες is rendered in Gothic by jah thai mans thai hairdjos; not any, even of the Codices in Blanchini, have viri pastores. In order to show how closely the Gothic follows the Greek, we select at random a part of the parable of the sower, and give it below in both languages, with a literal Latin translation.

saian

serere

fraiwa seinamma. jah

et

Greek. Εξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον αὐτοῦ· καὶ Gothic. Urranu saiands du Latin. Exiit serens ad ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτὸν, ὅ μὲν miththanei saiso.

semini suo.

ἔπεσε παρὰ τὴν

ὁδόν· καὶ

sum

gadraus faur
concidit ante

wig.

jah

καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατέφαγεν αὐτό. καὶ fuglos himinis fretun thata. jah

κατεπατήθη,

gatrudon warth, jah

conculcatum fiebat et

aves

coeli

vorrunt hoc et

4. The mistakes made. The translator in Matt. 27: 52, read κειμένων for κεκειμημένων : in Luke 7: 25, τροφὴ for τρυ gn. See also Luke 3: 14. John 16: 6. Matt. 8: 9.*

5. It is easy to see that the translation was made from a MS. of the Constantinopolitan recension, though there seem cases in which Ulphilas does not follow Lucian. We have not room to bring passages into actual juxta-position, but by turning to Hug, p. 296-7, the inquirer cannot fail to satisfy himself.

The version of Ulphilas was not long allowed to remain without corruption. In the MSS. one of the Latin versions is sometimes found written side by side with the Gothic ;† and when the texts differed, the Gothic was altered so as to agree with the Latin, though perhaps at times merely for the purpose of making the line and verses of each to correspond. When not actually brought together collations were made, and marginal notes inserted, which were afterwards incorporated into the text. Many therefore are the corruptions which exist in a text intended as an exact translation of the Lucianian recension. And this also accounts for the error into which some learned men have fallen in supposing the Gothic version to be founded on the Latin.

There is but one voice among the learned as to the value of this translation. It precedes the version of Jerome, and must be preferred to that by the critics of the New Testament. It adds another to the glorious links of the chain which binds all nations together in unity of faith, proving that the doctrines of the christian religion were not founded on human wisdom, but were established by divine authority. Every new version discovered adds still greater weight to the integrity and purity of

Compare with these passages the Cod. Brixianus. See Hug's Introd. p. 295-6, and Zahn's Ulphilas, p. 30 for other examples. + Vide Fragments of Epist. to Romans.

Hug Introd. p. 297.

the Holy Scriptures, for false readings cannot be found in all MSS. But who shall judge between the false and the true?

Of this great translation of Ulphilas, only fragments remain. The history of the different portions, and of their transmission to us is rather curious.

The first specimen found was the Codex Argenteus, so called from its letters of silver. The early history of this MS. is wrapped in great obscurity. It was doubtless made in the fifth or sixth century when the Goths were in power in Italy, but where it was preserved during the next thousand years is not known. For a long time it was in the Abbey of Werden on the river Rhur in Westphalia. From thence it was carried to Prague, and when Count Königsmark took that city in 1648, it fell into his hands. The Count sent it as a present to Queen Christiana, who deposited it in the Royal Library at Stockholm. The MS. did not remain there long, but went out of the kingdom with Isaac Voss in 1655. Whether it came into his possession honestly, is still uncertain; many have unhesitatingly accused him of appropriating it to himself without leave. But the probability is that the Codex was presented to him by the queen, who was his patron and friend.* While in his hands,t his uncle Francis Junius, the great northern philologist transcribed and printed it together with a version in Anglo-Saxon.‡

But the MS. was shortly destined to find its way back into Sweden. When Puffendorf (probably Esaias) was travelling in Holland in 1662, hearing that it was in the possession of Voss, he purchased it for the Count Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie, at the price of four hundred rix dollars. The Count had it bound in silver, and in 1669 he presented it to the library of the university of Upsal, where it now remains.

* Hug says that the Swedish account of the matter in the Transactions of the Societ. Scient. Upsaliensis is to be preferred. See also Askenholz Memoires de la Reine Christine. Tom. I. § 307.

↑ Jacobus Grimm. Hymnorum Veteris Ecclesiae XXV. Interpretatio theotisca nunc primum edita. Gottingae, 1830. p. 2.

Quatuor D. N. Jesu Christi evangeliorum versiones perantiquae duae Gothica scilicet et Anglo-Saxonica, etc. Dordrechti typis et sumptibus Junianis, 1665.

§ Accounts differ with regard to the sum paid. It is variously stated at 500, 600, and 800 rix dollars, and even as high as 2000 ducats.

With it, he sent an exact copy by Derrer (a monk at Werden,) which was destroyed by the great fire at Upsal in 1702.

The MS. is called, as before observed, the Codex Argenteus from its letters; which are beautiful uncial characters of silver on purple colored parchment of a quarto form. The following account of its present state is given by Hug. "The initial lines of the Gospels and the first line of every section are in gold letters. Below, between columns drawn in barbarous taste according to neither of the known orders of architecture, are inserted the Canons of Eusebius, and at the side are appended the numbers referring to them. The Gospels are in the following order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. The letters do not appear to have been written with a pen or reed, but to have been impressed by means of carved or cast stamps, nearly in the same way as book-binders put titles upon the backs of books in gold or silver. The perfect uniformity of the letters, the indentations which they make in the page, the traces of paste sometimes visible between the silver and the parchmentrender such a supposition credible, whatever may be said to the contrary by hasty travellers and superficial observers."* The MSS. at Brescia and Verona which are written in silver, and the fragments of Matthew in the Vatican, have no indentations, nor any appearance of paste.†

The second fragment discovered, is called the Codex Carolinus, and is a palimpsest. It was detected by Knittel Archdeacon of Wolfenbüttel, Duchy of Brunswick, in 1756, while examining a MS. of the Origines of Isidore, written in Spain about the ninth century, he found that there was an older writing beneath. After great labor and care, he made out fragments of the Epistle to the Romans, in the same language and character as the Codex at Upsal, with a Latin version older than Jerome's by the side of the text. The following fragments were discovered. Roin. 11: 33, 34, 35, 36; 12: 1—5 and 17-21; 13: 1-5; 14: 9-26; 15: 3-13. They were first published by Knittel and afterwards by Ihre, Busching, and Zahn.‡

* Hug's Introd. p. 285.

Ibid. p. 286. See also Horne's Introd. Vol. III. p. 241, and in the Bibliographical Appendix, Pt. I. c. I. Sect. V. § 4. [II.] will be found a list of editions.

It was called the Codex Carolinus in honor of Charles the reigning Duke of Brunswick, at the time of the discovery of the MS.