According to tradition, as handed down by Koriun (ch. 20), the Holy Scriptures were translated from the Greek into Armenian in the fifth century by St. Sahak Catholicos, and later revised and consolidated against manuscripts brought from Constantinople by Eznik Kołbatsi — a disciple of Sts. Mashtots and Sahak and an attendee at the Council of Ephesus. Writing less than a century later, Łazar Pʻarpecʻi (chs. 10-11) affirms Koriun’s account and adds a key detail: in addition to his pivotal role in codifying the Armenian alphabet, it was St. Sahak who undertook the initial translation of the Scriptures because of his rigorous training in Greek. This context helps explain both the precision of the Armenian translation and some key points of proximity to the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) manuscript tradition. Indeed, the Eastern Roman context pervades Koriun’s account: he notes that half of Armenia lived under Roman rule, records that St. Mashtots received the honorific ἀκοίμητος ("the sleepless one"), describes the warm welcome he received from the Patriarch and princes of Constantinople, and treats the imperial capital with its full weight throughout his narrative. While the Armenian manuscript tradition is not exclusively Byzantine in its alignments, it fully bears out Koriun’s narrative in its proximity to the Greek. More remarkable still, this could not have been a feature of the initial translation alone: as the apparatus demonstrates, the variants registered over sixteen centuries consistently maintain the same style and precision, bearing witness to a custodial tradition of extraordinary care and consistency.
This edition might be called a meta-recension — a recension of recensions. However, unlike recensionists who aim to recover an original text as though it were frozen in time, Miloyan takes the view that a text in continuous liturgical use carries forward what the community of the faithful has received, read, and handed down: the tradition as a living whole, and not a snapshot of it. Accordingly, he aims to represent the manuscript tradition in its fullness, rather than to isolate a single moment within it. The totality of the readings compiled here demonstrate a remarkably high fidelity to Greek vocabulary, syntax, and structure. Taken across all of the editions consulted here, the overall alignments are closer than any single-edition comparison would suggest. In fact, the Armenian often simultaneously preserves readings from both Byzantine and Alexandrian text-types, cutting across the rigid classifications of contemporary text criticism. Even so, Miloyan's work reveals a number of significant agreements with the Byzantine manuscript tradition; namely, those preserved in the Armenian without variant readings. These examples are listed in Table 1, with comparisons to the earliest available witnesses from the apparatus of the NTG28 and to St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew.
| Verse | Armenian | Greek | Patristic attestation | Key manuscripts |
| 1:25 | զանդրանիկ | τὸν πρωτότοκον | Chrysostom | W, D, C, al. |
| 2:18 | ողբումն եւ | θρῆνος καὶ | Chrysostom | W, D, C, al. |
| 5:44a | աւրհնեցէք... | εὐλογεῖτε... | Athenagoras, Clement, Eusebius, Chrysostom | D, W, al. |
| 5:44b | որ լլկեն | ἐπηρεαζόντων | Athenagoras, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom | Θ, al. |
| 5:47 | բարեկամաց | φίλους | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
| 6:1 | ողորմութեան | ἐλεημοσύνην | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
| 6:4,6 | յայտնապէս | ἐν τῷ φανερῷ | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
| 6:13 | զի քո է... | ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν... | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
| 10:3 | Ղէբէոս՝ որ անուանեցաւ Թադէոս | Λεββαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Θαδδαῖος | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
| 11:16 | զընկերս իւրեանց | τοῖς ἑταίροις αὐτῶν | — | Θ, al. |
| 11:19 | յորդւոց իւրոց | τέκνων αὐτῆς | Chrysostom | D, C, Θ, al. |
| 17:21 | Բայց այս... | τοῦτο δὲ... | Origen, Chrysostom | D, W, al. |
| 18:11 | Զի եկն Որդի մարդոյ... | ἦλθε(ν) γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου... | Chrysostom | D, W, Θ, al. |
| 23:14 | Վա՜յ ձեզ... | Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν... | Chrysostom | W, al. |
Table 1: Unanimous Armenian readings aligned with the Byzantine-text editions. All references, except those to St. Chrysostom, are drawn from the apparatus of the NTG28, which prioritizes the earliest available witnesses. Among these, the uncials Washingtonianus (W), Bezae (D) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) attest these verses most frequently. Most verses here also have support from a wider range of manuscripts, including the Latin and the Peshitta (omitted here for brevity). W, D and C all date to the 4th–5th centuries. To these, we add the Koridethi (Θ), a later manuscript from the 9th century which Streeter and Lake associated with the Armenian manuscript tradition to propose a Caesarean text-type. Patristic references in the NTG28 generally predate the 4th century and are restricted in these verses to Clement of Alexandria and Origen. St. Chrysostom's readings are drawn from his Matthean homilies, which date to the late 4th century. He attests all readings above except at 11:16, where he omits the phrase in question.
However, some differences among Byzantine subtypes are also observed (see Table 2): At 10:8, the Armenian majority reading Զհիւանդս բժշկեցէք, զբորոտս սրբեցէք, զդեւս հանէք aligns with the Byzantine Majority Text (Ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε), where all other Greek editions and a minority Armenian variant add νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε (զմեռեալս յարուցէք). At 13:32, the inclusion of զամենայն (πάντων) aligns with the Patriarchal Text, as does գոնէ (κἂν) at 14:36. At 13:36, the Armenian aligns with the Byzantine Majority Text and Scrivener’s, and at 13:40, it aligns with the Patriarchal Text and Scrivener’s. At 12:35, the Armenian majority reading ի բարի գանձուց սրտի իւրոյ aligns nearly with Scrivener’s (ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας), τῆς καρδίας being otherwise absent; in the second instance, ի չար գանձուց սրտի իւրոյ, it is absent also from Scrivener’s. This double սրտի իւրոյ (τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ) is witnessed by a small cluster of early Greek minuscules, alongside early Latin and Syriac witnesses.
| Verse | Armenian | Greek | Patristic attestation | Key manuscripts |
| 10:8 | Զհիւանդս բժշկեցէք, զբորոտս սրբեցէք, զդեւս հանէք | Ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε | Eusebius | Θ, al. |
| 12:35 | սրտի իւրոյ | τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ (x2) | — | L, ƒ1, 33, al. |
| 13:32 | զամենայն | πάντων | — | — |
| 14:36 | գոնէ | κἂν | — | — |
| 13:36 | Յիսուսի | ὁ Ἰησοῦς | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
| 13:40 | աշխարհիս | τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου | Chrysostom | W, Θ, al. |
Table 2: Divergences among Byzantine-text editions. Patristic attestation in these verses is limited to a single reference by Eusebius of Caesarea in 10:8 and to two references by Chrysostom in 13:36 and 13:40. At 13:32, Chrysostom retains the shorter reading; the inclusion of πάντων (զամենայն) may thus reflect synoptic harmonization with Mark 4:32. At 12:35 and 14:36, Chrysostom does not adjudicate between the alternative readings. In 10:8, Chrysostom's initial reading lacks νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, as does the Armenian majority, though he subsequently addresses the phrase in his exegesis. This reference is therefore treated as ambiguous. In 12:35, support for the fuller reading that retains both instances of τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ comes from a cluster of witnesses, including Latin and Syriac, separate from those otherwise referenced.
Miloyan's work also reveals some as-yet distinctive features of the Armenian translation. For example, the translator of Matthew often harmonizes relevant intertextual passages with Old Testament verses: in the verses referring to the Babylonian captivity (1:11, 12, 17), μετοικεσία is construed according to established register as գերութիւն and not literally as պանդխտութիւն (cf. Ezekiel 12:11); in 2:6, the addition of the pronoun ինձ echoes Micah 5:2; and in 2:15, ἐκάλεσα is construed prophetically as կոչեցից (cf. Hosea 11:1). There are also some miscellaneous distinctions. For example, in 4:25, the translator closes the chapter with եւ բժշկեաց նոցա, harmonizing with the previous verse; in 6:1, the passive θεαθῆναι ("to be seen") is construed actively as ի ցոյց ("for show"); and at 6:2, 5, 16, απεχουσι(ν) ("they have in full") is construed as այն իսկ են ("those are indeed").
However, Miloyan notes that the most interesting features are those that initially appear distinctive to the Armenian, lacking correspondence to the six Greek editions, but turn out to find support among early witnesses. Three of these have parallels in Bezae; namely, the addition of the qualifying clause որում խաւսեցեալ զՄարիամ կոյս (ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μαριὰμ παρθένος) in 1:16, the explicit naming of Isaiah the prophet in 1:22, and the addition of եւ եթէ յայնմանէ հալածիցեն զձեզ, փախիջիք ի մեւսն (ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῇ ἄλλῃ διώκουσιν ὑμᾶς φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην) in 10:23. Two have parallels in Washingtonianus; namely, յաւուր (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ) in 8:13 (though the more common τῇ ὥρα [յայնժամ] registers as a minority reading), and the addition of Պոնտացւոյ (Ποντίῳ) in 27:2, absent the preceding pronoun (αὐτὸν) found in the main Byzantine editions. The latter reading also finds support in the Koridethi, together with the addition of the phrase որպէս առաքեաց զիս Հայր, և ես առաքեմ զձեզ (καθὼς ἀπέστειλεν με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς) in 28:18, harmonizing with John 20:21.
These are but a few of the insights to be gained from this edition, which represents a major advance in our understanding of the Classical Armenian Bible and early scriptural transmission. More broadly, this work offers an authentic window into the reception and interpretation of Scripture as handed down through one of the oldest continuous traditions of the Church, providing scholars and general readers alike with a reliable, authoritative text for both reading and reference.
Available as a PDF