The critical worth of the Egyptian versions has only recently been
appreciated as it deserves, and the reader is indebted for the following
account of them to the liberal kindness of one of the few English scholars
acquainted with the languages in which they are written, the Rev. J. B.
Lightfoot, D.D., then Canon of St. Paul’s, and Hulsean Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge; who, in the midst of varied and pressing
occupations, found time to comply with my urgent, though somewhat
unreasonable, request for his invaluable aid in this particular for the
benefit of the second edition of the present work. His yet more arduous
labours, as Bishop of Durham (_cui quando ullum inveniemus parem?_) did
not hinder him from revising his contribution for the enriching of the
third edition of this work. In this, the fourth edition, the Editor has
the pleasure of acknowledging the most valuable help of the Rev. G.
Horner, who has in particular revised the description of the MSS. of the
Bohairic version, and of the Rev. A. C. Headlam, Fellow of All Souls
College, Oxford, who has added the result of more recent research. Mr.
Headlam’s additions, are, wherever it is possible, distinguished by being
enclosed in square brackets.
(1) The Egyptian or Coptic Versions.
Most ancient authors, from Herodotus downwards, referring to the heathen
period of Egyptian history, mention two distinct modes of writing; the
sacred and the common. In place of the former, however, Clement of
Alexandria (Strom. v. 4, p. 657), who has left the most precise account of
Egyptian writing, substitutes two modes, which he designates
_hieroglyphic_ and _hieratic_ (or priestly) respectively; but since the
hieratic is only a cursive adaptation of the hieroglyphic, the two are
treated as one by other writers under the common designation of “sacred”
(ἱερά). Both these forms of the sacred writing are abundantly represented
in extant monuments, the one chiefly in sculptured stone, the other on
papyrus rolls, as we might have anticipated.
The common writing is designated by various names. It is sometimes the
“demotic” or “vulgar” (δημοτικά Herod. ii. 36, δημώδη Diod. iii. 3);
sometimes the “native” or “enchorial” (ἐγχωρία in the trilingual
inscriptions of Rosetta and Philae); sometimes “epistolographic” or
letter-writer’s character (Clem. Alex. _l. c._); and in a bilingual
inscription recently (1866) discovered at Tanis (Reinisch u. Roesler, Die
zweisprachige Inschrift von Tanis, Wien, 1866, p. 55), it is called
“Egyptian” simply (ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Ἑλληνικοῖς). This
last designation, as Lepsius remarks (Zeitschr. f. Aegyptische Sprache,
iv. p. 30, 1866), shows how completely the common writing had outstripped
the two forms of sacred character at the time of this inscription, the
ninth year of Ptolemy Euergetes I. This demotic character also is
represented in a large number of extant papyri of various ages.
These two modes of writing, however—the sacred and the vulgar—besides the
difference in external character exhibit also two different languages, or
rather (to speak more correctly) two different forms of the same language.
Of ancient writers indeed the Egyptian Manetho alone mentions the
existence of two such forms (Joseph. c. Ap. i. 14), saying that in the
word _Hyksos_ the first syllable is taken from “the sacred tongue” (τὴν
ἱερὰν γλῶσσαν), the second from the “common dialect” (τὴν κοινὴν
διάλεκτον): but this solitary and incidental notice is fully borne out by
the extant monuments. The sacred character, whether hieroglyphic or
hieratic, presents a much more archaic type of the Egyptian language than
the demotic, differing from it very considerably, though the two are used
concurrently. The connexion of the two may be illustrated by the relation
of the Latin and the Italian, as the ecclesiastical and vulgar tongues
respectively of mediaeval Italy. The sacred language had originally been
the ordinary speech of Egypt; but having become antiquated in common
conversation it survived for sacred uses alone. Unlike the Latin however,
it retained its archaic written character along with its archaic
grammatical forms. (_See_ Brugsch, De Natura et Indole Linguae Popularis
Aegyptiorum, Berlin, 1850, p. 1 sq.)
The earliest example of this demotic or enchorial or vulgar writing
belongs to the age of Psammetichus (the latter part of the seventh century
B.C.); while the latest example of which I have found a notice must be
referred to some time between the years A.D. 165-169, as the titles
(Armeniacus, Parthicus, &c.) given to the joint sovereigns M. Aurelius and
L. Verus show(94). During the whole of this period, comprising more than
eight centuries, the sacred dialect and character are used concurrently
with the demotic.
The term _Coptic_ is applied to the Egyptian language as spoken and
written by Christian people and in Christian times. It is derived from the
earliest Arabic conquerors of Egypt, who speak of their native Christian
subjects as Copts. No instance of this appellation is found in native
Coptic writers, with one very late and doubtful exception (Zoega, Catal.,
p. 648). Whence they obtained this designation, has been a subject of much
discussion. Several theories which have been broached to explain the word
will be found in J. S. Assemani, Della Nazione dei Copti, &c., p. 172
(printed in Mai, Script. Vet. Coll., V. P. 2), and in Quatremère,
Recherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la Littérature de
l’Égypte, Paris, 1808, p. 30 sq. A very obvious and commonly adopted
derivation is that which connects it with the town Coptos in Upper Egypt;
but as this place was not at that time prominent or representative, and
did not lie directly across the path of the Arab invaders, no sufficient
reason appears why it should have been singled out as a designation of the
whole country. In earlier ages, however, it seems to have been a much more
important place, both strategically and commercially (_see_ Brugsch, Die
Geographie des alten Ägyptens, i. p. 200; Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. p.
212 sq., Eng. trans.). Even as late as the Roman epoch Strabo (xvii. p.
815) describes it as “a city with a mixed population of Egyptians and
Arabians” (πόλιν κοινὲν Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ Ἀράβων), and elsewhere (xvi. p.
781) he mentions it as a station of Egyptian traffic with Arabia and
India. Possibly therefore this Arabic name for the Egyptians is a survival
of those early times. On the whole, however, it seems more probable that
the Arabic word is a modification of the Greek Αἰγύπτιος (Schwartze, Das
alte Aegypten, i. p. 956). [And this derivation seems now to be generally
accepted, the Greek word αἰγύπτιος being represented in Coptic by ⲄⲨⲠⲦⲒⲞⲤ,
or ⲔⲨⲠⲦⲀⲒⲞⲤ, whence came _Qibt_ (the common form) and our _Coptic_.
(Stern, Koptische Grammatik, p. 1.)]
From this account it will appear that the Coptic, as a language, cannot
differ materially from the demotic. As a matter of fact the two are found
on examination to represent two successive stages of the same language—a
result which history would lead us to anticipate. But while the language
is essentially the same, the character of the writing is wholly different.
The demotic character was derived ultimately from the hieroglyphic. Hence
it represents the same medley of signs. Only a small number are truly
alphabetic, i.e. denote each a single sound. Others represent syllables.
Others again, and these a very large number, are not phonetic at all, but
pictorial. Of these pictorial or ideographic signs again there are several
kinds; some represent the thing itself directly; others recall it by a
symbol; others again are determinative, i.e. exhibit the class or type, to
which the object or action belongs. It is strange that this very confused,
cumbrous, and uncertain mode of writing should have held its ground for so
many centuries, while all the nations around employed strictly phonetic
alphabets; but Egypt was proverbially a land of the past, and some sudden
shock was necessary to break up a time-honoured usage like this and to
effect a literary revolution. This moral earthquake came at length in
Christianity. Coincidently with the evangelization of Egypt and the
introduction of a Christian literature, we meet with a new and strictly
phonetic alphabet. This new Egyptian or Coptic alphabet comprises thirty
letters, of which twenty-four are adopted from the Greek alphabet, while
the remaining six, of which five represent sounds peculiar to the Egyptian
language and the sixth is an aspirate, are signs borrowed from the
existing Egyptian writing. If there is no direct historical evidence that
this alphabet was directly due to Christianity, yet the coincidence of
time and historic probability generally point to this. The Christians
indeed had a very powerful reason for changing the character, besides
literary convenience. The demotic writing was interspersed with figures of
the Egyptian deities, used as symbolic or alphabetical signs. It must have
been a suggestion of propriety, if not a dictate of conscience, in
translating and transcribing the Scriptures to exclude these profane and
incongruous elements from the sacred text.
The date at which this important change was introduced into Egyptian
writing has been a matter of much dispute. If it is correctly attributed
to Christian influences, the new alphabet must have been coeval with the
birth of a native Christian literature in Egypt. The earliest extant
remains of such a literature, to which we can fix a date with any
certainty, are the Epistles of St. Antony (who was born about the middle
of the third century) to Athanasius and Theodore; but, as we shall see
presently, one or both of the two principal Egyptian versions must have
been already in common use at this time. Indeed, if the date assigned to a
recently discovered writing be correct, the introduction of the new
character was much earlier than this. On the back of a papyrus in the
British Museum, containing the Funeral Oration of Hyperides, is a
horoscope in Greek and Egyptian, the latter written in Greek characters,
with the additional six letters almost, though not quite, identical with
the forms in the ordinary Coptic alphabet. Mr. C. W. Goodwin, who
describes this important document in Chabas, “Mélanges Égyptologiques,”
2me série, p. 294 sq., and in the “Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache,”
vi. p. 18 sq., February, 1868, calculates (though he does not speak
confidently) that it is the horoscope of a person born A.D. 154(95).
Any account of the Coptic dialects must start from the well-known passage
in the Copto-Arabic grammar of Athanasius, bishop of Kos in the Thebaid,
who flourished in the eleventh century. “The Coptic language,” he writes,
“is divided into three dialects; that is to say, the Coptic dialect of
Misr, which is the same as the _Sahidic_; the _Bohairic_(96), which gets
its name from the province of Bohairah; and the _Bashmuric_ in use in the
region of Bashmur. At the present time only the Bohairic and Sahidic
continue to be used. These different dialects are derived from one and the
same language” (quoted in Quatremère, Sur la Langue &c., p. 20 sq.). For
the present I will dismiss the Bashmuric, as it will require further
investigation hereafter. The remaining two, the Bohairic and Sahidic, were
the principal dialects of the language, being spoken in Lower and Upper
Egypt respectively; and are largely represented in extant remains of
biblical and ecclesiastical literature(97).
The Sahidic and Bohairic dialects are well defined and separate from each
other. Among other distinctive features the Sahidic delights in the
multiplication of vowels as compared with the Bohairic; thus it has
ⲉⲗⲉⲟⲟⲗⲉ for ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ, ⲙⲏⲏⲱⲉ for ⲙⲏⲱ, ϩⲁⲗⲁⲁⲧⲉ for ϩⲁⲗⲁⲧⲓ, ϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ for ϣⲉⲗⲉⲧ,
&c. Again the Sahidic has smooth-breathings where the Bohairic has
aspirates, e.g. ⲡⲏⲩⲉ for ⲫⲏⲩⲓ “heavens,” ⲧⲏⲩ for ⲑⲏⲟⲩ “wind”; and it
substitutes the simple aspirate for the stronger guttural, e.g. ⲱⲛϩ for
ⲱⲛⲭ “life,” ⲡⲁϩ for ⲫⲁϧ “rend.” Besides these more general distinctions,
the two dialects have special peculiarities, not only in their grammatical
forms, but even in their ordinary vocabulary; thus Sah. ⲃⲱⲕ for Boh. ⲓ “to
go,” Sah. ϩⲉ for Boh. ⲣⲏϯ “manner,” Sah. ϩⲁϩ for Boh. ⲙⲏϣ “a multitude,”
“many,” and so forth. Indeed the relations of the Sahidic and Bohairic
dialects to each other may be fairly illustrated, as will have appeared
from these facts, by the relation of the Ionic and Attic, though the
differences in the Egyptian dialects are greater than in the Greek. Like
the Attic, the Bohairic is the more literary and cultivated dialect of the
two.
The demotic writing does not give the slightest indication that there were
different dialects of the spoken language (_see_ Brugsch, Grammaire
Démotique, p. 10). In the Coptic, i.e. Christian, literature we learn this
fact for the first time; and yet in the earliest age of this literature
the dialects are found to be fully developed. Brugsch, however, has shown
(De Natura &c., p. 10) that transcriptions of several Egyptian words into
Greek in the age of the Ptolemies occur in two different forms, which
correspond fairly to the two dialects; and indeed it would seem probable
that the separation of the Bohairic and Sahidic should be ascribed to the
more remote time, when these regions formed separate kingdoms. The older
Egyptian writing, whether sacred or demotic, would obscure the distinction
of dialects, partly from a conservative fondness for time-honoured modes
of representation, but chiefly owing to the nature of the character
itself. Thus this character makes no provision for the nicer distinction
of the vowel-sounds, while the dialectic differences depend very largely
on the divergent vocalization. Thus again it sometimes represents allied
consonants, such as _l_ and _r_, by the same sign; while one of the most
striking peculiarities of dialect is the common substitution of _l_ in the
dialect of the Fayoum for _r_ in the Sahidic and Bohairic, as e.g. ⲏⲗⲡ for
ⲏⲣⲡ “wine,” ⲗⲁⲙⲡⲓ for ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “year,” ⲗⲓⲙⲓ for ⲣⲓⲙⲓ “weeping,” and the like.
Of the time when the Scriptures were translated into the two principal
dialects of Egypt no direct record is preserved. Judging, however, from
the analogy of the Latin and Syriac and other early versions, and indeed
from the exigencies of the case, we may safely infer that as soon as the
Gospel began to spread among the native Egyptians who were unacquainted
with Greek, the New Testament, or at all events some parts of it, would be
translated without delay. Thus we should probably not be exaggerating, if
we placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and
the Sahidic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second
century(98). There are, so far as I am aware, no phenomena whether of text
or of interpretation in either, which are inconsistent with this early
date. Somewhat later than this we meet with notices which certainly
presuppose the common use of a native version or versions of the
Scriptures. Quatremère (Sur la Langue &c., p. 9 sq.) and Schwartze (Das
alte Aegypten, p. 956 sq.) have collected a number of such notices, from
which we may gather that it was the exception and not the rule, when a
native Egyptian bishop or monk in the early centuries could speak the
Greek language besides his own. Thus for instance St. Antony, who was born
about the year 250, could only speak his native tongue, and in conversing
with Greeks was obliged to use an interpreter (Athan., Vit. Ant. 74;
Hieron., Vit. Hilar. 30; Pallad., Hist. Laus. 26). His own letters, of
which fragments are extant, were written in Egyptian. Yet he was a son of
Christian parents, and as a boy listened constantly to the reading of the
Scriptures (Athan., _l. c._, § 1). When only eighteen or twenty years old,
we are told, he was powerfully influenced by hearing the Gospel read in
church (§§ 2, 3); and throughout his life he was a diligent reader and
expositor of the Scriptures. Indeed it is quite plain from repeated
notices, that the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue were widely circulated
and easily accessible at this time (_see_ esp. § 16 ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς [i.e.
τοῖς μοναχοῖς] τῇ Αἰγυπτιακῇ φωνῇ ταῦτα; τὰς μὲν γραφὰς ἱκανὰς εἶναι πρὸς
διδασκαλίαν κ.τ.λ.). Again his contemporary Theodore, a famous abbot to
whom one of his letters is addressed, was equally ignorant of any language
but his own, and had to use an interpreter in speaking with strangers and
Alexandrians (Sahid. MS. clxxvii in Zoega, Catal., p. 371). The notices of
Theodore’s master Pachomius, the founder of Egyptian monasteries, point in
the same direction. This famous person, who was converted as a young man
in the early years of the fourth century, was till late in life
unacquainted with any language but his own. Receiving a visit from an
Alexandrian, another Theodore, he assigned to him as his companion and
interpreter a monk who could speak Greek. After some time he himself
applied himself to the study of this language that he might be able to
converse with his new friend (Zoega, p. 77 sq., and references in
Quatremère, Sur la Langue &c, p. 12). Pachomius drew up rules for the
guidance of his monastery in the Egyptian language. These rules, which are
extant in Greek and Latin translations (Migne, Patrol. Graec., xl. p. 947;
Hieron., Op., ii. p. 53 sq.), demand a very diligent study of the
Scriptures from the brethren, even from novices before admission into the
order. Again and again directions are given relating to the use of
manuscripts. These notices indeed refer chiefly to the Thebaid, which was
the great seat of the Egyptian monasteries; but the first part of St.
Antony’s life was spent in the monasteries of Alexandria, and it was only
later that he retired to the Thebaid (Athan., Vit. Ant. 49). Though
probably more common in Lower than in Upper Egypt, the knowledge of Greek
was even there an accomplishment denied to a large number of native
Christians. Thus for instance, when Palladius visited John of Lycopolis,
an abbot of the Nitrian desert, he found his knowledge of Greek so slight
that he could only converse through an interpreter (Hist. Laus. 43).
These, it will be remembered, are the most prominent names among the
Egyptian Christians; and from such examples it must be plain that the
ordinary monk would be wholly dependent on a native version for his
knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet the monks swarmed both in Upper and Lower
Egypt at this time. Palladius reckons as many as 7,000 brethren under
Pachomius in the Tabennitic monastery (Hist. Laus. 38; comp. Hieron.,
Praef. in Reg. Pach. 2, ii. p. 54), while Jerome states that close upon
50,000 would assemble together at the chief monastery of the order to
celebrate the anniversary of the Lord’s Passion (ib. § 7). After all
allowance made for exaggeration, the numbers must have been very great.
Even at a much later date the heads of the Egyptian Church were often
wholly dependent on their native tongue. At the Robber Synod of Ephesus
(A.D. 449) Calosirius, bishop of Arsinoe, spoke and signed through his
deacon, who acted as interpreter (Labb., Conc. iv. p. 1119, 1179, 1188,
ed. Colet.). And again two years later, when Dioscorus of Alexandria
started for the Council of Chalcedon, he was accompanied by one Macarius,
bishop of Tkou, a man of some note in his day, who could not be made to
understand a word of Greek (Memph. MS. liv, in Zoega, Catal., p. 99).
[The above was the most complete account of the dialects of the Coptic
language and of the early history of the Coptic versions at the time when
it was written; but in the last ten years immense additions have been made
to our knowledge—additions which have rather complicated than solved the
problem. These have been mainly due to the process of new discovery and to
the labour of many scholars. A large number of previously unedited Coptic
MSS. have been published; many new MSS. have been discovered, and the
grammar of the language has been studied with great minuteness. The credit
of the discovery and editing of new MSS. must be largely given to the
energy and industry of the French school at Cairo, and especially to a
former member of it, M. Amélineau, who has published a very large number
of texts; the advances in our knowledge of the grammar are due to the
labours of the German school of Egyptologists, notably Stern, Erman, and
Steindorff. More important in some ways has been the discovery of an
immense number of documents of a completely new class, written on papyrus,
partly in and near the Fayoum, but also throughout the whole of Upper
Egypt. These documents present us with the language in an earlier stage
than we had previously known, and in a class of writings such as letters,
contracts, and other legal documents, which conform to the spoken language
of different parts of Egypt(99).
It is on the subject of the Egyptian dialects that our views have been
most modified. We have seen that three dialects in all are mentioned by
Athanasius of Cos: the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third, the Bashmuric.
When therefore fragments of a third version of the Scriptures were
discovered, the name Bashmuric was at once assigned to them. The early
history of the discussions on this dialect were admirably summed up by
Bishop Lightfoot. (3rd edition, pp. 401-403.)]
The first fragment, 1 Cor. ix. 9-16, was published at Rome in 1789 by
Giorgi, from a MS. in the Borgian Museum, in the work which has been
already mentioned. He designated it Bashmuric, and, as the dialect
presents affinities to both the Bohairic and Sahidic, he assigned to it a
corresponding locality. Herodotus (ii. 42) mentions the inhabitants of the
Ammonian Oasis as speaking a language intermediate between the Egyptian
and Ethiopian; and on the strength of this passage, combined with the
phenomena just mentioned, Giorgi placed Bashmur in this region, deriving
the word from the Coptic ⲥⲡⲁⲙⲏⲣ “the region beyond,” i.e. west of the
Nile, and gave the dialect a second name _Ammonian_ (p. lxviii sq.). In
the same year Münter in his work on the Sahidic dialect (_see_ above, p.
393), published this same fragment independently at Copenhagen. He had not
seen Giorgi’s work, but adopted provisionally his name Ammonian, of which
he had heard, while at the same time he stated his own opinion that the
variations of form are too slight to constitute a separate dialect (p.
76). In 1808 appeared Quatremère’s work, to which I have more than once
alluded. In it he included another fragment of this dialect (Baruch iv.
22-v. 22, and Epist. Jerem.), from a MS. in the Imperial Library of Paris.
At the same time he pointed out that the passage in Herodotus will not
bear the interpretation put upon it by Giorgi, and that, as a matter of
fact, the Ammonians speak not a Coptic, but a Berber dialect. He also
refuted Giorgi’s opinion about the position of Bashmur, and showed
conclusively (p. 147 sq.) from several notices in Arabic writers that this
region must be placed in the Delta. In a later work (Mémoires
Géographiques et Historiques sur l’Égypte, i. p. 233, 1811) he identified
it more definitely with Elearchia, the country of the Bucoli, that fierce
and turbulent race of herdsmen, who, living in the marshy pasture land and
protected by the branches of the Nile, gave so much trouble to their
Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers successively (_see_ Engelbreth, p. x).
The defiant attitude, which in earlier times these Bucoli assumed towards
their successive masters, was maintained to the end by the Bashmurites
towards their Arab conquerors. While the other Copts succumbed and made
terms, they alone stubbornly resisted. At length the Arab invaders were
victorious, and the Bashmuric race was extirpated. It would seem,
therefore, that Bashmur is the Arabic modification of the Coptic ⲡⲥⲁⲙⲟⲩⲣ,
“regio cincta,” the country girdled by the Nile.
But this being so, Quatremère, looking at the linguistic character of
these fragments, denies that they belong to the Bashmuric dialect at all;
and suggests for them a locality which will explain their affinities to
both the Bohairic and Sahidic, assigning them to the Great and Little
Oasis, and accordingly designating them _Oasitic_. In 1810 Zoega’s
“Catalogus,” a posthumous work, appeared, in which he published all the
fragments of this third Egyptian dialect found in the Borgian collection,
comprising (besides a portion of Isaiah) John iv. 28-53; 1 Cor. vi. 19-ix.
16; xiv. 33-xv. 35; Eph. vi. 18-24; Phil. i. 1-ii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1-iii.
6; Heb. v. 5-9; v. 13-vi. 8-11; 15-vii. 5, 8-13; 16-x. 22, nearly all of
these passages being more or less mutilated. And in the following years
these same passages were edited by Engelbreth (Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica
Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Havniae, 1811), who had not seen Zoega’s
edition. Both Zoega and Engelbreth, though agreeing with Quatremère in the
position of Bashmur (the former without having seen Quatremère’s book),
yet claimed these fragments as Bashmuric.
In this opinion there is good reason for acquiescing. It seems highly
improbable that Athanasius of Kos, a Christian bishop, can have been
ignorant of a dialect so important that the Christian Scriptures were
translated into it (for the various fragments oblige us to suppose a
complete version of the Old and New Testaments), a dialect moreover which,
on Quatremère’s hypothesis, was spoken not so very far from his own
neighbourhood. And on the other hand it is not very probable that all
traces of a dialect which was known to him should have perished, as would
be the case if these fragments are not Bashmuric(100). To counterbalance
this twofold difficulty involved in Quatremère’s hypothesis, the
linguistic objections ought to be serious indeed. But until we are better
acquainted with the early history of Egypt than we are ever likely to be,
it will be impossible to say why the Bashmuric dialect should not be
separated geographically from the Sahidic by a dialect like the Bohairic
with which it has fewer, though still some special affinities. The
interposition of an Ionic between two Dorian races in Greece will show the
insecurity of this mode of argument.
[We must now continue the history. Although Bishop Lightfoot summed up in
favour of the theory which would assign these fragments to the Bashmuric,
his acuteness had noticed the difficulties which would be involved in the
separation of that dialect from the Sahidic, with which it had close
affinities by what was then called the Memphitic. The greater knowledge of
Egyptian history, which he desired but did not hope for, has become
possible. And the objection is supported.
In 1878 Stern examined the history and character of the third Egyptian
dialect (Z. A. S. 16, 1878, p. 23), and showed that it was almost
impossible on either linguistic or historical grounds to assign it to the
district of Bashmur. He pointed out that all the fragments we possessed of
it had come from Upper Egypt, that we had positive evidence that there was
no version of the Scriptures in the Bashmuric dialect, and that in
dialectic affinities it was clearly akin to Sahidic. He also found
evidence in Tuki of the existence of another dialect there called
Memphiticus Alter, and that this was supported by papyrus documents which
came from the site of Memphis (_see_ below), which have some, although not
a complete, resemblance to the Bashmuric fragments. Hence he concluded
that the third dialect was Middle Egyptian, and, guided by two or three
words on a fragment of papyrus brought from the Fayoum, he decided that
that district must have presented the characters of isolation and
independence, which would make the development of a third dialect
possible. The proof of his theory was not long to seek. Already in the
year 1877 attention had been called to the fragments now known as the
Fayoum papyri, and very soon they began to appear in European libraries;
it was not long before Berlin and Vienna acquired very large collections.
An examination of the Coptic papyri in these collections has proved
conclusively the truth of Stern’s conclusions. The vast majority of these
present the same dialectic affinities as the third Bible translation, and
show also (as these had hinted) that the orthography of the dialect was
not fixed, in fact that hardly two documents present exactly the same
linguistic character, although all are definitely distinguished from the
other two dialects. It may therefore be confidently asserted that all the
literature hitherto published as Bashmuric is in the dialect of the
Fayoum.
But the discoveries do not stop here. As early as 1876 M. E. Revillont had
published (Papyrus Coptes, 1876, p. 103) a collection of documents in the
Louvre which came from the Monastery of Abba Jeremias, close to the
Serapeum, near the site of the ancient Memphis. These were examined by
Stern (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 145 sq.), who shows that here we have again a
different dialectic form. It has affinities to the Sahidic, affinities to
the Bohairic, and affinities to the Fayoum dialect. It represents in fact
the language of ancient Memphis, and an attempt has been made to call it
Memphitic, but this would create endless confusion. Stern suggests Lower
Sahidic (Unter Sahidisch), but the name Middle Egyptian is the one which
has been generally adopted. It is this discovery that shows the necessity
of avoiding the term Memphitic for the principal Egyptian version, and
substituting the Arabic name ’Bohairic.’ That was the language of the
province on the sea-coast in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. And it was
not until the eleventh century, and the removal of the Patriarchate to
Cairo, that it became the language of the district of Memphis, that is,
long after the decline of Memphis had begun.
But our knowledge of the dialects of Egypt was still further to be
extended. About ten years ago excavations were undertaken by the Egyptian
Department of Antiquities in the Coptic Cemetery of Akhmîm, the ancient
Chemnis or Panopolis in Upper Egypt. Amongst the results of this discovery
were the Apocryphal fragments, which have created a considerable sensation
lately. These seem to have been considered by their discoverers to possess
so little interest, that they were only accidentally given to the world
seven years afterwards. The Coptic fragments were more fortunate, and in
1884 M. Bouriant, head of the French School at Cairo, published
considerable fragments of the Old Testament, including a hitherto unknown
Apocryphal work, the Testament of Sophonias (Zephaniah), in a fifth
dialect, to which, for some reason, he at the time gave the name of
Bashmuric (Mémoires, i. 1884, p. 243). This dialect was examined by Stern
(Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 129), who showed that, while its affinities were
with the Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic, it represented a more primitive
stage in the language, and that these documents are our oldest literary
remains of the Coptic language.
In the place then of the two or three dialects known until recent years,
we have now at least five: the Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayoumic, Middle
Egyptian, and Akhmimic, not to speak of the Bashmuric, in which no
literary remains exist. The exact relations of these dialects to one
another have not yet been satisfactorily worked out, and the problem is
complicated by the fact that most of them had no fixed or standard form,
and that papyri (especially those containing documents in the popular
speech) vary in every locality and every age. To write the history then of
these dialects and of the New Testament in them is not at present
possible; but the following may suggest some more or less tentative
conclusions.
In the earlier stages of the Egyptian language as we have it now in a
written form, there are apparently no certain signs of dialectic
variations, although there is certainly evidence that such did exist in
the spoken language; and the changes introduced by Christianity are of
great interest. The old language was fixed and definite in its
orthography, and it represented the traditions of a caste of scribes, and
not of the popular speech. Christianity on the other hand was in Egypt a
great popular movement; a new and simple alphabet became necessary; the
Scriptures were translated, not into the literary language, but into that
of the people; and the copies of these translations in each locality
reflected the local peculiarities of speech which had existed for
centuries, but which up to that time had left behind no literary memorial.
Gradually, however, the Christian Church created for itself literary
traditions, and a tendency towards unification set in round three centres,
the monasteries of the Natron Lakes, the great home of monastic life in
Lower Egypt, the monasteries of the Fayoum, and the great White Monastery
Deir Amba Shenoudah near Sohag in Upper Egypt. Hence came the three
dialects which have a more or less literary character. Then began the
decay of the Coptic language. First the dialect of the Fayoum died out,
then the Sahidic, until finally Bohairic became, as it is now, the church
language of the whole country.
The relation of these changes to the history of the versions has not yet
been satisfactorily worked out. It has been sufficiently proved that
translations into Coptic existed in the third century, very probably in
the second; but in what dialect they were made, and what relation they
bore to the existing translations, has not yet been discovered, and the
problem remains unsolved.]
(2) The Bohairic Version(101).
The Bohairic version was not included in the Polyglotts, though others
much later in date and inferior in quality found a place there. The first
use of it is found in Bp. Fell’s Oxford N. T. (1675), to which many
readings were contributed by the Oxford Oriental scholar, T. Marshall,
Rector of Lincoln College, who died in 1675, before the Coptic New
Testament was published. It was afterwards employed by Mill, who
recognized its importance, and gave various readings from it in the notes
and appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament (1707). These readings
he obtained partly from the papers of Marshall, who had contemplated an
edition of the Coptic Gospels, but was prevented by death from
accomplishing his design, and partly from the communications of a foreign
scholar, Lud. Piques. The MSS. which supplied the former belonged at one
time to Marshall himself, and are now in the Bodleian; the latter were
taken from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris (see Mill’s “Prol.,” pp.
clii, clx, clxvii).
The _editio princeps_ of the Bohairic version appeared a few years later
with the title “Novum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum ex MSS.
Bodleianis descripsit, cum Vaticanis et Parisiensibus contulit, et in
Latinum sermonem convertit David Wilkins Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter,
Oxon. 1716.” The editor Wilkins was a Prussian by birth, but an Oxonian by
adoption. In his preface he gives an account of the MSS. which he used,
and which will be described below. The materials at his disposal were
ample, if he had only known how to use them; but unfortunately his
knowledge of the language was not thoroughly accurate, nor had he the
critical capacity required for such a task. His work was very severely
criticized at the time by two eminent Egyptian scholars, Jablonsky and La
Croze, whose verdict has been echoed by most subsequent writers; and no
doubt it is disfigured by many inaccuracies. But he may fairly claim the
indulgence granted to pioneers in untrodden fields of learning, and he has
laid Biblical scholars under a debt of gratitude which even greater errors
of detail could not efface. With some meagre exceptions this was the first
work which had appeared in the Egyptian tongue; and under these
circumstances much may be forgiven in an editor. The defects which render
caution necessary in using it for critical purposes are twofold. _First._
The text itself is not constructed on any consistent or trustworthy
principles. It is taken capriciously from one or other of the sources at
his disposal; no information is given respecting the authority for the
printed text in any particular passage; and, as a rule, no various
readings are added. In the prolegomena indeed (p. xi sq.) notices of two
or three variations are given, but even here we have no specification of
the MSS. from which they are taken. _Secondly._ The translation cannot be
trusted. The extent of this inaccuracy may be seen from the examples in
Woide, Append. Cod. Alex., p. 16 sq., and Schwartze, Evang. Memph. Praef.,
p. xxii. One instance will suffice. In 1 Cor. xiii. 3 Wilkins gives the
rendering “ut comburar,” corresponding to the common reading ἵνα
καυθήσωμαι; though the Memphitic has ⲏⲧⲁ ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ = ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Yet
Wilkins’ error has been so contagious that Tattam in his Lexicon gives
καίειν “incendere” as a sense of ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ, referring to this passage as an
example, though its universal meaning is “to praise,” “to glorify.”
In 1829 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the
Four Gospels in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic. It is a handsomely printed
4to, intended for the use of the native Christians of Egypt. In the Coptic
portion, which was edited by Tattam, the text of Wilkins was followed for
the most part, but it was corrected here and there from a recent MS. which
will be described below, Evang. 14. This edition has no critical value.
Between the edition of Wilkins and those of Schwartze and Boetticher more
than a century and a quarter elapsed; but no important step was taken
during this period towards a more critical use of the Bohairic version.
Wetstein appears to have been satisfied with the information obtainable
from Mill and Wilkins. Bengel was furnished with a few various readings
from the Berlin MSS. by La Croze; and Woide again in his preface, p. 13,
gave a collation of Mark i. from the Berlin MS. of this Gospel. Griesbach
seems not to have gone beyond published sources of information; and this
has been the case with later editors of the Greek Testament.
The title of Schwartze’s edition is “Quatuor Evangelia in dialecto linguae
Copticae Memphitica perscripta ad Codd. MS. Copticorum in Regia
Bibliotheca Berolinensi adservatorum nec non libri a Wilkinsio emissi
fidem edidit, emendavit, adnotationibus criticis et grammaticis,
variantibus lectionibus expositis atque textu Coptico cum Graeco comparato
instruxit M. G. Schwartze.” St. Matthew and St. Mark appeared in 1846, St.
Luke and St. John in the following year. The title of the work fully
explains its aim. The editor was an exact Egyptian scholar, and so far it
is thoroughly trustworthy. The defects of this edition, however, for
purposes of textual criticism are not inconsiderable. (1) Schwartze’s
materials were wholly inadequate. Though the libraries of England, Paris,
and Rome contain a large number of MSS. of different ages and qualities,
not one of these was consulted; but the editor confined himself to one
good MS. and one indifferent transcript, both in the Berlin library. These
will be described below. The text of the Bohairic Gospels therefore still
remains in a very unsatisfactory state. (2) His collation with the Greek
text is at once superfluous and defective. This arises from his capricious
choice of standards of comparison, the Codex Ephraem and the printed texts
of Lachmann and Tischendorf (1843). If he had given an accurate Latin
translation of the whole, and had supplemented this with a distinct
statement of the reading of the Bohairic version, where variations are
known to exist in other authorities, and where at the same time a Latin
version could not be made sufficiently explicit, the result would have
been at once more simple, more complete, and more available. As it is, he
has contented himself with translating particular sentences (more
especially those which are mistranslated in Wilkins), while his method of
comparison necessarily overlooks many variations. With all its defects,
however, this edition has a far higher value than its predecessor for
critical purposes. Not the least useful part of Schwartze’s notes is the
collation of the published portions of the Sahidic Version, where also he
has corrected errors in the edition of Woide and Ford (_see_ below, p. 129
sq.).
Schwartze only lived to complete the four Gospels. He had, however, made
some collations for the Acts and Epistles during his last visit to
England; and after his death they were placed in the hands of P.
Boetticher, who continued the work. The titles of Boetticher’s editions
are “Acta Apostolorum Coptice,” and “Epistulae Novi Testamenti Coptice,”
both dated Halae, 1852. His plan, however, differs wholly from
Schwartze’s. He substitutes an 8vo size for the 4to of his predecessor;
and he gives no translation or collation with the Greek, but contents
himself with noting the variations of his MSS. in Coptic at the foot of
the page. Thus his book is absolutely useless to any one who is
unacquainted with the language. Moreover his materials, though less scanty
than Schwartze’s, are far from adequate. For the Acts and for the Catholic
Epistles he employed Schwartze’s collations of two English MSS., which he
calls _tattamianus_ and _curetonianus_, and himself collated or obtained
collations of two others in the Paris Library (_p_), (_m_); while for the
Pauline Epistles he again used Schwartze’s collations of the same two
English MSS., together with _another_ Paris MS. (_p_), and the Berlin
MSS., which will be described below. The account, which he gives in his
preface, of the MSS. employed by him is so meagre, that in some cases they
are with difficulty identified. Nor again are the collations used for this
edition nearly complete. I have pointed out below the defects in
Schwartze’s collation of one of the English MSS., which I have partially
examined; and Brugsch in an article in the “Zeitschr. der Deutschen
Morgenl. Gesellsch.,” vii. p. 115 sq. (1853), has given a full collation
of the Berlin MS. of the Epistle to the Romans, showing how many
variations in this MS. are not recorded in Boetticher’s edition. The
Apocalypse has never appeared.
About the same time a magnificent edition of the whole of the New
Testament in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic was published under the auspices
of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The first part, which is
entitled ⲡⲓ ⲭⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓ ⲇ ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲃ, “The Book of the Four Holy
Gospels,” bears the date 1847, Tattam’s Coptic Lexicon having appeared in
1836(102); the second, comprising the remaining books, including the
Apocalypse, is called ⲡⲓ ⲭⲱⲙ ⲙⲁⲋⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲏⲕⲏ ⲙⲃⲉⲣⲓ, “The Second Book of
the New Testament,” and appeared in 1852. We are informed in a Coptic
colophon at the end, that the Book was edited by “Henry Tattam the
presbyter of the Anglican Church for the Holy Patriarch and the Church of
Christ in Egypt.” The type is large and bold, and the volumes are very
handsome in all respects, being designed especially for Church use. The
editor’s eminent services to Coptic literature are well known, but the
titles and colophon do not suggest any high expectations of the value of
this edition to the scholar. The basis of the text in this edition was a
copy belonging to the Coptic Patriarch; but the editor collated it with
MSS. in his own possession and with others belonging to the Hon. R.
Curzon, adopting from these such variations as seemed to him to agree with
the best readings of the Greek MSS. As no various readings are recorded,
this edition is quite useless for critical purposes: nor indeed was the
aim which the editor set before him consistent with the reproduction of
the Bohairic New Testament in its authentic form. The interpolated
passages for instance are printed without any indication that their
authority is at all doubtful.
The following account of the Bohairic MSS. existing in European libraries,
though probably very imperfect, will yet be found much fuller than any
which has hitherto been given. Indeed the list in Le Long (Bibl. Sacr., i.
p. 140 sq.) is the only one which aims at completeness; and the date of
this work (1723) would alone disqualify it, as a guide on such a subject
at the present time. Those manuscripts which I describe from personal
inspection are marked with an asterisk. In other cases my authorities are
given.
A. _The Gospels._
In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:
*1. Hunt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., a very fine and highly
important MS. Among other illuminations are seated figures of the
four Evangelists prefixed to the several Gospels. The date is
given at the close of St. John as the year 890 (of the martyrs),
i.e. A.D. 1174(103). Wilkins (p. vi), though giving the Coptic
numerals correctly ⲱⲙ, interprets them 790, i.e. A.D. 1074. This
will serve as an example of his inaccuracy; and in future I shall
not consider it necessary to point out his errors, which are very
numerous, unless there is some special reason for doing so. The
scribe’s name, John a monk, appears in a colophon at the end of
St. Mark.
The importance of this MS. consists in a great measure in its
marginal additions, which are very frequent. The text seems to
give the original Bohairic version in a very pure form; while the
margin supplies all or nearly all the passages which in fewer or
greater numbers have crept into the text of other Bohairic MSS.,
and which (so far as regards the Bohairic version itself) must be
regarded as interpolations(104), whatever sanction they may have
in Greek MSS. or other ancient authorities. Among these marginal
additions I have noted Matt. vi. 13 (the doxology); Mark vi. 11
ἀμὴν λέγω κ.τ.λ., vii. 16 εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα κ.τ.λ., xiii. 14 τὸ
ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, xv. 28 καὶ ἐπληρώθη κ.τ.λ.; Luke i.
28 εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν (in this case, however, not in the
margin, but in the text in a smaller hand); xxii. 43, 44 (the
agony); xxiii. 17 ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν κ.τ.λ.; xxiii. 34; John vii.
53-viii. 11. On the other hand the descent of the angel, John v.
3, 4, which is wanting in many Bohairic MSS. and can hardly have
been part of the original Bohairic version, stands in the text
here. At the end of St. Mark the margin gives in an ancient hand
(whether coeval with the MS. or not, I am unable to say) the
alternative ending of this Gospel substantially as it is found in
L and other authorities. This marginal note runs as follows: ⲟⲩⲟϩ
ⲛⲏ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲁϥϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ [ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ?] ⲛⲛⲏⲉⲧ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ
ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ
ⲛϫⲉ ⲓ_ⲏ_ⲥ ⲓⲥϫⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲙⲁⲛϣⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲫⲣⲏ ϣⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲛϩⲱⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲣⲡⲟⲩ ⲉ ϩⲓ
ϣⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩⲛⲕ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲛϧ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲑⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲏⲡⲓ
ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϥⲉⲧⲁϩⲱⲟⲩ [ⲉⲩⲧⲁϩⲱⲟⲩ?] ⲛ[ⲛϫⲉ?] ϩⲁⲛϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲣ
ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲡⲟⲩϫⲉ ϩⲗⲓ ⲛϩⲗⲓ ⲛⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲁⲩⲉⲣⲟϯ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ. “And all
those things he commanded to those that went after Peter, and they
told them openly, and after these things again also (δέ) Jesus
appeared to them from the rising of the sun unto the setting
thereof, and sent them to preach the holy and imperishable gospel
of eternal life. Amen. These again are reckoned (added) to them;
And after these things troubles and afflictions possess them, and
they said not a word to any man, for they were afraid.” I have
translated the emendations suggested in brackets, for without them
it is hardly possible to make sense. But, even when thus
corrected, the passage is not free from confusion. The alternative
ending, as here given, most closely resembles the form in the
Aethiopic MSS.
*2. Hunt. 20, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., are
illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked,
besides Greek and Coptic chapters. This MS. omits the additions in
Matt. xviii. 11, Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii.
11, but contains those of Matt. xxiii. 13 (after ver. 14); Luke
xxiii. 17, 34. The catalogue ascribes this MS., which is undated,
to the thirteenth century; but this is probably too early.
*3. Marshall 5, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c.,
illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked.
This MS. is very like the last in general appearance. In the
catalogue the date of a donation is given as A. Mart. 1214 = 1498
A.D. It contains the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34;
John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits Matt. xviii. 11.
Petraeus, who transcribed this MS. in the seventeenth century,
calls it very ancient and in ruinous condition.
*4. Marshall 6, fol., paper. The last few pages are supplied by a
later hand. A colophon gives the year of the original MS. as A.
Mart. 1036 = A.D. 1320, and that of the restoration = 1641 A.D.,
as A. Mart. 1357. This MS. omits the additions of Luke xxii. 43,
44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.
*5. Marshall 99, small 8vo, paper, containing the Gospel of St.
John only. A comparatively recent but interesting MS. It has no
date recorded. It omits John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.
In the British Museum:
*6. Oriental 425, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab: Ff. 2 a-6b contain the
Eusebian tables, after which originally followed the four Gospels
in the common order, ending fol. 116b. The whole of St. Luke
however, and the whole of St. John except xix. 6-xx. 13 and xxi.
13-25, are wanting, owing to the mutilation of the MS. The
original paging shows that they once formed part of the volume.
The subsequent matter is not Biblical. The Ammonian Sections and
Eusebian Canons are given throughout. A colophon at the end of St.
John gives the name of the scribe John, who must have copied it
from the codex in the possession of the Catholic Institute of
Paris in the year 1024 of the Martyrs, i.e. A.D. 1308. This MS.
was purchased at Archdeacon Tattam’s sale. The addition in Matt.
xviii. 11 is wanting.
*7. Oriental 426, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St. John,
of which the beginning as far as i. 13 is wanting. After this
Gospel follow some extracts from the New Testament, Eph. iv. 1-13;
Matt. xvi. 13-19; Luke xix. 1-10, with other matter. Like the last
MS., this was bought at Tattam’s sale. It has not the additions
John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.
*8. Oriental 1001, large 8vo, paper, with illuminations, Copt.
Arab., “bought of N. Nassif, 21 May, 1869.” The four Gospels
complete. Each Gospel is preceded by introductory matter, table of
contents, &c. The first few leaves of the book are supplied by a
later hand. A note (fol. 77b), written by Athanasius, Bishop of
Apotheke or Abutij, A.M. 1508 = 1792 A.D., states that the
original date of the MS. was A. Mart. 908 (= A.D. 1192). This date
is also repeated fol. 264b. It may possibly be correct, though the
MS. does not appear so old. On fol. 125b this same Athanasius
records that he presented the book to the convent of St. Antony,
A. Mart. 1508 (= A.D. 1792). It contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the
pericope John vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits the additions Luke xxii.
43, 44; John v. 3, 4.
*9. Additional 5995, fol., paper, Copt. Arab, “brought from Egypt
by Major-General Turner, August, 1801.” The four Gospels complete.
The few first leaves of St. Matthew and the last leaf of St. John,
besides some others in the middle of the volume, are added in a
later hand. In an Arabic colophon (fol. 233b) it is stated that
the book was repaired A. Mart. 1492 (i.e. A.D. 1776) by one
Ibrahim, son of Simeon, but that its original date was more than
four hundred years earlier. This is perhaps an exaggeration. The
same colophon says that it was written for the convent of Baramus
in the desert of Scete. Coptic chapters are written in uncials
while the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are in cursive
letters. It has not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor the pericope
John vii. 53-viii. 11; but contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the
interpolation in John v. 3, 4.
*10. Additional 14,740 A. A folio volume in which various Bohairic
and a few Armenian fragments are bound up together, of various
sizes and ages, some on vellum, some on paper. The following
fragments of the Bohairic New Testament on vellum are important on
account of their antiquity.
(i) Luke viii. 2-7, 8-10, 13-18.
(ii) 2 Cor. iv. 2-v. 4.
(iii) Eph. ii. 10-19; ii. 21-iii. 11.
(iv) 1 Thess. iii. 3-6; iii. 11-iv. 1.
The fragment from the Ephesians, the most ancient of them all,
appears from the handwriting to rival in antiquity the oldest
Sahidic fragments. They are all more or less mutilated. This
volume also contains several paper fragments of the Bohairic New
Testament, belonging chiefly (it would appear) to lectionaries,
but these are not worth enumerating.
*11. Oriental 1315. The four Gospels, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
letter to Carpianus, Eusebian tables, &c., are prefixed. This MS.,
dated A.M. 924 = 1208 A.D., and bearing a statement of donations
in A.M. 973 = 1257 A.D., is very similar in writing to Cod. Vat.
ix, and the name of the scribe George occurs in both, but the
readings do not agree. This and the two following MSS. are from
Sir C. A. Murray’s collection.
*12. Oriental 1316. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,
illuminated, and dated A.D. 1663.
*13. Oriental 1317. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,
elaborately illuminated, and dated 1814.
In the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Library:
*14. The four Gospels, sm. 8vo size (five leaves in a quire),
paper, Copt. Arab. The volume begins with the letter to Carpianus
and the tables. Introductions are prefixed to the Gospels. The
Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This volume is a
copy made from one in the possession of the Patriarch of Cairo for
the Bible Society, and bears the date A.D. 1817 (in a colophon at
the end of St. Luke). It was partially used for the Society’s
edition of the Coptic Gospels (_see_ above, p. 107). It contains
Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11,
and seems to represent the common Coptic text of the present day.
In private Libraries in England(105):
15. The Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. Fol.,
paper. The four Gospels. It was written (see colophon at the end
of St. Luke) by a scribe, Simon of Tampet, but the date A.M. 1230
= A.D. 1508 is of the donation to a monastery. Several leaves in
different parts of the volume were added much later, A. Mart. 1540
(i.e. A.D. 1824), by one George, a monk. It has a rough picture
and the Ammonian Sections and Canons throughout. There is a
tendency to Sahidic forms. For these particulars my thanks are due
to Mr. Rodwell who kindly allowed me to see his catalogue of Lord
Crawford’s collection. Through inadvertence I omitted to inspect
the MS. itself.
*16. Parham 121, 122, 123 (nos. 9, 10, 11 in the printed
Catalogue, p. 29), in Lord Zouche’s Library at Parham in Sussex.
Fol., paper, Copt. Arab. There is a date of donation A.M. 1211 =
1495 A.D. in 123. These three MSS., which contain respectively the
Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, must originally
have formed part of the same volume, which St. Mark is wanted to
complete. The last leaf of St. Luke is numbered ⲧⲕ, the first of
St. John ⲧⲕⲃ. Several pages at the beginning and end of St.
Matthew are supplied by a later hand. The Ammonian Sections and
Eusebian Canons are marked. These volumes are written in a large
hand, and have illuminations. They contain the additions Luke
xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11; but not Luke xxii. 43, 44;
xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4.
*17. Parham 126 (no. 14, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), 12mo,
paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels in a small neat hand, smaller
than I remember to have seen in any Coptic MS. There are two
dates, A.M. 1392 = A.D. 1676, and A.M. 1446 = 1730 A.D., and it is
probable that the book was nearly finished at the earlier time.
Introductions and tables of contents are prefixed to each Gospel.
This MS. has the additions Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11;
but not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4; just as
was the case with the MS. last described, no. 16(106).
In the Paris National Library:
*18. Cod. Copt. 13, fol., vellum. The four Gospels. A very fine
manuscript, elaborately illuminated, with pictures of the
principal scenes in the Gospel history. It has the Ammonian
Sections and Eusebian Canons in the margin, with the tables at the
end of the Gospels. The writer, Michael, bishop of Damietta, gives
his name in a colophon at the end of St. Mark. The date at the end
of St. Matthew is 894 (or A.D. 1178); of the other Gospels 896 (or
A.D. 1180). This MS. is erroneously dated 1173 in the Catalogue,
and 1164 in Le Long. The additions Luke xxiii. 17, 34; and John
vii. 53-viii. 11, are part of the original text. Also Luke xxii.
43, 44, is written _prima manu_ and in the text, but in smaller
characters so as to make a distinction. On the other hand the
interpolation John v. 3, 4, is wanting.
*19. Cod. Copt. 14, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. It
has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other
capitulations besides. It contains Luke xxiii. 34, but has not the
additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii.
53-viii. 11. It is referred in the Catalogue to the thirteenth
century, which is probably about its date.
*20. Cod. Copt. 15 (Colbert 2913, Reg. 330. 3), 4to. The scribe
Victor gives his name in a colophon at the end. It belongs to the
more ancient Coptic MSS., though no date is given. The Ammonian
Sections and Eusebian Canons are given. The passages Luke xxii.
43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; Joh. v. 3, 4, are added in the margin, but
form no part of the original text. On the other hand John vii.
53-viii. 11 now forms part of the text, but the leaf containing it
and several which follow have been supplied by a much later hand.
This is the case also with the beginning of St. Matthew and the
end of St. John.
*21. Cod. Copt. 16 (De La Mare 579, Reg. 330. 2), 4to, Copt.
Arab., paper. Owing to the Calendar at the end beginning 1204 A.D.
= A.M. 920, it is assigned to the thirteenth century. It has the
Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons and (like Cod. Copt. 14) the
Greek and Coptic chapters. It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii.
17, 34; but not John v. 3, 4; nor John vii. 53-viii. 11.
*22. Cod. Copt. 59 (St. German. 25), “Ex Bibl. Coisl. olim
Seguer.” Fol., paper. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian
Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides.
The date at the end is given as 946 A.M. i.e. 1230 A.D. It does
not contain the additions, Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34. The
earlier part of St. John containing the test passages is wanting.
*23. Cod. Copt. 60, fol., paper, a late MS. The four Gospels. On a
fly-leaf is written, “Quatuor evangelia Coptice Venetiis emta per
me Fr. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, die 11 Augusti.” It has
the Ammonian Sections and Canons. The additions, Luke xxii. 43,
44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4, are wanting; but Luke xxiii. 34; John
vii. 53-viii. 11 stand as part of the text.
*24. Cod. Copt. 61, 8vo, paper. St. John’s Gospel. A late MS. The
leaves are bound up in the wrong order, and some are wanting. It
contains John vii. 53-viii. 11.
*25. Cod. Copt. 62, 4to, paper. St. John’s Gospel. Arabic words
are written interlinearly in the earlier part, but not throughout.
It has not v. 3, 4 nor vii. 53-viii. 11. It appears to be of fair
antiquity.
In the Berlin Royal Library:
26. MS. Orient. Diez. A. Fol. 40, described by Schwartze (Praef.
p. xiii sq.), who collated it for his edition. He says (p. xx),
“decimum saeculum non superat, dummodo aequet.” The great body of
this MS. is written by two different scribes, both of whom perhaps
wrote in the thirteenth century; the two first and two last leaves
are supplied by a third and more recent hand. Of the two earlier
scribes the second was not contemporary with the first, as the
similarity of the paper and ink might suggest, but the MS. was
already mutilated when it came into his hands, and he supplied the
missing leaves. The date of A.M. 1125 = 1409 A.D. occurs in an
Arabic statement but with no mention of writing. There is a
tendency to Sahidic forms, more especially in the parts supplied
by the second scribe. This MS. is generally free from the
interpolated additions, e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34;
John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; and seems to be of high value.
27. MS. Orient. Quart. 165, 166, 167, 168, four transcripts by
Petraeus, also collated by Schwartze (_see_ Praef., p. ix). The
first (165) has the lessons for Sundays and Festivals from the
four Gospels; the other three (166, 167, 168) contain the Gospels
of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke respectively, with the
exception of the parts included in the ecclesiastical lessons.
These transcripts were made in the year 1662, from a MS. which
Petraeus describes as “vetustum” and “vetustissimum,” and which is
now in the Bodleian Library (Maresc. 5).
In the Göttingen University Library:
28. Orientalis 125, described incorrectly by Lagarde, Orientalia,
Heft i. p. 4. The four Gospels, written A. Mart. 1073 (A.D. 1357).
Some portions are written in another hand and on different paper
from the rest when the book was restored in A.D. 1774, but the
greater part is of 1357.
In the Vatican Library at Rome:
29. Copt. 8, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. Some
leaves at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end have been
supplied more recently. The scribe of these later leaves was one
Arcadius, son of John, who gives the date 1303 (i.e. A.D. 1587).
The body of the MS. is ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth
century. For further particulars see Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v.
2, p. 120 sq. From the collection of I. B. Raymund (no. i), left
by will to the Vatican Library.
30. Copt. 9 (Raymund iv), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., with fine
illuminations. The four Gospels, preceded by the letter of
Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables. It was given to the
Monastery of St. Antony in the Arabian desert, A. Mart. 986 (=
A.D. 1270), by one Michael Abu-Khalîḳah, as recorded in a colophon
written by Gabriel, who was patriarch of Alexandria at the time.
Assemani states that this Michael was also the writer of the MS.,
but more probably the writer was named George and wrote the book
in A.D. 1205 = A.M. 921. After the plunder of the monastery by the
Arabs, the MS. came into the possession of two other patriarchs of
the Copts, John (A.D. 1506) and Gabriel (A.D. 1526), and was
afterwards placed (A.D. 1537) in the Church of SS. Sergius and
Bacchus at Alexandria. These facts are stated in other colophons.
_See_ Mai, _l. c._, p. 122 sq.
31. Copt. 10 (Raymund vi), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The four
Gospels; ascribed to the fourteenth century by Assemani. _See_
Mai, _l. c._, p. 125. There are dates of births and marriages, the
earliest being A.D. 1488 = A.M. 1204.
32. Copt. 11 (Petri de Valle vi), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
Gospel of St. John. It bears the date 1062 (i.e. A.D. 1346). _See_
Mai, _l. c._, p. 125.
33. British Museum; Orient. 3381, fol., paper. The four Gospels.
Is not dated, though the writer gives his name as Victor. It is
probably of the thirteenth century, and somewhat resembles the
writing of Paris 59. The book was restored in A.D. 1793 under the
patronage of Athanasius, Bishop of Abu Tij. There is also record
of a collation by a priest in A.D. 1801, while a note in English
says that the MS. came from Esneh and was bought of the Bishop of
Luxor by Mr. Lieder, who sold it in 1864 to Mr. Geden, from whom
it passed to the Museum.
34. Paris; Copt. 14 A, Copt. Arab., fol., paper. The four Gospels.
Is dated A.M. 1309 = A.D. 1593. This date is mentioned in Paris 14
as being the time of a work which was performed on that book, and
there can be little doubt that this work was the copying of 14 A
from 14.
35. Paris; Copt. 60, fol., paper. The four Gospels. This MS. is
not dated, but is not ancient, and appears to be a copy of MS.
Diez in its present double form as far as the end of St. Luke. St.
John is by another hand, and may be of earlier date. The former
copier was a deacon, Abu al Monnâ.
36. Paris, L’Institut Catholique de, Copt. Arab., 4to, paper. The
four Gospels. It is dated A.M. 966 = A.D. 1250. The writer Gabriel
calls himself monk and priest, and afterwards became Patriarch. A
donation of the book to Church of St. Mercurius is recorded in
1750 A.D. The book was brought from Egypt by M. Amélineau and sold
to the Institute a few years ago. There are very interesting
miniatures, which have been partly published in the Album of M.
l’Abbé Hyvernat.
B. _The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts._
In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:
1. Hunt. 43, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath.
Ep., Acts, and Apocalypse. The paging ceases at the end of the
Acts, and between the Acts and Apocalypse are some blank pages. I
did not, however, notice any difference in the handwriting of the
two parts. The date given at the end of the Acts is 1398 (i.e.
A.D. 1682).
*2. Hunt. 203, 4to, paper. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning,
Rom. i. 1-ii. 26, and the end, 2 Tim. iv. 4-Tit. ii. 6, are in a
later hand. This later transcriber ends abruptly in the middle of
a page with ⲉⲑⲣⲟⲩ, Tit. ii. 6. Thus the end of Titus and the whole
of Philemon are wanting. There are several lacunae in the body of
the work owing to lost leaves. The description in Wilkins is most
inaccurate.
*3. Hunt. 122, 4to, paper, illuminated. The Pauline Epistles. The
beginning and end are wanting. The MS. begins with Rom. viii. 29,
and ends with 2 Tim. i. 2. The date is given at the end of 2
Corinthians as 1002 of the Diocletian era, i.e. A.D. 1286. The
scribe gives his name as “ⲡⲟⲗϥⲁϫ the son of the bishop.”
In the British Museum: