A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II.

by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

(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 [pg 092] 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 [pg 093] 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 [pg 094] 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, [pg 095] 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 [pg 097] “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 [pg 098] 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 [pg 099] 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 [pg 100] 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, [pg 102] 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 [pg 103] 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. [pg 104] 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 [pg 105] 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 [pg 106] 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 [pg 107] 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 [pg 108] 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 [pg 109] 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, [pg 110] 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 [pg 111] (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 ⲓⲏⲥ 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 [pg 112] 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 [pg 113] 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 [pg 115] 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. [pg 117] 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 [pg 118] 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 [pg 119] 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:

*4. Orient. 424, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. At the end of the Pauline Epistles, and at the end of the Acts, are two important Arabic colophons, in which the pedigree of the MS. is given. From these we learn that both portions of this MS. were written A. Mart. 1024 (= a.d. 1308) by one Abu Said. They were copied, however, from a previous MS. in the handwriting of the patriarch Abba Gabriel and bearing the date A. Mart. 966 (= a.d. 1250). This Abba Gabriel stated that “he took great pains to copy it accurately and correct it, both as to the Coptic and Arabic texts, to the best of human ability.” This MS. of Abba Gabriel again was copied from two earlier MSS., that of the Pauline Epistles in the handwriting of Abba Yuhanna, bishop of Sammanud, that of the Catholic Epistles and Acts in the handwriting of “Jurja ibn Saksik(?) the famous scribe.” This MS. belonged to Archdeacon Tattam, and was purchased for the British Museum at the sale of his books. It is the MS. designated 'tattamianus' in the edition of Boetticher, who made use of a collation obtained by Schwartze. The corrections in this MS. (designated t* in Boetticher) are written in red ink.

5. Oriental 1318, ff. 294, fol., 4to, Copt. Arab., dated A. Mart. 1132 = a.d. 1416.

In private collections in England:

*6. Parham 124 (no. 12, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. There are several blank leaves at the end of the Pauline Epistles, and the numbering of the leaves begins afresh with the Catholic Epistles, so that this MS. is two volumes bound together. They are, however, companion volumes and in the same handwriting. This is doubtless the MS. of which Schwartze's collation was used by Boetticher (see above, p. [109]), and which he calls “curetonianus.” I am informed that it is designated simply cur. by Schwartze himself. It certainly never belonged to Cureton, but was brought with the other Parham MSS. by the Hon. [pg 120] R. Curzon (afterwards Lord Zouche) from the East, and ever afterwards belonged to his library. Boetticher's designation therefore is probably to be explained by a confusion of names. I gather moreover from private correspondence which I have seen, that some of Mr. Curzon's Coptic MSS. were in the keeping of Cureton at the British Museum about the time when Schwartze's collation was made, and this may have been one. If so, the mistake is doubly explained. I infer the identity of this MS. with the curetonianus of Boetticher for the following reasons: (1) Having made all enquiries, I cannot find that Dr. Cureton ever possessed a Coptic MS. of the whole or part of the New Testament; (2) The MS. in question must have been in England, and no other English MS. satisfies the conditions. My first impression was that the MS. next described, Parham 121, would prove to be the curetonianus, for I found between the leaves an envelope addressed to Mr. Cureton at the British Museum, and bearing the post mark, January, 1849; this fact indicating that it had been in Mr. Cureton's hands about the time when Schwartze's collation was made. But a comparison of the readings soon showed that this identification must be abandoned. (3) The cipher which Boetticher gives for the date is also found in this MS. in two places, after the Pauline Epistles and again after the Acts. This coincidence is the more remarkable as the cipher is not very intelligible. (4) The readings of our MS., Parham 124, where I compared them, agree with those of Boetticher's curetonianus, with an occasional exception which may be accounted for by the inaccuracy of the collation. This is the case with crucial readings, as for instance the marginal alternative in Acts vii. 39. At the same time Schwartze's collation, if Boetticher has given its readings fully, must have been very imperfect. In a short passage which I collated I found more variations omitted than there were verses.

*7. Parham 125 (no. 13, p. 29, printed Catalogue), small 4to, paper, in a very neat hand, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. It contains the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts.

In the National Library at Paris:

*8. Copt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., described in the Catalogue as “antiquus et elegantissime scriptus.” It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles. Is this the MS. collated by Boetticher for these Epistles and designated p by him?

*9. Copt. 63, small fol., paper. “Emta per me Bernardum de Montfaucon Venetiis anno 1698, 11 Augusti.” It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles, and is dated at the end ⲁⲧⲟⲥ, i.e. 1376 = a.d. 1660.

*10. Copt. 64, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. “Manuscrit de la Bibliothèque de Saumaise acquis par l'abbé Sallier pour le B. R. en 1752.” It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles.

*11. Copt. 66, 4to, paper, with occasional Arabic notes in the margin. It belonged to the Coislin library, and previously to the Seguerian. It contains the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The date of its completion [pg 121] is given at the end as 1325, i.e. a.d. 1609. A collation of this MS. was used by Boetticher for his edition, and is designated p by him.

*12. Copt. 65, fol., paper. “Emta Venetiis per me Fr. I. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, 2 Augusti.” This volume contains the Apocalypse, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It consists of two parts, ff. 1-32 containing the Apocalypse, and ff. 33-102 containing the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The two parts are written on different paper, and apparently in different hands. At the end of the Apocalypse the date is given 1376 = a.d. 1660. At the end of the Acts also the same date 1376 is given, and the scribe there mentions his name ⲓⲱⲁⲡⲓⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ. Boetticher collated this MS. for his edition and designates it m.

In the Royal Library at Berlin:

13. Orient. 615, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus.

14. Orient. 116, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians.

15. Orient. 169, 4to. A transcript of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians in Coptic, made by Petraeus at Leyden in 1660.

These three were collated by Boetticher, from whom I have extracted this meagre account, which is all that he gives. He designates them b.

In the Vatican:

16. Copt. 12 (I. B. Raymund ii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts; ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth century. In this MS. the Epistle to the Hebrews stands after the Epistle to Philemon, thus departing from the usual Bohairic order, as above, no. 6. See Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 125 sq.

17. Copt. 13 (I. B. Raymund iii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., ascribed by Assemani to the thirteenth century. The fourteen Pauline Epistles. See Mai, l. c., p. 127 sq.

18. Copt. 14 (I. B. Raymund v), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It was written by Michael the monk of the city of Bembge in the year 1074 (i.e. a.d. 1358), except the last leaf, which was supplied in 1220 (i.e. a.d. 1504). See Mai, l. c., p. 128 sq.

C. The Apocalypse.

In England:

*1. Bodleian, Hunt. 43, already described under Epistles 1.

*2. Library of Lord Crawford and Balcarres. A very small folio, paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲓⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ [pg 122] ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ. The Apocalypse itself is followed by “The Benediction which is read before the Holy Apocalypse.” The date 1091 (i.e. a.d. 1375) is given at the end of the Apocalypse, where also the scribe mentions his name Peter. On a later page he describes himself as a monk and presbyter. There are corrections in the margin of the Apocalypse, some in red, others in black ink. Some of these contain various readings, e.g. x. 11 ⲡⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ λέγουσι for ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ λέγει. This MS. once belonged to Tattam.

*3. Parham 123 (no. 15, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). Small fol., paper, rudely written in a recent hand. Copt. Arab. It contains the Apocalypse, followed by the “Book of the Holy Benediction, &c.” The scribe, who has evidently a very indifferent knowledge of Coptic, gives his name as Matthew the son of Abraham, and states that the work was finished ϧⲉⲛϯⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓⲛϣⲟⲣⲉⲛⲛⲓⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥⲉⲑⲩ. This ought to be the year 1105 of the Martyrs (= a.d. 1389); but the MS. must be later than this date. The colophon itself is perhaps copied from an earlier MS.

*4. Parham 124 (no. 16, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). A large 12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. It contains about fifteen lines in a page, and about eleven letters in a line. Two or three pages towards the beginning are in a later hand. The date is given at the end, A. Mart. 1037 = a.d. 1321. This Apocalypse is not Sahidic, as described in the printed Catalogue, but Bohairic.

At Paris:

*5. Copt. 65, already described under Epistles 11.

*6. Copt. 91, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Apocalypse alone, ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ. It is dated at the end 1117 (? = a.d. 1401).

In the printed Catalogue *Copt. 34 (Delamare 581, Reg. 342. 3) is also stated to contain 'Apocalypsis e Graeca lingua in Copticam conversa,' but there seems to be some mistake about this.

At Rome:

*7. Anglican Library, C. i. 9. The Apocalypse in Copt. Arab. ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ, &c., said to belong to the fifteenth century.

8. Library of the Propaganda, large 8vo, paper, in a modern hand. Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse somewhat mutilated. It contains i. 12-ii. 26, and iii. 9-xxii. 12. It is briefly described among the Borgian MSS. by Zoega, p. 3.

9. Vatican, Copt. 15, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse followed by “Ordo dominicae palmarum” (fol. 59). Referred by Assemani to the fourteenth century. See Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 130.

10. Vatican, Copt. 16 (I. B. Raymund, no. xi), 4to, paper, Copt. [pg 123] Arab. The Apocalypse, followed by a Benedictio. It was written by one John son of Abul-Menna in 1061 (i.e. a.d. 1345). The scribe prays “omnes amicos suos sinceros ... ut castigent atque corrigant errata illius pro sua prudentia, quoniam ausus sum fungi munere mihi ignoto.” See Mai, l. c., p. 130 sq.[107]

Besides these MSS. of different parts of the New Testament there is also a considerable number of Bohairic Lectionaries in the different libraries of Europe.

From this account of the MSS. it appears that, with the single exception of the Apocalypse, the Bohairic New Testament, as far back as we can trace its history, contained all the books of our present Canon. Nor have I noticed any phenomena in the language of the several books, which point to any want of uniformity or separation of date; though it is possible that a more thorough investigation and a more complete mastery of the language might reveal such. It seems clear, however, that the Apocalypse had not a place among the Canonical books. In the majority of cases it is contained in a separate MS. In the exceptions which I have investigated, where it is bound up with other books (the MSS. numbered 1, 12, of the Epistles and Acts), it is distinguished from them in some marked way; and probably this will be found to be the case with any which have not yet been examined. In short, there is not a single authenticated case of a MS. in which it is treated as of equal authority with the other Canonical books. Moreover in Copto-Arabic vocabularies it is omitted from its proper place at the end of the New Testament, all the other books being taken in order. This depreciation of the Apocalypse may perhaps be taken as indicating the date of the completion or codification of the Bohairic version. The earlier Alexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, in the first decades of the third century, quote the Apocalypse without hesitation as the work of St. John. The later Alexandrian Church also from the close of the third century onward seems to have had no doubt about its Apostolic authority (see Westcott, Canon, p. 321). But about the middle of the third century doubts were entertained respecting its authorship, to which expression was given by Dionysius of Alexandria (flor. a.d. 233-265), though even [pg 124] Dionysius did not deny its canonicity. The difficulty, however, may have been powerful enough to cause its exclusion from the Egyptian Canon.

The order of the several parts of the New Testament in the MSS. is (1) Gospels, (2) Pauline Epistles, (3) Catholic Epistles, (4) Acts. The Gospels occur in their common order. It is remarkable, however, that in the vocabularies St. John frequently stands first, so that we get the order, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, which (with the doubtful exception of the Sahidic) is unique. Of this, however, there is no trace in the MSS.; and, as some of these must carry the tradition further back than the vocabularies, the arrangement is perhaps to be explained in some other way. The Pauline Epistles include the Hebrews, which is placed after 1, 2 Thessalonians and before 1, 2 Timothy[108], as in the Greek MSS. אABC, &c. (see p. [71]). This accords with the general opinion of the Alexandrian school, which regarded this Epistle as the work of St. Paul (see Westcott, Canon, p. 323 sq.). In other respects the familiar order is observed in the Pauline Epistles, as is also the case with the Catholic Epistles[109].

The Bohairic version is for the most part a faithful rendering of the original, and the Egyptian language which by this time had borrowed largely from the Greek vocabulary is fairly adequate for the purpose. This version therefore may generally be consulted even for minute variations in the text. The connecting particles are commonly observed; and as the language has both definite and indefinite articles, it may be employed, though with some caution, by the textual critic where other versions fail him. In one point, however, it is quite useless. When the question lies between a participle and a finite verb in the construction of a sentence, the looseness of the Egyptian syntax will seldom afford any clue to the reading which the translator had before him. Perhaps the weakest point in the language is the absence of a passive voice, for which the third person plural active, used impersonally, acts as a substitute. This produces strange awkwardnesses of expression. Thus John i. 6 ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ is rendered “whom they sent from God,” ⲉ ⲁⲩⲟⲩⲟⲣⲡϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲫϯ, and i. 17 [pg 125] ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδόθη “The law they gave it by Moses,” ⲡⲓ ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲏⲓϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ. Another grave defect is the want of a word corresponding to the simple meaning of ἔχειν, which has to be rendered by various expedients according to the context.

To the adoption of Greek words there seems to be hardly any limit but the caprice of the translator. Already in the demotic writing we find a few of these foreign intruders naturalized; but in the Coptic, as used for ecclesiastical purposes, they occur in the greatest profusion. Very frequently their adoption cannot be explained by any exigencies of translation. Thus for instance the translator will sometimes render one Greek word by another, e.g. John xiii. 5, νιπτήρ by λακάνη or λεκάνη; Acts xix. 40, ἐγκαλεῖν by κατηγορεῖν; xxviii. 17, ἔθος by συνήθεια. Thus again he will diversify the rendering in the same passage, using indifferently the Greek and the Egyptian word for the same original, e.g. ϥⲱⲛⲧ and ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲍⲓⲛ (πειράζειν), Matt. iv. 1, 3; ϫⲣⲟϫ and ⲥⲡⲉⲣⲙⲁ, John viii. 33, 37; ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ and ⲕⲉⲥⲁⲣ (Καῖσαρ), John xix. 12, 15; ⲓϧ and ⲇⲉⲙⲱⲛ (δαιμόνιον), Matt. viii. 16, 28, 33. And again and again Greek words are used, where common Egyptian equivalents were ready to hand. The conjunctions ἀλλά, δέ, γάρ, οὖν, were doubtless needed to supply a want in the Egyptian language, which, like the Hebrew and Aramaic, was singularly deficient in connecting-particles; but we should hardly have looked for such combinations as ὅμως μέντοι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον, μήτι, οὐ γάρ, οὐχ ὅτι, ὅτι μὲν γάρ, καί γε, καίτοι, οὐ μόνον δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, πῶς οὖν, ἵνα κἄν, ἵνα μήπως, μενοῦνγε, and the like. Nor should we expect to find Greek terms introduced with such reckless prodigality as in the following sentences: John xviii. 3, ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲫⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϧⲁⲛ ⲗⲁⲙⲡⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲱⲛ ϩⲟⲡⲗⲟⲛ; Acts xxiii. 8, ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ; Acts xxvii. 12, ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲛⲧⲁⲛ ⲉ ⲫⲟⲓⲛⲓⲝ ⲉ ⲉⲣ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲭⲓⲙⲁⲍⲓⲛ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩ ⲗⲩⲙⲏⲛ; Rom. vi. 13, ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ ϩⲟⲗⲡⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲁⲇⲓⲕⲓⲁ.

[No definite discussion on the history or critical value of the Bohairic version is possible until the edition which is being prepared by the Rev. G. Horner is published; based as it is on a collation of all known MSS.

An opinion which at present seems to prevail largely among [pg 126] scholars is that of Stern (Z. A. S. 20, 1882, p. 202), who dates it to the fourth or fifth century, and ascribes it to the literary activity of the monks of the Natron Lakes. He has further suggested that it and the Sahidic may both be derived from, or at any rate connected with, the Akhmîm version (Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 134).

The last statement may be definitely dismissed; it is based upon a single sentence quoted from an apocryphal book of the Old Testament, and is definitely disproved in the case of the New Testament by a comparison of the two versions. They are not only different translations, but are based on a different Greek text. The first statement is apparently based upon language, and has undoubtedly an element of truth in it. The language of the version as we have it was probably revised and corrected, and reduced to a fixed orthography and a more definite form, but even here it is not possible to speak quite positively, and we know that there are considerable variations in orthography preserved in some of the MSS. which may represent the tradition of different monasteries. But, granting this, it does not by any means follow that there was not a Bohairic dialect and a Bohairic version at an earlier date, which is closely represented by this, as the Akhmim version was represented by the Sahidic, as regards the Greek text implied. In favour of an early version in the dialect of Lower Egypt is first the a priori argument of the probability of Christianity spreading earliest in the Delta. We know that by the middle of the third century it had spread among the native population of Alexandria (Dion. Al. ap. Eus. “H. E.” vi. 41), and probably had done so in the second century. If Greek had spread so little in the Delta in the fourth or fifth century as to make a Bohairic version necessary, it is not likely to have been more widely prevalent in the third. On these grounds then we should naturally expect Christianity to spread earliest among the native populations of the districts round Alexandria, and also that the New Testament or a portion of it would be translated very early into their language. Nor again does there seem any evidence for deriving the Bohairic dialect from the Akhmimish. It is true that the latter represents the language of Egypt in an earlier form, but it is not an earlier form of Bohairic.

To these a priori and negative considerations must be added the positive argument of Krall (Mitt. i. p. 111). He appears to have discovered earlier forms of the Bohairic dialect, and in [pg 127] addition points out that some of the commonest abbreviations in Coptic MSS. could only have been derived from the Bohairic, which seems to show that it was for Bohairic that the alphabet was first used. And this in the New Testament at any rate is supported by the text of the version. A study of this has shown that in the form in which we possess it in most printed editions and late MSS., although as a whole its agreement with the oldest Greek MSS. is undoubted, it contains a considerable number of later additions which agree with the traditional text. But, as Bishop Lightfoot showed, these clearly formed no part of the original Bohairic version, and subsequent investigation has made it clear that the evidence in favour of this statement is even stronger than he represented it (see Sanday, Appendices ad Novum Testamentum, App. III. p. 182 sq.). The original Bohairic text then represents a very pure tradition, untouched by the so-called Western additions which are found in the Sahidic version, and it is difficult to believe that a version so singularly free from these should be later than the Sahidic. Christianity spread in the Thebaid certainly as early as the beginning of the third century (Eus. “H. E.” vi. 1), and that century is the period to which internal evidence would assign the origin of the Sahidic version. An even earlier date is probably demanded both for the extension of Christianity in the Delta and for the text of the Bohairic version.]