The order of the books in the Sahidic New Testament, so far as regards the great groups, appears to have been the same as in the Bohairic, i.e. (1) The Four Gospels, (2) The Pauline Epistles, (3) The Catholic Epistles and Acts (see above, p. [124]). This may be inferred from the order of quotations in the Sahidic vocabulary described by Woide, Praef., p. 18; for the Sahidic MSS. are so fragmentary that no inference on this point can be drawn from them. Like the Bohairic, the original Sahidic Canon seems to have excluded the Apocalypse. In the vocabulary just mentioned it does not appear as part of the New Testament, but liturgical and other matter interposes before it is taken. Moreover in most cases it is evident from the paging of the fragments which remain that the MSS. containing this book formed separate volumes. In the Paris fragment described above this is plainly the case, and it is equally obvious in the Borgian MSS. lxxxviii, lxxxix (Zoega, p. 187). Thus in lxxxviii, pp. 39-44 contain Apoc. xii. 14-xiv. 13; and in lxxxix. pp. 59, 60, 63, 64 contain Apoc. xix. 7-18, xx. 7-xxi. 3. On the other hand in lxxxvii. where Apoc. iii. 20 begins on p. 279, this fragment must have formed part of a much larger volume, which contained (as we may suppose) a considerable portion of the New Testament.
The order of the four Gospels presents a difficulty. In the Sahidic vocabulary already referred to, the sequence is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke; and this order is also observed in the marginal concordance to the Crawford and Balcarres MS. described above. Thus there is reason for supposing that at one time St. John stood first. But the paging of the oldest MSS. does not favour this conclusion. In the Woidian and Borgian fragments of the Graeco-Sahidic Gospels, which belong to the fourth or fifth century, the numbering of the pages (see p. [130]) shows that St. Luke stood before St. John. It is possible indeed that in the MSS. the transcriber was guided by the usual Greek arrangement. But in other MSS. also the synoptic evangelists precede St. John, e.g. Borg. xlvi, l, lxiv; while in other fragments again (Borg. lxx, lxxiv) the high numbers of the pages of St. John show that the Evangelist cannot have stood first in the volume, and this seems further supported by the Paris fragments, in which we find St. John following St. Luke in the same MS.
In this version, as in the Bohairic, the Epistle to the [pg 138] Hebrews was treated as the work of St. Paul; but instead of being placed, as there, after 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy, it stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians[115]. It clearly occupies this position in the Borgian MS. lxxx (Zoega, p. 186): and by calculating the pages I have ascertained that this must also have been its place in all the other MSS. of the Pauline Epistles of which fragments after 2 Corinthians are preserved. These are the Borgian fragments lxxxii, lxxxv, lxxxvi, (Zoega, p. 186 sq.), and the Crawford and Balcarres fragment (iv) described above (p. [132]); all of which happily are paged.
The Oxford MS. Hunt. 394 is a proof that the Acts followed the Catholic Epistles in the Sahidic New Testament, as is the case also in the Memphitic. Woide indeed (Praef., p. 22), when describing this MS., says, “exorditur ab Actis Apostolicis”; but, even if this be so, his own account of the paging shows that the leaves have been displaced in binding, and that the Catholic Epistles originally stood first. The vocabulary also places them before the Acts.
The Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faithful to the original than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to judge, it pays more respect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently omitting the conjunction and leaving the sentences disconnected. As regards the vocabulary, it adopts Greek words with as great facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This we should hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been comparatively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher and less polished version than the Bohairic.
The real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present circumstances be assigned with any certainty. What would be received by one school of critics would not be admitted by another. But the Editor readily records the verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that the text of it, though very ancient, is inferior to the Bohairic, and less pure; that it exhibits a certain infusion of readings which were widely spread in the second century, and may very probably have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin; that it differs very largely from the Traditional text; and that both in text and in interpretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic. The coincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited by two separate translations in allied dialects from independent [pg 139] texts of the same original. Of any mutual influence of the versions of Upper and Lower Egypt on each other no traces are discernible.
The following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to illustrate the independence of these two versions.
| Bohairic. | Sahidic. |
| 12 ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ | 12 ϩⲁϩ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ |
| ⲛϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲛⲁϩϯ ⲛⲉⲙ | ⲁⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ |
| ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ ⲛϩⲓⲟⲙⲓ | ⲛϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛ ⲛⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ |
| ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲭⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲣⲱⲓ | ⲙⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ⁘ |
| ⲏ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲁⲛ⁘ | 13 ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ |
| 13 ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲉⲙⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ | ⲑⲉ ⲛⲑⲓ ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲛ |
| ⲛⲧⲉ ⲑⲉⲥⲥⲁⲗⲟⲡⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ | ⲑⲉⲥⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ |
| ⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲓϣ ϧⲉⲛ | ⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ϩⲛ ⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ |
| ⲧⲕⲉⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ | ⲙⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲙ |
| ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲉⲙⲁ | ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ |
| ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ | ⲟⲛ ⲉⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ |
| ⲛⲓⲙⲏϣ ⲉⲩϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ⁘ | ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ ⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ⁘ |
| 14 ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲥⲁⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ | 14 ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ |
| ⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϫⲉ | ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ ⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ |
| ⲛⲓⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲉ ⲑⲣⲉϥϣⲉ ⲉϫⲉⲛ | ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲛ ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ |
| ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲁⲩⲥⲱϫⲡ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ | ⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲋⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ |
| ⲛϫⲉ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘ | ⲙⲛ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘ |
| 15 ⲛⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ | 15 ⲛⲉⲧⲕⲁⲑⲓⲥⲧⲁ |
| ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲛϥ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉ | ⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ |
| ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲋⲓ | ⲁⲩⲛⲧϥ ϣⲁ ⲁⲑⲉⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ |
| ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉ ⲋⲓ ⲡϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ | ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ |
| ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ | ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ϣⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ |
| ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ⲛⲭⲱⲗⲉⲙ | ⲙⲛ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲉⲓ |
| ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲛⲱⲟⲩ⁘ | ϣⲁⲣⲟϥ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲋⲉⲡⲏ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ |
| 16 ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁϥ | ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⁘ |
| ϩⲉⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲙⲥ | 16 ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ |
| ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥϫⲱⲛⲧ | ⲋⲱϣⲧ ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ |
| ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ | ⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ |
| ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ | ϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ |
| ϯⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲥⲟϣ ⲙⲙⲉⲧϣⲁⲙϣⲉ | ⲉⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲙⲙⲉϩ ⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘ |
| ⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘ |
[(4) The Fayoum Version.]
[The history of the discovery of the third Egyptian version, and the reasons that have caused it to be assigned to the district of the Fayoum, have been given above.