Chapter IV: Egyptian or Coptic Versions (2)

*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:

*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. 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.]

(3) The Sahidic (or Thebaic) Version.

The Sahidic version did not attract attention till a comparatively late date. When Wilkins published what was then called the Coptic New Testament, he mentioned having found among the Oxford MSS. two which he described as “lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis, quae unquam vidi, diversa” (Praef. p. vii). These are written in the Thebaic or Sahidic dialect, of which as we may infer from his language, he did not even know the existence. After no long time, however, we find La Croze and Jablonski, with other Egyptian scholars, turning their attention to the dialect of Upper Egypt: and at length in 1778, C. G. Woide issued a prospectus in which he announced his intention of publishing from Oxford MSS. the fragments of the New Testament “juxta interpretationem dialecti Superioris Aegypti, quae Thebaidica seu Sahidica appellatur.” In the same year he gave to the world some various readings of this version in J. A. Cramer’s “Beyträge zur Beförderung theologischer und andrer wichtigen Kenntnisse,” Pt. iii, Kiel u. Hamburg, 1778. But before Woide’s work appeared he was partially anticipated by other labourers in the same field.

In the same year 1778 appeared a grammar of the two Egyptian dialects by Raphael Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe, with the title “Rudimenta Linguae Coptae sive Aegyptiacae ad usum Collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide, Romae.” It contains profuse quotations from the Sahidic version of the Old and New Testaments. This work, which preserves a large number of passages not to be found elsewhere, has been strangely neglected by textual critics(110). Caution, however, must be observed in the use of it, as the passages are apparently obtained, at least in many instances, not directly from MSS. of the version itself, but through the medium of Arabo-Egyptian grammars and vocabularies; nor is Tuki’s work generally at all accurate or critical(111).

In 1785, J. A. Mingarelli published two fasciculi of an account of the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library under the title “Aegyptiorum codicum reliquiae Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatae, Bononiae.” In these he printed at length two portions of the Sahidic New Testament, Matt. xviii. 27-xxi. 15, and John ix. 17-xiii. 1.

In 1789, A. A. Giorgi (Georgius), an Augustinian eremite, brought out a work entitled “Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum Saeculi iv. &c., Romae.” This volume contains John vi. 21-58, and vi. 68-viii. 23, introduced by an elaborate preface and followed by other matter. The MS. from which they are taken belonged to the Borgian collection at Velletri, and has been described already among the Greek MSS., p. 141 sq. It is ascribed to the fourth or fifth century. In the same year, 1789, additional fragments of this version from other Borgian MSS. were published by F. C. C. H. Münter in a volume bearing the title, “Commentatio de Indole Versionis Novi Testamenti Sahidicae. Accedunt Fragmenta Epistolarum Pauli ad Timotheum ex membranis Sahidicis Musei Borgiani Velitris. Hafniae.” The fragments referred to are 1 Tim. i. 14-iii. 16; vi. 4-21; 2 Tim. i. 1-16. Münter gives also some various readings of this version in different parts of the four Gospels, taken likewise from the Borgian MSS.

Lastly; in 1790 Mingarelli published a third fasciculus of his work on the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library, and in it he printed another important fragment of this version, Mark xi. 29-xv. 32. This third part is very rarely met with, and I have not seen a copy.

Meanwhile Woide was busily engaged on his edition, and had already advanced far when his labours were interrupted by death in May, 1790. His papers were placed in the hands of H. Ford, Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who after several years completed the work. It was published with the title, “Appendix ad Editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e Codice MS. Alexandrino a C. G. Woide descripti, in qua continentur Fragmenta Novi Testamenti juxta interpretationem Dialecti Superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellator, &c. Oxoniae, 1799.” Woide’s materials were:

1. Several MSS. of the Huntington collection in the Bodleian. These consist of (_a_) Two folio lectionaries on paper (Hunt. 3, Hunt. 5); (_b_) A folio likewise on paper, containing fragments of St. John’s Gospel (Hunt. 4); (_c_) An 8vo, containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic Epistles (Hunt. 394). Woide gives as the date A. Mart. 1041, and A.D. 1315, “si recte conjicio,” but the two are not reconcileable; (_d_) A 4to on paper (Hunt. 393), written A. Mart. 1109 (i.e. A.D. 1393) and containing “De Mysterio literarum Graecarum Discursus Gnostici,” the work of one Seba an anchorite (_see_ Ford’s “Praef.,” p. vi. sq., and p. 21, note _a_).

2. A very ancient papyrus belonging to the famous traveller Bruce, who had brought it from Upper Egypt. It contains two Gnostic works, in which are quoted passages from the Old and New Testaments. It is now in the Bodleian(112).

3. An ancient vellum MS. containing the Gnostic treatise “Pistis Sophia,” then belonging to Askew and now in the British Museum. It quotes some passages of the Old and New Testaments. The “Pistis Sophia” has been since transcribed by Schwartze, and published from his papers by Petermann after his death (1853).

4. Several fragments belonging to Woide himself, having been transmitted to him from Upper Egypt while he was employed on the work. Some are Sahidic; others Graeco-Sahidic. These formed a highly important accession to his materials. They now belong to the Clarendon Press at Oxford, and are deposited in the Bodleian.

One of these, a Graeco-Sahidic MS., said to belong to the fourth or fifth century, has been already described (Evan. T). But I am unable to assent to the opinion which is maintained by Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in which Dr. Scrivener there acquiesces, that these Woidian fragments (Ts or Twoi) were originally part of the same MS. with the Borgian Graeco-Sahidic fragments (T) published by Giorgi. And this for two reasons. (1) The paging of the two sets of fragments is quite inconsistent. The Woidian fragments, Luke xii. 5 (Sahid. Gr. 15)-xiii. 23 (Sahid. Gr. 32) and John viii. 22-32, are paged ⲩⲛⲑ-ⲩⲡⲇ (459-484) and ⲭⲛⲍ, ⲭⲛⲏ (657, 658) respectively (_see_ Ford’s “Praef.,” p. 24). On the other hand the pages of the Borgian fragments, Luke xxii. 12-xxiii. 11; John vi. 21-58; vi. 68-viii. 23, are numbered ⲥⲗⲑ-ⲥⲛⲇ (239-254), ⲧⲗⲇ-ⲧⲙⲅ, ⲧⲙⲝ-ⲧⲝⲁ (334-343, 346-361) respectively (_see_ Zoega, p. 184; Georgius, p. 11 sq.). (2) Though the last Woidian fragment begins _somewhere about_ where the last Borgian fragment ends, it does not begin at exactly the same place. The Borgian fragment ends ⲁⲛⲅ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲛ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ (ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί; ὑμεῖς), viii. 23; the Woidian fragment begins ⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲣⲟϥ (ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω), viii. 22. Thus the two have several lines in common. For these reasons the later judgement of Tregelles, who pronounces them to be “certainly parts of the _same_ MS.” (Introductory notice to his G. T.), must be abandoned; and we must revert to his earlier and more cautious opinion in which he describes the Woidian fragment as “a portion of a MS. almost a counterpart of T” (Horne’s “Introduction,” p. 180).

5. A Sahidic vocabulary in the Royal Library at Paris (Copt. 44), containing several passages from the Sahidic Bible.

6. A few fragments communicated by Adler from the collection of Card. Borgia at Velletri. Besides these Woide incorporated the fragments published by Mingarelli in his first two fasciculi. The works of Giorgi and Münter, however, and the third fasciculus of Mingarelli, were overlooked by him or by his successor Ford.

Besides elaborate prefaces by Ford and Woide this work gives a Latin translation in parallel columns with the Sahidic. It would not be difficult to point out numerous errors in the execution of this volume; but all allowance must be made for a posthumous work completed by a second editor who had to educate himself for the task, and the heavy obligation under which Woide and Ford have laid Biblical scholars may well silence ill-natured criticism(113).

Some years later appeared a highly important contribution to Sahidic literature in G. Zoega’s “Catalogus Codicum Copticorum manuscriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, Romae, 1810,” a posthumous work. The compiler of this catalogue prints at length Eph. v. 21-33; Apoc. xix. 7-18; xx. 7-xxi. 3, and gives besides (p. 200) a full list of the fragments of the Sahidic version, which are found in this rich collection of Egyptian MSS. These would go far towards filling up the gaps in Woide’s edition. Thus, for instance, they contain about three-quarters of St. Mark’s Gospel, the whole of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the whole of the Epistle to the Philippians with the exception of five or six verses at the beginning.

In the following year (1811) appeared Engelbreth’s work on the Bashmuric version, which has been mentioned above (p. 102). In it he printed, for the sake of comparison with the Bashmuric, the following passages of the Sahidic version: 1 Cor. i. 1-16; xv. 5-33; Phil. i. 7-23; 1 Thess. i. 4-iii. 5; Heb. vii. 11-13; 16-21; ix. 2-10; 24-28; x. 5-10. These were derived wholly from the Borgian MSS., with the exception of a few verses taken from Woide’s book. Beyond this meagre contribution of Engelbreth’s, nothing has been done during more than sixty years which have elapsed since the appearance of Zoega’s work towards the publication of these valuable remains, important alike for the knowledge of the Egyptian language and for purposes of Biblical criticism. A complete collection of all the fragments of the Sahidic New Testament is now the most pressing want in the province of textual criticism.

The materials for such an edition are the following:

1. The MSS. used by Woide and Ford, which however will require collating afresh.

2. The Nanian fragments published by Mingarelli. The MSS. which he used are said to have disappeared.

3. The MSS. of the Borgian collection, as indicated in the catalogue of Zoega. After the dispersion of the museum at Velletri the Biblical MSS. found their way to the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, where they now are.

4. The quotations in Tuki, though for reasons already stated these must be used with caution. They should be traced, if possible, to their sources.

To these known materials the following, which (so far as I am aware), have never been publicly noticed, must be added:

1. *British Museum, Papyrus xiii, four leaves or eight pages numbered ⲋⲙⲁ-ⲋⲙⲏ, containing John xx. 1-29 mutilated. It does not differ in any important respects from the text printed by Woide, but I noticed the following variations: ver. 3, Σίμων Πέτρος; ver. 8, add οὖν after τότε; ver. 10, om. οἰ μαθηταί; ver. 12, ins. καὶ before θεωρεῖ; ver. 17, om. δὲ after πορεύου; ver. 18, om. δέ after ἔρχεται; ver. 21, εἶπεν οὖν for εἶπεν δέ; ib. add [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς after αὐτοῖς; ver. 28, add αὐτῷ after ἀπεκρίθη.

2. *Paris, Copt. 102. Thebaic fragments of various ages, some very old. Those from the New Testament are (_a_) Luke iii. 21-iv. 9; (_b_) John xvii. 17-26, Theb. Arab., paper; (_c_) Acts vii. 51-viii. 3, vellum; (_d_) Apoc. i. 13-ii. 2, vellum. The pages of this last fragment are marked ⲉ-ⲏ.

3. Crawford and Balcarres collection. Several very important Sahidic fragments which formerly belonged to Archdeacon Tattam. These are:

*i. Mark ix. 18-xiv. 26, vellum, six leaves, the pages numbered ⲓⲑ-ⲗ, two columns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column. I observed the following readings: ix. 24, om. μετὰ δακρύων; 44, 46, om. ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ κ.τ.λ.; 50, om. καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται; xi. 26, omitted; xiii. 14, om. τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου; xiv. 22, om. φάγετε; 24 has καινῆς.

*ii. Luke iii. 8-vi. 37, vellum, two columns in a page, thirty-five lines in a column. A very beautiful MS. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given, and also the τίτλοι. There is occasionally a rough concordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, ⲓⲅ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏⲋ. ⲓⲱ ⲍ. ⲙⲑ ⲓⲅ. ⲙⲣ. ⲉ, where St. John stands first. I noted down the following readings: iii. 19, om. Φιλίππου; 27, Ἰωανάν; 30, Ἰωανάμ; 32, Ἰωβήδ; 32, ⲥⲁⲗⲁ for Σαλμών, just as in ver. 35; iv. 26, Σιδωνίας; 41, om. ὁ Χριστός; ver. 38, om. καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. In vi. 16 Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου is translated “Judas the son of James.”

*iii. Luke xvii. 18-xix. 30, vellum, two columns in a page, twenty-seven lines in a column, five leaves, paged ⲣⲁ to ⲣⲓ (sic). No sections are marked. It has these readings: xvii. 24, om. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ; xviii. 28, τὰ ἴδια; xix. 5, om. εἶδεν αὐτὸν καί.

*iv. Gal. i. 14-vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page, twenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked ρπθ onward. It has these readings: i. 15, ὁ θεός; ii. 5, οἷς οὐδέ; ii. 20, τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ; iii. 1, om. τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; iii. 17, om. εἰς χριστόν; iv. 7, κληρονόμος διὰ [τοῦ] χριστοῦ; iv. 14, τὸν πειρασμόν μου τὸν ἐν κ.τ.λ.; 15, ποῦ; v. 1, στήκετε οὖν.

Of these four fragments ii and iv are the most ancient; while i and iii are much later, but still old. Beyond this I do not venture to hazard an opinion as to their date, remembering that Zoega with all his knowledge and experience declines to pronounce on the age of undated Egyptian MSS.(114)

4*. A fragment (a single leaf) of a Graeco-Sahidic lectionary in double columns, belonging to the Rev. G. Horner, who brought it from Upper Egypt in 1873 [ix], 12-1/4 × 11. The Greek and Sahidic are not in opposite columns, but the Greek is followed by the Sahidic. The Greek is Matt. iv. 2-11 τεσσεράκοντα καὶ τεσσεράκοντα νύκτας ... διηκόνουν αὐτῷ; the Sahidic is iv. 1-6 Τότε ... ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε. The Coptic character resembles classes v and vi in Zoega. The Greek text has been already numbered as Evst. 299. This has now been presented to the Bodleian by Mr. Horner, MS. Gr. Lit. c. 1.

[Since the above was written, very considerable additions have been made to our knowledge of the Sahidic version.

1. The Biblical MSS. of the Borgian collection preserved in the Library of the Propaganda have been published by M. Amélineau. The Old Testament in the Recueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the “Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache,” 24 (1886), pp. 41, 103; 25 (1887), pp. 47, 100, 125; 26 (1888), p. 96. This publication was made under considerable disadvantages. M. Amélineau had not the opportunity of seeing the MSS. himself, and merely published a transcript supplied him by the Coptic Archbishop Bschai, then resident in Rome. Moreover he gives no critical notes on various readings in cases where there is more than one copy extant of any passage. Nor again does he edit the fragments completely, but only such portions of the New Testament as were not previously known. His edition therefore is not without inaccuracies, which have been noticed by Ciasca, vol. ii. pp. lix-lxxvii. These defects are, however, being remedied by an edition of all these fragments by Father Ciasca (known as the editor of the Arabic Diatessaron), which is very complete. The first two volumes, containing the Old Testament with many facsimiles, have appeared: the New Testament portion is to follow. (Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani iussu et sumptibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Studio P. Augustini Ciasca. Romae. Typis eiusdem S. Congregationis. Vol. i. 1885; Vol. ii. 1889.)

2. The Crawford and Balcarres fragments mentioned above have also been edited by M. Amélineau in the Recueil des Travaux, v. (1883), p. 105.

3. To O. von Lemm we owe a considerable number of fragments. Bruchstücke der Sahidischen Bibelübersetzung nach Handschriften der kaiserlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885. And Sieben Sahidische Bibel-Fragmente. Z. A. S. 23 (1885), p. 19.

4. Fragments, mostly smaller in extent, have been edited by the following:

Bouriant Mémoires, i. 259.
Recueil, iv. 1.

Maspero Recueil, vi. 35; vii. 47.
Études Égyptologiques, i. 3. Paris, 1883.

Ceugney Recueil, ii. 94.

Krall Mittheilungen, ii. 68.

5. But most important of all are the newly acquired fragments of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. In 1883 that Library had the good fortune to obtain (largely through the influence of M. Amélineau) from the famous White Monastery or Deir Amba Shenoudah of Upper Egypt a large collection of Sahidic fragments. The publication of these has been begun. Considerable sections of the Old Testament have been published by Maspero (Mémoires, vol. vi), and of documents relating to Early Church History by Bouriant (ib. vol. viii). The New Testament fragments have not yet been published, but M. Amélineau, who is entrusted with them, has kindly put at my disposal the following list of contents. I have omitted smaller Fragments:

MATTHEW (167 leaves): i. 1-20; i. 17-ii. 4; i. 1-22; ii. 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15; iii. 1-11; 1-15; iii. 10-iv. 13; iii. 22-iv. 11; iv. 3-19; 21-v. 15; iv. 15-v. 17; v. 17-32; 9-28; v. 25-vi. 3; vii. 6-viii. 4; vii. 8-27; x. 9-28; viii. 1-17; 2-20; ix. 13-33; ix. 25-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 19; ix. 26-x. 19; x. 39-xxviii. 54 (36 leaves); x. 20-xii. 3; xi. 3-10; xi. 15-xii. 16; xi. 16-xii. 4; xii. 6-xiv. 31; xii. 19-40; xiii. 19-xiv. 6; xiii. 22-25; xiii. 35-50; xiii. 41-xiv. 2; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 17-35; xiv. 18-xv. 19; xiv. 20-35; xiv. 21-xv. 19; xiv. 24-xv. 11; xiv. 27-xv. 1; xiv. 31-54; xiv. 31-xv. 20; xv. 17-xvi. 19; xviii. 11-35; 15-21; xviii. 26-xix. 1; xix. 7-22; xix. 13-xx. 16; xix. 24-xx. 16; xx. 9-32; xxi. 8-12; 19-21; 12-37; 9-25; 22-33; xxi. 31-xxii. 5; xxi. 32-41; xxi. 38-xxii. 12; xxii. 22-xxiii. 12; xxiv. 7-xxvi. 64; xxiv. 2-42; xxiv. 35-xxv. 36; xxiv. 47-xxvi. 47; xxvi. 41-60; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 5; xxvi. 75-xxviii. 23; xxvii. 26-56; xxvii. 49-xxviii. 4; xxvii. 54-xxviii. 8. Also a fragment containing the last few verses and the beginning of St. Mark.

MARK (43 leaves): i. 1-17; 4-5; i. 30-ii. 1; iv. 1-8; iv. 32-v. 11; v. 30-vii. 36; v. 13-38; vi. 4-viii. 12; vii. 36-viii. 1; viii. 12-31; 23-38; x. 42-xi. 15; xi. 3-27; xi. 11-xiii. 14; xii. 12-35; xii. 31-xiii. 19; xiv. 6-xv. 2; xiv. 12-xv. 21; xiv. 20-40.