Egyptian yersions

The various Egyptian dialects and the Versions contained in them are a Bubject of so much confusion that it will be well for the sake of distinctness to deal in this article first with the Dialects and their proximate dates, and then with the extant remains of the Versions and their proximate dates. We will conclude with a short study of the Greek Text implied by the Versions, ana the history of the criticism of them. 1.

Dialects of Coptic— The latest stage of the Egyptian language, and that which was spoken in Christian times, is now known by the name of Coptic. The word itself comes from a corruption of the Greek Ar7inrTos. Coptic was written in Greek characters, with the addition of some extra letters representing sounds which could only im- perfectly be expressed by the Greek alphabet.

These letters were modifications of characters found in Demotic — the popular form of the old Egyptian language spoken in the centuries im- mediately before the Christian era. Although it is still used in the services of the Church, Coptic is now practically a dead language. Our knowledge, therefore, of it must be derived from manuscripts and inscriptions.

When these began to be studied by European scholars, it soon became evident that the language as spoken in diti'erent parts of the country presented certain dialectical peculiarities. Not only was it early recognized that the dialect nsed in the North differed considerably from that used in the South, but a third dialect was also detected, which, as a general rule, resembled the southern : it had, however, many northern forms, and sometimes showed peculiarities of its own.

A long controversy, lasting for more than a cen- tury, was waged over the district to which this third dialect was to be assigned. The attention of Coptic scholars was early directed to a noteworthy passage from Athanasius, a bishop of Kos in the Thebaid, who flourished in the 11th century. In his Arabic-Coptic Grammar, Athanasius says : ' Know that the Coptic language is divided into three branches.

One of them is tne Coptic of Misr, which is the Sahidic ; and another is tne Bohairic Coptic, which gets its name from El-Bohaira ; a and the other is the Bushmuric Coptic, which is nsed in the country of El-Bushmur, as thou know- est. But those now in use are only the Bohairic Coptic and the Sahidic. And the origin of them is one language. '/3 Here we have a mention of three dialects — Sahidic, Bohairic, and Bush- kiuric. The first two are, as Quatrem^re pointed • I.e.

the district south of Alexandria. 0 The original of the passage is ^ven in Ouatrem^re, Rfi- ehfrche$ ntr ta Langu* et la LitUrature de I'EjypU (Paris, 1808), p. tL out,a clearly the same as those sometimes called Thebaic and Memphitic. But what was the lastl Was it to be identified with the third dialect known to us? Or was it the name of a still unknown dialect ? Before this question could be answered, the position of Bushmur had to be determined.

Quatrem^re proved tliat it could not be placed in the South of Egj-pt, nor in the Oasis and neigh- bouring deserts, but that it must be situated in the North.;3 It is the country in the east of the Delta bordering on the sea.7 Quairemfere wa? of opinion that our third dialect had no con nexion with Bushmuric, of which we had only a single word preserved to us. 5 But if it was not Bushmuric, now came it not to be mentioned by Athanasius!

Quatremfere answered the ques- tion by supposing that it was in use not ex- actly m Egypt, but in a country close by — the great and little Oases, ' whicli, situated at a little distance from Egj-pt, stretch from north to south, from the parallel of Assouan as far as the frontier of the Fayflm.'e Since Quatremiire's time a large number of fragments have come to light which prove that he was riglit in refusing to call the dialect Bushmuric.

Whether or not it was spoken in the southern Oasis, we now know for certain that it was used in the neigh- bourhood of the Fayftm and Memphis ; and a study of Middle Egyptian shows us that the reason why Athanasius did not mention it may have been that he did not regard it as a separate dialect. This third dialect, lying as it does geo- graphically and linguistically between Sahidic and Bohairic.f may conveniently be termed Middle Egyptian.

When we come to examine it more carefully, we are confronted with fresh difficulties. Whilst Sahidic and Bohairic are for the most part clearly defined and regular dialects. Middle Egyp- tian presents us with an almost bewildering number of alternative forms. When spoken in the Nile Valley the dialect is a kind of mixture between Sahidic and Bohairic.

But in some of the frag- ments which come from the Fayflm — a district some distance to the west — the dialect has de- veloped more decided peculiarities of its own. It is dangerous, however, to draw any hard-and- fast distinction between the forms of the language current in the two places ; for at a later date the dialect used in the Fayflm bore a considerable resemblance to that used at one time in Memphis.!

; Many of the other varieties are no doubt due to ignorance or indifference on the part of scribes, some of whom in the Fayftm belonged to the peasant and artisan class. S Such an explanation does not, however, cover the case of some frag- ments recently found in Akhmlm and in the Faylim, which present further dialectical peculiari- ties unknown to us before.

Stern has carefully examined the dialect of these fragments, and has shown good reason to believe that it presents us with an earlier form of Middle Egyptian, closely allied to the dialect found in fragments written at Memphis.i We may sura up these results as follows ; — Sahidic = Dialect of Southern (or Upper) Egypt ; sometimes called ' Thebaic' « Quatremfere, op. eit. p. 22. 0 lb. p. 147 ff. y See Y&kOt, i. «S4. i (^uatrem^re, op. cit. p. 214. 1 lb. p. 217.

C Sometimes It very closely resemblefl Bohalrio. See the dialect of the Fragment of the Song of Moses given by Crum, Coptic MSS brought from the Faymtrn, p. 12 ff. r CI. the dialect of the Favflm (racment published by Quatre- m^re, op. cit. p. 248 fl.. with the dialect of those edited bj Revilloul, Paptrrua Copies (Paris, 1870), p. 101 ft. 6 See Krall, Mittheiiungen aut der Sammtung dtr Papyna Brzherzog Rainer (Vienna, 18^7), i. p. 66. I ZeiUchrtft fur AgyptiKhe Spraeht, 1886, p. 1208.

EGYPTIAN VERSIONS EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 669 Kiddie Egyptian = Dialect of (a) Memphis and neighbourhood, and (t) the Fayflm. Bohairic= Dialectuf districtsouth of Alexandria : sometimes called 'Memphitic' (or 'Coptic'). 2. Relative Dates of Dialects.— The Arabic historian Macrizi, who flourished at the beginning of the 15th century, speaks of Sahidic as ' the primitive source of the Coptic language, and tliat from which is derived the Bobairic dialect.'

a Such evidence as there is conlirms his statement as to the late date of Bohairic. Bobairic (wliich was originally confined to the district south of Alex- andria) is the most literary and artificial of Coptic dialects. The form of many of its words, when compared with the corresponding Saliidic, points to a later stage of development. Its frequent use of connecting particles, reminding us of Greek rather than Egyptian, seems also to point in the same direction.

It was most probably developed from Middle Egyptian, which at one time may possibly have been spoken in the neighbourhood of Alex- andria itself.^ To what extent it was used for other than ecclesiastical purposes we have at present no means of ascertaining.7 But if it was in the main a literary ratlier than a popular language, this fact would explain why it died out, except for ecclesiastical purposes, earlier than Middle Egyptian and Sahidic.

S There is, on the contrary, no doubt that the last-named dialects were tne language of the people. We have numerous fragments of letters m Middle Egyptian and remains of school-books in Sahidic.t The line of demarcation between the two dialects was not sharp, and sometimes pieces of writing are found in which single sentences are almost entirely \*Tittcn in Sahidic, whilst others are almost entirely in Middle Egyptian.

f Thus, whilst we find Saliidic forms in use in documents written in the neighbourhood of Hermopolis Magna and A-tinoe,ij we have evidence that as far south as Thobes pure Saliidic was not always written. 9 AVhen Aliddle Egyptian and Sahidic began to be written we do not know. As far as the evidence s Quatrerafere, op. cit. p. 42, fi See the interesting,' fra^ient published by Rrall, at the end of an art. " iiber die Anfimf^e der Koptischen Sclirift," op. cit. i. p. 112.

where an Alexandrian in sitjrninjf his name makes use of the FayOinic dialect. Too much streas, however, must not be laid on this passajfe ; for, as Moinmscn points out, ' the belon^'inL' to ' an Eu'yptian district * was itidcpenflentof dwcllinif-place, and hereditJtr>'. The Ki^yjitian from the Chemmitic nome beion(;ed to it with his dependents. Just as much \s')icn he hiul his abode in Alexandria as the Alexandrian dwelliiii; in Chemniis belonged to the bur^ess-ljody of Alexandria ' (.

Monniisen, The Promncei o» the Roman Empire, c. xii. Kng. trans, p. Has), The ftrfoimentfl put forward in that article in favour of an early date for the Bohairic dialect (see also llcadlam in Scrivener's Intro- diu-tion to XT, ii. 126f., and llyvirnat, Ilemu Itihlique, 1897, Ko. 1, p. 67) ore valueless. (1) The abbreviations found in Coptic MSS for • Oofi ' and ' Lord need not have oricfinated in Bohairic. If they occurred (and they never do, as far a.s I know) in MSS written in pure S.

ahidic, they mi{;ht as easily have been taken from M.E. as from Bohairic. Indeed an abbreviation of ' Lord,' which is almost exactly the same oa the one in common use in Bohairic, is fotmd in a M.K. MS, which ' In it« writintf,* says Krall (p. llOf.), ' reminds us of the Codex Sinaiticus.' {2) Even if Krall's iiypothesis of the orit^dn of the Ual letter of the Coptic alphabet were satisfactory, it does not prove hia point. The contraction mi^ht have arisen in M.E. OS easily as in Bohairic.

But most iirot>ably his liypntliesis is wronij, and the letter is derived from Demotic (see StcindorlT, KoptiKche (rraininatik, 9 -1). V Attempts to use Iluhairic for letter-writing, usln^ throujrh- out Orcek characters, are ^fiven by Kntll, op. ctt. ii.-iii. p. 50, v. 41; Crum, op. cit. n. 69f. Unfortunately, as Krall says, 'the ir?

ojfrapbicjil and climatic conditions of the Delta are not favour- able to the preservation of papyrus,' We cannot therefore be certain of the exact dialect which the hermitA near Lake Men- SAleh spoke, when Oasslan visited them at the end of the 4th c«ntury. It may have been a form of .M.E. or Bohairic. We leather from Cossian {CoU. xi. 3, xvi. 1 ; .Migno, P.L. xlix. 850, 1011) that some of them did not know Oreek. i Ouatrem^re, op. cit. p. 41 f. I Krall, op. cH. Ii.-iii. 430., iv. lajS.

C Krall, op. eil. I. (H. n Kmll, op. cU. i. 61, it es I. f ZAS, 1884, p. 140 S. of documents is concerned, we have fragments in Middle Egyptian (earlier and later) and Sahidic, some of which take us back to the 4th or 5th centuries.o But as early as the 2nd century etlorts were made to write Egyptian in characters not unlike our present Coptic ones./3 3. Extant Remains of Veiwions.

— We have remains of biblical versions in all three dialects ; but a considerable portion of the Saliidic has dis- appeared, whilst only very short fragments of the Aliddle Egyptian are extant. A useful list of MSS containing portions of the Coptic Bible has been given by M. Hyvemat in the Hecue ISiblique Internationale for 1896, No. 4, p. 540 tf. We shall here confine ourselves to editions of the versions. (a) Sahidic.

— The fullest collections of extant fragments of the version of the NT are those pub- lished by Woide7 and Am61ineau.5 Some frag- ments of the Apocalypse have recently been brought together \>y Goussen.f A complete collection, together with a translation, is urgently needed. The best collections of the remains of the OT have been made by Ciasca,f Maspero,?; and Lagarde.S Quotations from the Sahidic Bible are found in the ' Pistis Sophia,'i and other Sahidic books.

The Psalms quoted in the former work resemble the Sahidic version. In fact, as a general rule citations in either the Bohairic or Sahidic dialect agree with the version of the Bible current in that dialect./c Other collections of fragments of the Sahidic Bible are described in the lievue Biblique Internationale, 1897, No. 1, pp. 55-02.

(6) Middle Egyptian, — That there was a sepa- rate Middle Egyptian recension of part, at lea-tt, of the Bible is proved by the text of some of the NT fragments publi.slied by ZoegaX and Miispero./j These are w ritten in tne dialect as spoken in t he Faj'llm, and sometimes in text and translation diller considerably from the corre.sijonding Sahidic and Bohairic. How far all the biblical fragments extant in Middle Egyjitian really con.

stitute a separate version, we shall be able to judge with greater certainty when inure frngiiieiit» have been discovered, and when the Saliidic NT lias been edited. Meanwhile, it is unsafe to conclude that a fragment written in this dialect necessarily presents a distinct recension. It may give, with merely dialectical changes, exactly the same version as the S.'ihidic.

i' We shall here simply state where specimens of the Bible written in MiJdle Egjptian may be found, witliuut venturing to deleniiino whether they are parts of a single version. Hesiiles the fragments already alluded to,J Bouriant has published two Go.spel fragments, together with a a Crum, op. cit. plate I. No. 2 ; Kenyon, Our tiiitte aiid the Ancient M.SS, p. 163 (itlate xvii.); Krall, op. cit. i. 110; hHlhrer durch dve AuKnteltun^ (Vienna, 1892), p. 33, Tofel iii. ; Stern, ZAS. 1880, p. 135.

fi Stcindorff, Koptijtche Grammatik, S 2. y Appendix ad editionejn yooi Testamenti Graci (Oxford, 1709). ) /.AS, 1880-1888. I A pocaij/psiJf S. Johannig Apoittoli (Lelprip, ISO.'i). ^ Sacrorum liibliorxun J-'ru'jmenta C'oplo..SaJiuIica tlusei Dortjiani. Home, vol. i., 1S85 ; vol. ii., 1889. ,1 M^inoire« pubti-^ea par leg Meinhreti de la ilitnion Arohio- logiqtte Franrai.tf aw Caire (Paris, 1892), vol. vL S A^'jypii^ial ((iottin(fen, Iss::), p. 05 (T. < Cf. ilarnack, Tfite u. Vntcrs. vii. 2.

2ff. s See e.g. V. Robinson, Texts and Studies, vol. (v. No. 2, p. xlx. A Catatofjus Codicum Copticorum (Ilome_, 1810), p. 140 IT. ; cf. Engelbreth, Fratjmenta lifittniurico.Coptica I'etens et yod Teetatnenii {Cn\tcu\iaKVt\, ISII), p. 20 IT. u lircueil de Traiaux rt'lat\f$ d la J'hii. et d I'Arch. &tjypt. et Atinir. (1889), xi. p. 110, > Cf. the translation In old M,R. of .lude ■' ■» with the corresponding' Sahidic. See Crum, op, cit.

p, 4, I Zoe(;a pviblishes tlie Ilrst half of 1 Th and part of the follow* Inj chuplers; Is 1, 6, ,ln 4, 1 Co tt-9, 14. 15, Kph 6, Ph 1. 2, He f>-lll (Engellireth (fives the same). 1 Co 9 10-16 had already been edited by Oiortri [froifmentum Hftnujetii S. Johannit, etc.. Rome, 1789, p. 55 ff.)

, and Miiuter (Cointnsntatie 670 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS EGYPTIAN VERSIONS BmaJl portion of Isaiah, the end of 2 Co and the beeinnmg of Hebrews, a A single verse from Jon 2 will be found in Tuki ;j3 the last |iart of La and most of the Epistle of Jer. (with Latin translations) in Quatremfere.7 Crum has given a few verses from Mt U. 12,J and Krall some verses of Ro 11. 12.C Besides these, Von Lemm has made another short collection of fragments in this dialect.

f To this list must be added some inter- esting biblical remains written in Old Middle Egyptian. 1) Small portions of Exoilus, Sirach, and 2 Mac are published by Bouriant.S We have an incomplete MS of the Minor Prophets, from which Krall has published specimen verses.i briefly enumerating the contents of the rest, which he will shortly publish, k Part of the same MS has recently been edited by Bouriant.X The NT fragments published by Crumju are unfortu- nately very minute.

Jude '''"^ and part of Ja 4""- " alone survive. (c) Bohairic. — The best edition of the Gospels is that of Schwartze,!- and of the Acts and Epistles, that of Lagarde.f The NT as a whole has never been satisfactorily edited. A serviceable edition was made by Wilkins, but the Latin translation which it contains is unsatisfactory. o A new edition of the Gospels is being prepared for the Clarendon Pressby G. Horner.

The Pentateuch was first published by Wilkins (^vith a translation), t and then more carefully by Lagarde.^ Tattam has edited and translated (but uncritically) the Major and Minor Prophets and the Book of Job.cr The best editions of the Psalms have been made by Schwartzer and Lagarde,u the latter edition being unfortunately printed in Latin characters. F. Rossi has lately edited a MS containing part of the Psalter.i^ Only small portions of tne rest of the OT have been printed.

For a list of these portions and of editions not •nentioned here, see Hyvemat, op. cit. 1897, No 1, p. 48 ff. 4. Date of Versions.— The earliest evidence for the existence of a Coptic version is usually said to be afforded by the Life of St. Antony, com- monly attributed to St. Athanasius. We are there de I-ndoU Versionit Novi TestameTiti Sahidicce^ Copenhagen, 1789, p. 78 ff.) Maspero has published Mt 5M-61»«. a Bouriant, Mhnoire« de Vl-nstUut ^g^rptien, vol. 11. (Cairo, 1889), p. 5fi7 S.

The Gospel fragTuents are parts of Mt 13. 14, and of Mk 8. 9. The dithculty of drawing a sharp line of dis- tinction between the various forms of the M.E. dialect is shown by the fact that Headlam is inclined to regard two parts of one MS of the Gospels as belonging to separate versions and dialects (see Ueadlam, op, cit. u. p. 141 f. ; cf. Hyvemat, op. cit. 1S90, No. 4, p. 666a,), ^ Rudiinenia Lingxux Cpp((B (Rome, 1778), p, 448. y (^u.atremferej op. e\t. p. 228 ff. i Crum, op. at. p. 1 f. Cf.

also the fragments of the Bong of Moses and the Song of the Three Children on p, 12 ff. I Ov. «(. U.-iii. p. 69 a. In i, p. 60 he gives quotations in this dialect from Mt 11", Ps 148*. { MittHaegyptuche Bi^ei/ra/jmcnte, ^tudtt ArcAiotogiquet hirujuistiqu^g et HitAoriques ciidUet d M. U Dr. C. Leemans, Leyden, 1885. n Old M.E. is often called Akhmimio, because most of kbe fragments of it come from Akmim. (y Mihftoires MU$. A rch. \. p. 246 ff. / Krall op. ct<. u.-iii. (1887) p. 265 ff.

A list of the verses will be found in Hyvernat, op. at. (1896), No. 4, p. 668, under the title ' Version Akhmlmienne.' • lb. iv. p. 143 f. A Recuext de Travaux, xix. (1897) p. 1 ft. ; c<. also tUL 0886) p. 181 ff. M Crum, op. cit. p. 2ff. QMatuorEniTuji-lia in Dial, ifmiph. (Leipzig, 1848-7). £ Acta Apott. Coptice, Episl Novi Tett. Coptiee (Halle, 1852). « Xov. Tett. ^jivptium vulgo Copticum (Oxford, 1718). •■ Qriinqti^ libn Mm/tit Prophetce (London, 1731).

^ Her I'eTUatiuch KoptisrJi (Leipzig, 1817). » t'ruphcliT jWa /ore* (Oxford, 1S,'S2) ; Diwd. Propk. ifin. Libr. (Oxford, 1S:!M ; The Ancient Coptic Veraion of the Book of Job (London, ISKi). T Ptalterium in Dialectum Mcmph. trantlatum (Leipzig, 1S43). V r «.. u Pgatleni Vergio MemphHica (Oottingen, 1876). ^ l)i Alcuni Manugcritti Copti (Turin, 1893).

told that he was an Egyptian, that his parents were Cliristians, and that as a cliikl he went with them to church, and ' gave attendance to the read ings' {i.e. from the Scripturesj.a When about 20 years of age ' he went into the church, and it happened that the Gospel was then being read.';3 Ue heard a text which influenced him profoundly.

On other occasions, also, he heard passages read, and ' he gave such attendance to the reading that none of those things which were written fell from him to the ground, but he retained all, and thereafter his memory served him for books.' 7 From these passages it has been argued that, since we further know that St.

Antony as a boy refused to learn letters, 5 and was unable through- out life to speak Greek, e there must have been in his boyhood a translation of the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue. This, it is m.aintained, is confirmed by other passages in his Life, especially bj' the discourse which begins at c. xvi.

We are there told that he spoke to the monks in the Egyptian tongue, saying, ' The Scriptures are sufficient for teaching ; but it is good for us to exhort one another in the faith, and encourage with words.' f In the discourse which follows there are quotations from, or allusions to, texts from various parts of the Bible. Since Antony, shortly before his death in A.D. 356, said, ' I am well- nigh one hundred and five years old,'ij he must have been bom about A. D. 250.

Therefore there must have been a translation of the Bible into Egyptian about the middle of the 3rd century. But such reasoning is not conclusive. This Life never speaks of Antony as reading the Bible. He only hears it read. The Coptic translation which he heard might well have been made at the time by au interpreter. The need of a written translation in the 8er\'ice8 of the Church would not at once l>e felt.

9 The Gospel would first be read in Greek, and then the Greek would be rendered into Coptic, i as at a later date the Coptic was rendered into Arabic by ' anj-one who had the gift of speaking, so that he could interpret aright. ' « In so far as Antony was in the habit of repeating texts in his discourses, he was enabled to do so by his remark- able memory. For we have no reason to suppose that he had a Bible of his o>vn.

But the speeches put into the mouth of the hermit cannot be used as evidence in such a case. For, even if we admit the historical character of the biography, it does not in the least follow that the discourses are verbatim reports.X On the authority, therefore, of this Life alone it is unsafe to base any conclusion as to the existence of a Coptic version of the Bible in the 3rd century. There is, however, good ground for believing that a version existed in the 4th cent.

It was at the beginning of this century that St. Pachomius first gathered solitary ascetics together in the south of Egypt under a common rule. If we may trust the • Athan. Vit Ant. 1 (Migne, PO, xxvi. 840 f.X 0 Tb. 2. The Syriac version of the Life has : ' There was the reading in the church ; and at the end of all the Scriptures the Gospel was read ' (see Schulthess, Probe einer Syrinchen Version der Vita St. Antonii (Leipzig, 1894), Syriac text, p. 6, Unes 12 f. y Vit. Ant. a. i lb. 1. 1 lb.

74 ; Hier. Vit. HB. SO (Tall. IL 81) ; Pallad. Hilt. Law. 26 (PG, xxxiv. 1076). C r((. ArU. 16. n tb. 89. 9 See Renaudot, Liturgiarum Orientalium ColUctio (Paris, 1716), vol. 1, p. 203 ff. J Ih. pp. cxxiii, 207. « lb. p. 204. X E.g. the discourse in chapter 74. Robertson, who believes in the geituineness of the Life, admits that ' even an Athanasius would not so entirely rise out of the bio;rraphical habits of his d.

iy as to mingle nothing of his own with the 6i>rorhe3 of his 'hero '('Athanasius' in Sicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, I p. 191). I I EGYPTIAN VERSIONS EGYPTIAN VERSIOKS en accoonts given in his Life, he himself spoke E(,'y[jtian, and only acnuireU Greek in later years.o Uis monks as a rule were eoiniiion E<^yptian peasants, who knew no langua^'e Ijut their own. The Greeks and Romans of his settlement were in a separate house, presided over by Theodore of Alexandria.

^ Yet throughout his Life great stress is laid on the study of the Bible, and there are frequent allusions to learning passages by heart.7 Pachomius himself was in the habit of speaking from the Scriptures to his nioiiks.J When a novice first came, according to the rules of the monastery extant in Greek, lie began by receiving ' the Prayer of the Go.'pel ' (ttjx fuxiiy toO ciayye- \lov) and learning certain Psalras.

e Unless our accounts of Pachomius' life and work are most misleading, we can scarcely doubt that there was, early in the 4th cent., a Coptic version of the Bible. The attempt to trace the translation further back is beset with difficulties. We know very little concerning Christianity in Upper Egjpt before the time of Pachomius. Eusebius indeed tells us that in the persecution under Severus (A.D.

202), which was especially felt at Alexandria, martyrs were brought to that city from ' Egypt and all the Thebaid.'f But no such tiadition survives in Coptic literature. We have no evidince that in early days the Alexandrian C'lurch seriously attempted missionary work. If the Alexandrians had wished to do so, it would have been no easy task. For they were regarded as foreigners by the rest of Egypt ; 17 and their position was not unlike that which Englishmen occupy in India to-day.

6 Besides the difficulty of the language,i they found it, as Origen says, no easy task to persuade an Egyptian to give up idolatry and ' despise those things which Tie had received from his fathers.' /t Heathen worship down to a late time ' retained its firmest stronghold in the pious land of Egypt.' X The increase of the Episcopate under Demetrius (c. 189-232 A.D.), and more especially under his miccessor Heraclas (c. 233-218 A.D.)

, must indeed be regarded as an indication of missionary activity.yu If Christianity in the time of Demetrius had spread as far south as Antinoe,' the Church was evidently becoming too large for the personal supervision of a. single bishop at Alexandria. The bishop who succeeded Heraclas — Dionysius a Ct. Am^lineau, Annalet du Mwiie Ouimtt, rvU. pp. 147, 629; Act 88. Mai. liv. VU. Path. 60; Parai. de SS. I'ach. et Theodor. 27. g Amtl. op. cit. pp. 147, 160. r See e.g. Ain«l. op. cit. pp.

12, 18, 22, S7, 41 1., 60t., 78 1., 92, W. I lb. p. 141 : Miuion Arch. Mtmoirtt, Iv. p. B53. I Mif^e, PO, x\. 049. For the correapondinp Ethiopio Bee Basset, Let Apoc. Elhiopiene, viil. (1896) p. 31. Tile Latin form U found In (Heron. VaU. ii. 62. { Eusebius, UK, vi. 1. n In the Life of Theodore we hear of brethren who Inter- >reted his words in Greelc to those who did not know SpJl'tian, because they were strangers (gixcoO and Alex- andrians. See Zoegu, op. cit. p. 871 ; Am^I.

AnnaU du MG, ivii. p 302. e Ct. lilommsen, Provineet of th» Roman Smpin (Dlcluon's Eni;. trans.), il. p. 262. I See the account of MocariuB, bishop of Antaeopolis, In Aln61. Miction Arch. Mimoire, iv. pp. 93. 95 f. ; Zoega, op. eit. p. 99. s oriKen, Contra Celt. I. 62 (Ixjmm. ivlll. p. 97). X Monimscn, op. cit. ii. p. 260. See also Ainiil. Let Acttt det Martvrt de f^iflite eopte (Paris, 1890), p. 7, note 2; Erman, ZA.S, 1896, p 43 n u Eutvcbiua, Annalet (Pococke, Oxford, 1866), I. p. S.'

i" (sec LiBhtloot. rhilippiant, p. 231 f). The fact that before tlie time of l>emetnus there was no E(0'l>tian iiishop out«ido of Alexandria nee<l not gu^f^rest thnl ' tlio prn^reHS of Christianity was for a long time confined witliin the tiniits of a single city ' (see Gilibon, Decline and Fait 0/ the Roman Hmjnrr, c. XV. Bnn-'s ed. ii. p. 60). For the Alexandrian diocese might have been, like the early dioceses of Oanl atid N. Italy (DuohtHiie, Faetet /jriecojtaux de t'ancienn* Gaule, I. p.

33 IT.), of very consideralde extent. See Pearson, Vindicitt Epint. S, /i/mifii (Cambridge, 1672) I. p. 170. w between the ^vears c. 212-216 A.D. we find Alexander, bishop tt Jerusalem, wnting to the Antinoites and exhorting them to I the Great — has given in his letters a vivid picture of the Alexandrian Church of his time, but has told us little of the rest of Egypt. In his day no imperial edict was needed to start a persecution of Christians (A.D. 21'J).

A large part of the popula- tion of Alexandria was still pagan, and only needed a leader to revive ' their native superstition ' (ttjk iirix^piov Sadioaiixoviav). When the Decian persecu- tion (A.D. 250) broke out, he specially mentions four 'Egyptians' as among the sull'erers.a The persecution was not confined to Alexandria, but many others ' in cities and villages ' were martyred, and the bishop of Nilus (in Middle Egj'pt) fled from his see.

;3 Coptic traditions of this persecu- tion are scanty, 7 and we do not precisely know how far it extended. We find the same bishop WTiting letters to the brethren in Egypt S and to Egyptian bishops.e He also went to the FayHni district. Here the teaching of Nepos, an Egyp- tian bishop (^Trifl-KOTTos ruv kclt AtyvTrrov), had for a long time prevailed, so that ' schisms and defec- tions of whole churches had taken place.'

Diony- sius therefore called together ' the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages,' and discussed their dilliculties with them for three successive days.f We cannot gather, from any letters of his which have come down to us, in- formation regarding Christianity farther south. We have to wait for such information till the beginning of the next cent. In the latter part of the Diocletian persecution Eusebius in person visited the Thebaid. He was an eye-witne.

ss of the massacres, and of the fanatical enthusiasm of many of the martyrs. The persecution continued, ' not for a few days or for a short time, but for a long period of whole years ' {ivl ixaKpbv 5\av H-Civ SiddT-qiia). Most of the sufferers apparently be- longed to the lower classes of society, but there were some of high birth and distinction.?; Many bisliops suffered for the faith, 0 but Eusebius does not s;iy whether any of them came from the south. He has described the .

suflerings of the rest of the Egyptian Church in Egypt itself 1 and elsewhere ;« and lias preserved an account by an eyewitness of the persecution in Alexandria.X But when we bring together all the historian's statements, it is singularly difiicult to determine how far they imply the existence of a widespread native Chris- tianity. We can only conjecture that amongst the numerous martyrs some of those in a lower station of life were natives. A century had pa.

ssed since the bishop of Jerusalem wrote to the Greek- speaking population of the capital of the Thebaid.^ In the meantime the Christians in that town may have done good work amongst the ' barbarians,' even if they had not attempted such work at first, be of one mind (i/xe^ptt^rat). See Kus. II E, vi. 11, In the next century a bishop of Antlnoe was present at the Council of Nicsa (Zoega, op. cit. p. 244). « Dion. ap. Eus. Z/c, vi. 41. Their names were Heron, Ater, Isidore, ana Nemcsion. Dlon.

vsius seems to imply that most of the others at Alexandria were Greeks. Argiinients cannot l>e safely based on the absence of EgjTitian names. Thus we have in tlie FayOm a son of Satabus bearing a I.atin and Greek name * Aurelius Diogenes.' See Benson, Cyprian, Appendix B, p. 542. 0 IMon. ap. Ens. HE, vi. 42. >• Sec Am61. Actee dee if. pp. 14-17. 'Matm'(p. IS) is prob- ably the same as 'Metros,' who sudered the yeiir liefore the Dei-ian pcrtiecution (Eus. HE, vi. 41).

See also Malan, Calentiar Qjf the Coptic Church, p. 10. ) Eus. HE, vi. 46, vii. 22. ■ The bishop of UermopoUs (tL 46), BieiKZ, an Egyptian blshoj)(vii. 21). C 11 E, vii. 24. ^ HE, viii. 9. e HE, viil. 9, 13, Ix. 8 ; De Mart. Pal. 13. We gatlier from Epiphanius, H<rr. Ixviil. 8 {PO, xlii. 197), that I'otamo of tier- aclea lost an eye in the persenitinn. ///•;. viii. 8. 8, 13, ix. 11 ; Dc Mart. Pal. 8, IS. * HE, viii. 6f.; De Marl. Pal. 8, in, 13. X I'hileas, an. Eus. HE, viil. 10.

The occount of Phileas' OWB trial is given by Kuinart, Ad. Sine. 2ud ud. p. 494 fl. ft Eus. HE, vi. 11. 672 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS EGYPTIAN VERSIONS The Oojitic accounts of this persecution were writtfn at a later date, and are disfigured by legendary additions. Yet the traditions of mar- tyrdoms having taken place in the towns lying between Antinoe and Latopoliso must have some historical foundation. They point to the fact that the persecution was particularly severe in the south.

Many of the martyrs bear Greek names, and are connected with the army.jS Com- paratively few bishops are mentioned. 7 Diocle- tian is hated with a wild, unreasoning hatred, due no doubt in part to political considerations. A religion must nave gained in popularity among the fanatical, disorderly natives of Upper Egypt, simply because Diocletian and the Government were opposed to it.

In fact we find, as we study these Coptic traditions, that however much the new religion had already appealed to the natives, a fresh era began with Diocletian, 5 and Chris- tianity became, in a fuller sense than ever before, the reli^ou of the people. Hatred of Dio- cletian, the faith of the martyrs, the sufferings which they endured, all contributed to this result.

The consequence was that, when the persecution was over, ' the repentance of the heathen [tuv i0yQi/) was multiplied in the Church, the bishops leading the way unto God, according to the teaching of the apostles.' t It wiB be evident from this brief study of the subject, that but little is known of Egyptian Christianity outside of Ale.xandria before the tune of Pachomius.

The state of the Church in his time — the history and legends of the Diocletian persecution — the increase of the Egyptian epis- copate under Demetrius and Heraclas — suggest, but do not prove, that some time before the end of the 3rd cent, there was a considerable number of native Christians. They would soon feel the -leed of a translation of the Bible. Historical evidence, then, on the whole, points to the 3rd cent, as the period when the first Coptic transla- tion was made.

f But this view can only be regarded as tentative. In the light of future discoveries it may have to be modified. This translation was most probably made, not in the neighbourliood of Alexandria, but in Middle or Upper Egypt. Here the native element was stronger than in the north ; and, as Greek was less spoken, the need for a translation would be more keenly felt.

All the evidence that we possess at present goes to prove that Coptic literature, whether orthodox or heretical, took its rise in the south ; its development being assisted by the hatred felt towards the foreign or Greek element.ij X Am^l. Actes des M. p. SO fl. ,3 lb. pp. 26, 30, 103, 219. y Zoepi (Cat. pp. 237, 239) and Amillneaa (op. eit. pp. 89, 53 f.) apeak of the martyrdom of the bishops of Ptolemaia ana Ilermoiwlis Magna. Ara^lineau {op. cit. p. 47fT.)

tells of the martyrdom of the bishop of Latopolis. Fisura and three other bishops (Zoega, Cat. p. 52; Hyvernat, Actes dfi M. i. p. 1 14 fl.), and the bishop of Prosopis in Lower Eg>'pt (Zoega, Cat. pp. 62, 133; Il^-vemat, Actei d«« it. i. p. 225 ff.), were also martyred. The bishop of Akinim fled (Amelineau, Actes deJi M. I). 32). The bishop of Lycopolis used the pereecution as a means of self-agfjrandisenient (Hyvernat, Acies det M. i. 260), and. aG(-ordintr to Athanasius '{Apol. e.

Arianos, 69) and Socrates (HB, I. a), actually sacriflced. i The era of the martyrs, on which Coptic chronolo^ is usually hosed, begins with A.D. 284, the year of the accession of Diocletian. I See Am61. Vie de PakMme, Annala du ifO. xvii. pp. 2, 83!) ; Acta 88. Mai. xlT. Vit. Pach. Prolog.; of. aUo Mime, PL, Ixxiil. 231. C Th« evidence of MS8 docs not help us much. Our oldest M98 are frapnentary, and their date a matter of uncertainty. But a Sahidic MS of part of 2 Th 3 (Kenyon, op. cit.

plate xviii), and fragments in Old Middle Eg>-ptian"of Jnde (Crum, op. cit. plate 1, No. 2), and of the Minor Prophets (Krall, t'Ohrer, p. 33, Tufel iii.) take us back to the 4th or 5th cent«. Cf. also Stem, ZAS, l&Sfl, p. 135. « Cf. Ouidi, Sachriehtn <on dtr K. O. d. W. tu Ofttinqen, 1SS9, No. 8, p. eot. 5. Greek Text implied by Versions.— All three versions of the NT must be more carefully edited before we can determine with certainty the underlying Greek text.

The Sahidic NT contains some remarkable interpolations, usually classed as Western. Two striking ones are found in Lk. The parable of Dives and Lazarus begins thus in the Sahidic Bible : ' Now there was a certain rich man, whose name was (lit. is) Nineveh' (16'").o When Joseph had laid the body of Jesus in the tomb (23°^), the Sahidic adds : ' Now when he had laid him, he placed (or laid) a stone at the door of the sepulchre, which twenty men could not have rolled '/S (cf. Dc).

Several interesting ' Western ' interpolations are found in the Acts. Three ex- amples may be quoted.7 After the words ' ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, the Sahidic has a strange gloss, ' but (dWi) untU Pentecost ' (1», cf. D). The negative form of the ' Golden Rule ' is placed at the end of the apostolic injunctions to Gentile converts (15«'-^, cf. D). After the vision of the man of Macedonia to St.

Paul, the tenth verse of Ac 16 runs thus : • And when he had risen, he told us the vision. Straijjhtway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, telling (or showing) them that the Lord had called us for to preach unto them' (cf. D). On the other hand, several 'Western' interpola- tions, which we might have expected to find, are absent from the Sahidic. The text of the Bohairie version, as is well known, corresponds in general with that of Codex Vaticanus.

Whether it is yet more closely allied to the text used by Cyril of Alexandria is a matter which still remains to Ije determined. There can be but little doubt that in their original form both the Bohairie and Sahidic were free from ' Antiochian ' interpoli.tions. A collation of the versions in those parts of the NT, wliere all three are extant together, proves that the iliddle Egyptian is often closely related to the Sahidic. This is most clearly seen in the Pauline Epistles.

Thus an examina- tion of the three versions in I Co proves that the Sahidic and Middle Egyptian are not entirely independent translations. Sometimes they are based on a ditierent Greek text from tluit which underlies the Bohairie. But, even when they are translating the same oririnal, their rendering ia often strikingly different from that of the Northern version. We may take 1 Co 15'-"'^ as an example. Here the Sah. and M.E.

translations are practically identical : ' Hut S if Christ is preached that he rose from the dead, in what manner do some amon" you say that the dead do not rise? If the dead do not rise, then Clirist did not rise. If Christ did not rise, then is our preaching vain, and vain is our c faith also.' J" The Boh.

translation is not so free : ' But if Christ is preached that he was raised from the dead, how (iruit) do some among you say that there is no resurrection (di-iiffTatris) of the deadi But if there is no resurrection (dfdirTaffis) of the dead, then not even (ovSi) was Christ raised. But if Christ was not raised, then (ioa) vain is our preachin", vain also is your faith.' ij This instance — and it is one among many — shows us that the Sah. and M.E. must in some way be related to one another.

A cursory examination might suggest that they are practically the same version, • Of. tlamack, Texte u. Untrrt. xiii. 1, 75 fl. ^ In the biliiiLiial MS described by Amelineau (Notice de» iISS Coptu de la Bib!. Xalionale, Paris, 189.1) the Or. runs thus : xm ^»,Ter xvreu iwitlriKot t. uyr,u,,v kiOov fj^ycct n uayir ux»ri »ifiu tKvXiti. The corresponding Sahidic is not published. Other intcriiolations will he found in Ac 1 i" 8" 6" 6 W 9«Si27 1410 161 » 34 isli-m IQli- » 20" 21'. i M.K.

omits 'but.' t So Engelbreth's Sah. Amilinean baa ' yoiir.' C Sah. oinita 'also.' V A Coptic word for ' faith ' is used. B. and M.E. employ tin Oreek tjVt,c. l:,GVi'i'lA^ VKKSIO^'S EITHER 673 and that the dillerences between them are purely dialectical. But when we inquire more closely into the passages where all three are extant, we find that such an explanation ia not satisfactory. Sometimes each version is apparently an independ- ent translation.

Occasionally the Sahidic and IJohairic agree in rendering or in underlying text as against the Middle Egj'ptian. In other places — and this is especially the case in the Gospels a — the Uohairic and Middle Egj-ptian are opposed to the Sahidic. Thus, in St. Matthew's account of the Lord's Prayer the dillicult word ^7rioi5(7ios is repre- sented in Sahidic by that which is cominq, in tlie other two versions by of to-morrow.

^ AVlicn we have recovered a larger portion of the Middle Egyptian version, and when the fragments already known have been collected and edited, we shall be able to speak with greater security. Meanwhile we may provisionally state our view as follows. The New Testament was first translated into Sahidic from a text containing a considerable ' Western ' element. The translation was idiomatic and in some cases inexact.

The Middle Egyptian, 7 probably made very soon afterwards, was largely influenced by the Sahidic. The Bohairic, made last of all, tliough in places influenced by the two previous translations, represented an ellort to translate with more literal exactness what was felt to be a superior Greek text. The Coptic versions of the Old Testament are based upon the LXX.

The study of them is of great interest, because it may help us to recon- struct the edition of the LXX made by Hesychius, which, as we learn from Jerome, was well known in Alexandria and E^-ynt-S Whether any of the versions of the Coptic Old Testament are free from the influence of Origen's revision is doubtful. Some Sahidic MSS give the Book of Job in a shortened form.

The claim has been put forward f that we have in these MSS a witness to the original text of the LXX, before Origen made his copious additions from Theodotion's version, f But the last word on this subject has not been said. (Cf. Burkitt, Texts and Studies, iv. 3, p. 8.) The rela- tion of the Middle Egyp. of OT to the Sah. has yet to be worked out.?; 5. History of Cimticism of VEn.sioN.s.— A careful study of the Coptic versions of the New Testament is given by Lightfoot in Scrivener's Introd.

to the Netr Test. 6 Lightfoot, as many distinguished scholars before him,i believed that ' we should probably not be exaggerating, if we « An examination of Mt 6*-15 and Jn i^30 will prove the trulh of this assertion. fi Tills translation in the Bohairic of Mt Is probably the result of a deliberate revision. The older rendtrinn (cf. Lat. Vul;;.) Htill remains in Lk, where the Boh. has that which is comiiu/ {}t\.K. is wanting in Lk U). At the end of the prayer the Doxology is wanting' in Boh.

The .Sah. hoa, ' For thine is the power and the dominion for ever and ever, Amen,' The M.E. has, • For thine is the power and the priory for ever, Amen' (cf. liidaohe viii. en reZ imt ii iii^Ktui tULi n loioc ili rt'vt otiai»xt). *The fraKTnents of the NT written in < Hd M.E. are too minute for claflsillcation. The little that remains shows the ■amc text as the Sahidic. But when wc recover more, we may And that It diflera only dialectically from the ordinary M.b. Terslon. i fT<rJ. in Par. (VaU.

Ix. J405); A-p<A. adv. Rufln. ii. 27 CV'»11- U. S22). ■ Sec Clasca, op. cU. vol. U. p. xvUl ff. ; Batch, BMiays in BilM-al Grefk, p. 216. C llier. /Vo/. tn Jo6(\'an. Ix. 1097). nThe translations of Zee 13' in Sah. and Old M.E. cannot be Inflependent. Both add (? cf. Field) ««< i?ii{i f*i— a readinff evidently derived from Tlieodotion, and omitted In Boh. The wortls ^icT, «»Opwvd< i/>7«{cju4»«r Tr.i yiit iyit tlfM Are found In the Old M.K., but not in Boh. and Sah.

0 Scrivener, IHain Introduction to the Criticism of the XT, •d. III. p. S8S(I.; see also (IreRory, Prolcdomena (Issi), 8.'ltlT. For an Interetttinvj and concise account of these verMirtns see Kenyon, (Hit Bible and the Ancient .11 .'-•.s' (189 ), p. 71.1 WO II. A useful Bununary of the literature of the subject Is iriven by Nestle, Urtcxt unit (Jbertetzungen dcr /;iV;<-/ (IsliT), p. 114 IT. , See t^uatreuiere, op. eil. p. 9. Cf. Schwartze, /I'p. in Dial. Mmnph. p. xviii. vol.. I.

— 43 placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions,' i.e. the Bohairic and the Sahidic, 'or at least parts of them, before the close of the 2nd cent. 'a This view has been followed by Westcott and Hort, who maintain that 'the greater part of the ' Bohairic ' version cannot well be later than the 2nd cent.,' whilst 'the Version of Upper Egypt . . was probably little if at all inferior m antiquity.'

/J Ileadlam, who, in the last edition (1S94) of Scrivener's Introduction, has given a summary of the history of the criticism of the Coptic NT from the point where Lightfoot stopped, considers that ' it has been sufficiently proved tliat translations into Coptic existed in the 3rd cent., very prolably in the 'Jnd.'7 Ciasca, in the introd. to Ins edition of the Sahidic OT (where references will be found to the work of former editors 5), discusses the text and date of the Book of Job.

e His examination of the book confirms him in the belief that Lightfoot was riglit in assigning part at least of the Coptic versions to the 2nd cent.f It is with the greatest dillidence that wo have ventured to suggest that this early date (even if it is right) has not been proved. Our belief in the historical evidence for stich a date was shaken by an article ij tmlilished by Prof. Guidi, to which reference hat.

already been made ; and subsequent study has confirmed us in the view that there is, as yet, no adequate evidence of the existence of a Coptic version at such an early date as is often maintained. Forbes Robinson.