Notes on the Coptic translations of the construction n t + infinitive in Luke Anthony Alcock University of Kassel

This note was prompted by a remark in F. Blass and A. Debrunner Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch Gttingen 1984, 405 to the effect that the construction n t + infinitive occurs 23 times in Luke, mostly but not always as an adverbial expression of time. When I checked this statement, I found that the construction in fact occurs 26 times. The similarity of it to one in Sahidic dialect of Coptic prompted me further to consider how the Coptic translators had handled the Greek. Translation of sacred scriptures can be a sensitive matter,1 and it may be of some interest to observe how the two main dialects of Coptic, in which a complete text of the NT is preserved, dealt with the translation of the construction. Blass and Debrunner maintain the the Greek construction is not attested in Classical Greek, but ocurs in the LXX and is probably an attempt to render the Hebrew construction of the prep. + infinitive, e.g. Gen.9, 14 is translated (in my cloud-gathering). Coptic also has the possibility of using an infinitive directly after a preposition, but further developed a construction that, in the case of Sahidic, involves one other element, viz. the causative infinitive (tre) , placed between the article and the subject of the verb and, in the case of Bohairic, two other elements, viz. the noun-forming prefix jin, which in turn is followed either by the conjugation prefix known as the conjunctive or the causative infinitive. Bohairic jin occurs also in Sahidic as qin, but with a different gender: both are derived from the earlier qj "form, shape". The prep. + infin. structure is common enough in Middle Egyptian,2 but at that stage there was no article. In Middle Egyptian the subject of the infinitive was indicated, in the case of nouns, by the prep. jn "by" before the subject and, in the case of pronouns, by the type of pronoun known as the independent pronoun, which is a combination of jn and pronoun. When the article began to appear in writing in Late Egyptian, the following two constructions evolved, and this is how they are cited by F. Junge: 3 (a) prep. + possessive adj. + infinitive (e.g. m p3y=f sdm "on his hearing" and (b) prep. + def. art. + infin. + rel.clause (e.g. m p3 sdm j.jr=f "on the hearing which he did"). The Coptic constructions outlined earlier clearly have their origin in these constructions, but with the added elements, as described above. The Sahidic construction is reasonably widely attested and mostly, but not entirely, has a temporal meaning. The development of neither the Sahidic nor the Bohairic construction can be followed in Late Egyptian or Demotic writing.4 The Sahidic construction occurs 18 times, while the Bohairic construction occurs only 4 times. The following is a list of the passages that show how the Greek text has been dealt with by the both Coptic translators.
Sahidic
1, 08 21
1 2 3 4

Bohairic
aswpi de efiri ntefmetouhb nauervhri pe ecbejeafwsk h4oun 4enpiervei

aswpe de xmptrefme neurphre nterefwsk xmperpe

See, for example, <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29049101> A.H. Gardiner Egyptian Grammar Oxford 1926, 304 F. Junge Neugyptisch: Eine Einfhrung Gttingen, 1996 108 Gnther Vittmann (Wrzburg) was kind enough to confirm that no construction of the Sahidic or Boharic type is attested in Demotic. Junge (loc.cit) merely provides a plausible etymology of xmptre, which he says is widespread "im Koptischen", by which of course he means Sahidic.

2, 27 3, 21 5, 12 8, 05 40 42 9, 18 29 33 36 51 10,38 11,01

xmptreneiote de ji mphre aswpe de xmptreplaos jibaptisma aswpe de efxnouei nmpolis

4enpjintouenpialou ihsous aswpi de etafqiwms aswpi de etaui e4oun eoubaki

auw xmptrefjo xmptreihsous de kotf efbhk de apmhhe xejxwjf

ouox 4enpjincrefsi+ etaftasco de njeihsous efnai de njeihsous nauxojxef mmof njenimh ouox aswpi efyh sapsa mmauatf ouox aswpi 4enpjincrefrproseuyesce ouox aswpi eunaywrj ebol ouox aswpi nje+smh aswpi de etaujwk ebol njeniexoou eumoi de ouox aswpi efyh 4enouma eferproseuyece aswpi de efjw nnai etafsaji de narepwn4 op mprwmi ouox aswpi etafi aswpi efe naf aswpi eue nwou

aswpe de efxnouma mauaaf aswpe de xmptreflhl aswpe de xmptreupwrj xmptretesmh de wpe aswpe de xmptrenexoou ... jwk ebol xmptreumooe de aswpe de efxnouma eflhl

27 aswpe de xmptrefjenai 37 xmptrefaje de 12,15 14,01 17,11 14 18,35 19,15 24,04 30 51 erannenka aai noua aswpe de xmptrefbwk aswpe de efmooe aswpe de eubhk

aswpe de xmptrefxwn aswpe de xmptrefei aswpe de xmptreutortr aswpe de xmptrefnojf aswpe de xmptrefsmou

aswpi de etaf4wnt ouox aswpi etaftasco aswpi de eueraporisce ouox aswpi etafrwteb ouox aswpi 4enpjintefsmou

Notes. aswpe is used in every case for gneto and, similarly, is omitted when gneto is omitted. Sahidic seems to follow the Greek use of d reasonably closely, whereas Bohairic sometimes uses de and sometimes the conjunction ouox. Greek usually indicates the difference between present and past by means of the pres. and aor. infinitive. This distinction is not visible in the Sahidic xmptre, but can be conveyed by Bohairic, which uses the circumstantial (which functions more or less like a present participle) to express the pres. infin. and the "temporalis"5 to express the aor. infin. cf. 1,08;3,21; 11,37; 14,01; 19,15 and
5

W. Till Koptische Dialektgrammatik Mnchen 1961, 265

24,30. In the case of 8,40 there are two readings of the Greek inf., pres. and aorist, and the Bohairic translation was probably made from the latter. In 9, 33 the Bohairic translator understands the Greek to indicate the future, interestingly in the same way as the translators of the American Bible Society's Contemporary English Version have understood it. Since there is no equivalent of enai in any dialect of Coptic, neither Sahidic nor Bohairic is able to use the xmptre/4enpjincre form and uses instead the one of the Coptic options available: Sahidic uses the the circumstantial prefix + prep.+noun, while Bohairic uses circumstantial of the stative form of the verb yw ( "he being put") or paraphrases the Greek cf. 5,12; 9,18; 11,01 Sahidic sometimes uses the Greek word, while Bohairic prefers an Egyptian word cf. 3,21 and 5,12 and sometimes vice-versa cf. 24,04. Generally speaking, Greek verbs are used differently in the two dialects: Sahidic attaches the word directly to a conjugation prefix in what looks like the imperative form, whereas Bohairic uses the infinitive form preceded by the auxiliary verb er, which is more or less the equivalent of English "do", but of course not used in the same way. In 17,11 and 14 Sahidic uses two different words to render two different Greek words, while Bohairic uses only one The Greek clearly poses problems for both Sahidic and Bohairic in 12,15: Bohairic narepwn4 op mprwmi an ebol 4enpexouo mpetentaf can be translated literally "Life was to man not from the abundance of his property". Sahidic uses a conditional structure, which clearly poses difficulties that may have their origin in the understanding of both the original translator and subsequent copyists. The position may be summarized as follows: 1. The text offered online by J.W. Wells at <http://www.biblical-data.org/coptic> (erannenka aai noua efnaxe epefwnx ebol nxhtou) has a reading that makes sense only if one understands the apodosis as a question: "if material goods are in abundance to one, will he find life from them ?" 2. Horner6 offers the following text: erannenka an noua aai efnaxe epefwnx ebol nxhtou, and wonders in his apparatus criticus about the position of aai and noua. He says nothing about an, which he presumably understands as the negative. However, in his translation, the negative is inserted in the apodosis and not in the protasis, which seems to interfere with the grammar of the sentence. It may be instructive to look at how Arabic has dealt with this passage:
. The structure used here is clearly a conditional and the negative verb is

equally clearly in the apodosis.

G.W. Horner The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect vol. II: Luke Oxford 1911