THE COPTIC OLD TESTAMENT

By FRANK H. HALLOCK
Nashotah House, Nashotah, Wis.

It is not our purpose here to furnish an exhaustive bibliography of

the known manuscripts, published texts, and translations of the Cop-
tic Old Testament,' although in passing we shall be obliged to notice
many of the printed works; nor is it our intent to deal with the Coptic
versions as such;' nor to study any particular book of those versions
in detail, a work which yet remains to be done and for which we may
hope to supply some inspiration. Rather we plan to review some of
the accomplishments in this general field, and to indicate briefly some
of the many things with which future workers will have to occupy
themselves-if we are right in our evaluation of the material now
available for study. We exclude from our consideration the New
Testament; if we had in the Old Testament such works as those
which George Horner3has published, there would be much less reason
for this article.
In the first place, we may point out some of the reasons why there
seems to be room for a revival of interest in the study of the Coptic
Old Testament, or, even, the beginnings of serious study. The value of
these versions, a value which they possess both on account of their
intrinsic importance and on account of their antiquity, has been al-
most universally neglected; allusions to them in even the best of com-
mentaries are rare. The freedom from later corruptions, the fidelity of
1 See A. Vaschalde, Ce qui a ete publie des versions coptes de la Bible textes sahidiques
(Paris, 1922); reprint of a series of articles in Revue biblique, January, 1919-April, 1922. A
very thorough work, giving details concerning location of every part of Sahidic text which
had been published up to that date.
2 See H.
Hyvernat, Revue biblique, 1896, pp. 427-33, 540-70; ibid., 1897, pp. 48-75.
This is a most important work, treating of the following five questions: (1) the number of
Coptic versions; (2) that which has been preserved to us of these versions; (3) that which
has been published; (4) probable date of different versions; (5) their nature and importance.
This article is abridged in Vigouraux's Dictionnaire de la Bible, art. "Versions (Coptes).'(
See also Forbes Robinson in Hastings, DB, I, 668-73; F. C. Burkitt in Encyc. bib., IV,
5006-11 and 5027-28.
3 The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect (4 vols.; Oxford, 1898-
1905); The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect (7 vols.; Oxford,
1911-23).
325

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 326 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SEMITICLANGUAGES

adherence to the earliest-known texts, makes them valuable witnesses

to the most primitive texts. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge publishes in
Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt4versions of Deuter-
onomy, Jonah, Acts, from a papyrus codex not later than the middle
of the fourth century A.D.; consequently we have here the earliest-
known extant biblical text in any language and, furthermore, a text
which is in precise agreement' with that of Coptic manuscripts of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. We can hardly do better than to
quote Woide's opinion; expressed at the close of the eighteenth cen-
tury, it has still an undiminished pertinence:
Si quis novam LXX Interpretumeditionempararevelit, is certe Inter-
pretemAegyptiacumcum fructu consulet. Interdumenim quaedamin Grae-
cis deperditaretinuit,interdumvoces quasdamobscurasillustravit,interdum
quaedamsphalmata correxit. Interdurnetiam propria nomina Aegyptiaca
retinuit, omissis vocabulisGraecis..... Et non paucaslectiones variantes
bonae frugis e CodicibusAegyptiacis peti posse, experientiateste, didici.6
In the study of the major versions we have reached the stage of
diminishing returns. There will always, of course, remain the neces-
sity for returning to the Masoretic text; the last word concerning it,
shutting off all further examination, can never be spoken, yet much of
the study in this field does not produce a yield commensurate with the
labor expended. In the case of the LXX it may be well for us to await
the completion of the critical English and German editions now well
under way. The need for a critical text of the Peshitta still remains
unsatisfied, but much use of the various Syriac versions has been, and
is being, made. The beginnings of careful study and the production of
critical texts in both Arabic' and Ethiopic8 are now coming to light.
In contrast with all these it is not an exaggeration to term the Coptic
an unworked field.
In pre-Christian days, as is well known, large colonies of Jews had
4 London, 1912. 5 Ibid., p. Iviii.
6 C. G. Woide, Appendix ad editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e codice Ms. Alexandrino
... in qua continentur fragmenta Novi Testamenti juxta interpretationem dialecti superioris
Aegypti quae Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellatur. Cum dissertatione de versione Bibliorum
Aegyptiaca (Oxonii, 1799). Quotation is from p. 11.
7E.g., J. F. Rohde, The Arabic Version of the Pentateuch in the Church of Egypt (St.
Louis, 1921).
8 E.g., O. L6fgren, Die dthiopische Obersetzung des Propheten Daniel (Paris, 1927), and
his Minor Prophets in 1930; also S. A. B. Mercer, The Ethiopic Text of the Book of Ecclesias-
tes (London, 1931).

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 THE COPTICOLD TESTAMENT 327

settled in Egypt, especially in and about Alexandria, and there the

LXX had been prepared; consequently the way had been opened for
the early entrance of Christianity into Egypt. This makes an early
translation into the vernacular probable; not certain, however, for
converts may have been entirely Greeks and Greek-speaking Jews and
natives. The evidence of the papyri shows how deeply Greek had tak-
en root as the everyday language of the mass of the people. It has
to be remembered that the three most important Greek uncials-
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus-were written there in all proba-
bility.9 Still we have no reason to believe that Greek was widely
known or used in Upper Egypt; with the extension of Christianity
southward we may easily infer that the need of versions in the vernac-
ular was soon realized and satisfied.
So far as definite manuscript evidence goes, it is quite impossible
for us in the light of knowledge at present available to say with defi-
niteness that the Coptic versions had their origin before the end of the
third or the beginning of the fourth century; but, on the whole, there
seems to be good reason for dating them at a somewhat earlier period.10
9 For some time past it has become the fashion among scholars to reverse the earlier
opinion and assign the Sinaiticus to Caesarea; K. Lake studies the question afresh (Intro-
duction to Photographic Facsimile, pp. x-xv; Harvard Theological Review, XI, 32 ff.) and
brings new evidence to support the Egyptian origin, although he is unwilling to reach a
definite conclusion. As to the place of origin of the Vaticanus, while it is still an open ques-
tion, apparently more may be said for Egypt than for any other locality.
10We gather here some of the opinions that have been expressed: Woide, op. cit., p. 136:
"Interpretationem Novi Testamenti Aegyptiacam autem seculo a Christo secundo jam
extitisse, e variis argumentis conjicio. Inde jam id mihi sit verisimillimum, quoniam Chris-
tiana Religio post Christi in coelos abitum Aegyptiis cito innotuit, ab iisque fuit recepta.
Successio Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum id docet, et notissimum est, multos e primis Ec-
clesiae Christianae doctoribus, imo etiam e primis haereticis vel in Aegypto natos fuisse,
vel ibidem vixisse. Alexandrini quidem assueti erant linguae Graecae, et nata est doctis
dialectus linguae Graecae Alexandrinae: sed tamen inter plebeios in Aegypto Inferiore, ac
praecipue Superiori, fuisse qui Graeca non intelligerent, vix dubitare licet." Even if this
last was not true in the earliest period, it must have soon become so, as Christianity began
to extend beyond Alexandria. Budge, By Nile and Tigris, II, 374: "It is now certain that
copies of some of the books of the Old and New Testaments, written in Coptic, were in
circulation among the Egyptian Christians early in the first half of this century [the
fourth]; and it is legitimate to conclude that the origin of the version itself cannot be placed
later than the third century." Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, I, 321: "Somewhere
about .... the second half of the third century, the Coptic versions of the Bible may have
begun to appear, of which the Upper Egyptian appears to be the oldest-a fact which is
quite intelligible, as Greek was not so widely diffused in this quarter as elsewhere. There
were quite a number of them (three at least) in the various Coptic dialects, showing how
deeply and how strongly Christianity had operated in Egypt." Of more general application
are the words of the same writer in Bible Reading in the Early Church, p. 86: "The Church,
especially the Greek Church-for the Latin Church proceeded otherwise-pressed on to
translations of the Bible into other tongues, and by thus neglecting her own national pre-
rogative laid the foundation of national literature among people that hitherto had pos-

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 328. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

We pass by the story of the conversion of Antony upon hearing the

gospel" read. Familiar quotations from the gospel may have become
current in Coptic before any written translation had been made,
though this would necessitate a slight modification in the details of
the story. Nor may any conclusive arguments be drawn from Pistis
Sophia or the related Gnostic works; the biblical quotations are nu-
merous in these, but loose and paraphrastic, except in the case of the
Psalms, which are in exact agreement with the Sahidic. Furthermore,
we are uncertain as to the date of PS and as to the original language.
Harnack and Amdlineau maintain that the original was in Greek,
which can hardly be earlier than the second half of the third century;
by the time at which a Sahidic translation of PS could have been
made, we would have reached a date when biblical versions in Sahidic
undoubtedly existed.12
We find our earliest clear indication of the existence of a Coptic
version in the Life of Pachomius (born ca 285 A.D.);13the frequent ref-
erences to Bible-reading in this work point to a vernacular version,
as do also the occasional allusions to the same subject which we find
in his Rule. The names in the third-century martyrologies show that
Christianity was still confined to the Greeks; it is not until we come
sessed no literature, and in some cases were even without the knowledge of writing. All
this came about because the Greeks demanded that the Bible must be read. The begin-
nings of the Coptic version of the Bible already fall into our period [that from S. Iren. to
Euse. of Caes.]." Lightfoot (Headlam in the later editions) in Scrivener's Plain Introduc-
tion to the Criticism of the New Testament, Wescott and Hort, Hyvernat, Ciasca, all hold
that the Sahidic version was translated in the second century. F. Robinson (Hastings, op.
cit.) says the third century. F. C. Burkitt, Encyc. bib., col. 5007, "The earliest version in
Egyptian cannot be later than the first quarter of the fourth century." J. Leipoldt, Gesch.
d. neutest. Kanons (Leipzig, 1907), I, 81 ff., says the Sahidic appeared in the first half of
the fourth century. In Gesch. d. koptisch. Liter., p. 139, "Um 350 scheint die Bibeltiber-
setzung abgeschlossen zu sein"; and on p. 179 he places the Bohairic version about 650 A.D.
11S. Athan., Vita S. Antonii; Migne, PG, Vol. XXVI, cols. 842-43. C. R. Gregory,
Canon and Text of the New Testament, pp. 403-4, goes beyond the evidence in saying: "St.
Anthony heard the Gospels read in Church in Coptic when he was a boy. That assures us
that there was a Coptic translation in use about the middle of the third century..... I
presuppose that the two main Coptic translations were made before the close of the second
century." Perhaps the Gospel was read in Greek and then interpreted in Coptic (as it is
now read in Coptic then in Arabic); that this was so is asserted in an ancient gloss, quoted
by Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (ed. 1847), I, 190.
12 On the date of PS see an article, "Coptic Gnostic Writings," in the Anglican Theo-
logical Review, XII (1929), 145-54, by the present writer.
13 See E. Am6lineau, Monuments pour servir a l'histoire de l'Egypte chritienne aux I Ve,
Ve, VIe et VIIe sidcles, II, 521 ff.; also Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper
Egypt, text, pp. 146 if., and translation, pp. 352 ff. We are explicitly told (Patrologia orien-
talis, IV, 471) that Pachomius could not speak Greek.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 THE COPTICOLD TESTAMENT 329
to the persecution of Diocletian that we meet names unmistakably
Egyptian14 and learn thereby that the church had extended into Up-
per Egypt. The regard which the native church has ever since had
for the martyrs of this period is manifested by the "Coptic Era," be-
ginning 283 A.D.,the year of the accession of Diocletian. Furthermore,
pointing against an early native Christianity is the fact that paganism
held on most tenaciously. There is also the fact that the Apocalypse
apparently was not included in the earlier manuscripts and in the
later is still distinguished from the other parts of the New Testament.
The general acceptance of this book dates from the close of the third
century. In the middle of the century there were still doubts as to its
right to a place in the canon. Hence Lightfoot'5 conjectures that the
original version was made while the question was being debated and
that the Copts, with characteristic adherence to a tradition, never
gave it a whole-hearted acceptance. We conclude, then, that the ver-
sion began to be made not much, if any, earlier than the middle of the
third century and that, on the other hand, it cannot be placed much
later. In this conclusion the New Testament is included with the Old.
It should be noted in this connection that the former would almost
certainly be first, though how much so we are quite unable to say. It
is likely that the Psalms would soon have followed, but the whole
question must for the present at least remain beyond the realm of
even conjecture.
We have fragments of versions in five dialects: (1) Sahidic, for-
merly called Thebaic, i.e., the dialect of the Thebaid, Upper Egypt;
(2) Bohairic, formerly called Memphitic, the dialect of Lower Egypt,
including Alexandria; (3) Akhmimic, the dialect of the region about
Panopolis; (4) Fayyumic, formerly known as Bashmuric; (5) Middle
Egyptian, or Memphitic (not to be confused with the name earlier
given Bohairic), so closely related to Fayyumic that some scholars re-
fuse to recognize any distinction between the two. In the case of the
last three the remains are scanty and fragmentary; Sahidic, with
14See G. Zoega, Catalogus codicum copticorum, pp. 20-21: an officer of Diocletian is
traveling in Upper Egypt searching for Christians; to him one such presents himself:
"Deinceps praeses ex tribunali per interpretem cum eo collocutus, cum ei ut sacrificaret
persuadere non potuisset, sententiam his verbis pertulit; Isaac Tiphrensis nomi Panau quo-
niam mori vult pro nomine Jesu, jubeo ut caput ejus gladio recidatur."
i1 In Scrivener, op. cit., II, 123.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 330 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

which they were intimately connected, seems to have displaced them

at an early date. It will simplify matters if we divide the dialects into
three groups: (1) Sahidic, (2) Bohairic, (3) Middle Egyptian-
"Middle" being geographical not chronological. Bohairic is rather a
"literary" than a popular dialect, hence it died out earlier than the
Sahidic," though it still remains the ecclesiastical language of the
Copts, little understood until the recent revival of Coptic study in
Egypt. In translation Bohairic used many Greek particles and was
more elaborate in its grammatical structure, but, rather strangely,
has a larger vocabulary of native words; where Sahidic transliterates
from the Greek, Bohairic often finds an Egyptian equivalent.
While the Sahidic manuscripts are generally more fragmentary than
the Bohairic, they are of greater importance on account of their an-
tiquity. The Sahidic version began to be studied when Raphael Tuki,
a Copt by birth, who became a Uniat bishop, published his grammar17
in 1778, illustrated by quotations from both Old and New Testaments.
The posthumous work of Charles G. Woide, to which we have already
referred, completed and provided with a Preface by Henry Ford,
Arabic professor at Oxford, and published in 1799, is a book which
does much credit to both of the editors. In its preparation Woide used
the manuscripts which Bruce had recently brought to England and
lists all the manuscripts which he had consulted, those in Cambridge
and Paris being also collated. It is of bearing upon our subject as in-
cluding a dissertation concerning the books of both Testaments in the
Sahidic and Bohairic versions;18 a consideration of the source whence
the Old Testament was derived, the sound conclusion being that it was
from the LXX, not the Hebrew as had once been thought,19 and the
further conclusion that Sahidic and Bohairic had been translated in-
18 In Lower Egypt it was replaced by Arabic much earlier than was Sahidic in Upper
Egypt; it had become a dead language as early as the tenth century, while Sahidic con-
tinued in use for at least five centuries longer.
17Rudimenta linguae Coptae sive Aegyptiacae, ad usum collegii urbani de propaganda
fidei (Romae, 1778). Pp. vii +675.
is This had appeared in a German version in 1778.
19Assemani had preceded him in reaching this conclusion, holding that the Coptic
versions were accurate translations from the LXX, following the Alexandrinus. Ciasca
reverses this opinion and finds in the case of the Minor Prophets traces of a revision based
upon the Hebrew, II, 55; in an independent study the present writer has found nothing to
support this view of Ciasca's, such variations from the LXX as appear, and they are not
few, being explicable by the use of a different Greek text as the basis of translation rather
than by recourse to the Hebrew.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 THE COPTICOLD TESTAMENT 331

dependently; also a discussion of the antiquity of the Coptic versions.

In 1810 the Danish scholar Zoega20published a large number of frag-
ments from the Borgian Library; these, with many additions, came
into the Library of the Propaganda, and in 1885-89 A. Ciasca21pub-
lished in two volumes those from the Old Testament, which work still
remains the largest corpus of material.
Vaschalde's work, which we have already mentioned, is indispen-
sable for the student in this field. It spares us the necessity for a fur-
ther bibliography, and such a bibliography would, in fact, exceed in
length the present article. The number of books is comparatively
small, but journal articles are innumerable. It may be of value to in-
dicate here what a study of Vaschalde's evidence reveals as to the
amount of published material of the various books of the Old Testa-
ment. From a considerable number of manuscripts a fairly complete
Pentateuch can be formed, though with many gaps still to be filled up.
The Former Prophets were not, apparently, popular. Sir Herbert
Thompson's tenth-century manuscript22 supplies us with the larger
part of Joshua and Judges, also a Ruth complete with the exception
of one leaf, containing chapter 4, verses 3-9. The fragments of Samuel23
and Kings-the latter especially-are much smaller. In the case of the
Greater Prophets a fairly complete Isaiah may be reconstructed,
while Jeremiah is less complete, as are also Ezekiel and Daniel. Of the
Minor Prophets, Jonah and Zechariah are almost complete, but the
others have many lacunae. The Book of Psalms exists in many manu-
scripts, from which we had obtained a Psalter practically complete
even before the publication of Budge's The Earliest Known Coptic
Psalter,24which is complete and contains also the apocryphal Ps. 151.
A few years later A. Rahlfs published the Berlin manuscript,25 less
20 Catalogus codicum Copticorum manuscriptorum (Romae, 1810); anastatic reprint
(Leipzig, 1903), pp. 172-220.
21 Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta Copto-sahidica Musei Borgiani (Romae, 1885).
22 A Coptic Palimpsest Containing Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith and Esther in the Sahi-
dic Dialect (London, 1911).
23 The two books of Samuel are said to be complete in the J. P. Morgan collection; the
present writer has not secured any first-hand information concerning this, the most impor-
tant collection of MSS material in America.
24 London, 1898.
25 Die Berliner Handschrift des sahidischen Psalters (Berlin, 1901). J. D. Prince studied
the first three psalms as given by Budge and Rahlfs in the Journal of Biblical Literature,
XXI (1902), 92-99.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 332 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SEMITICLANGUAGES

complete but much older, Budge's being dated by him in the sixth or
seventh century while that of Rahlfs is about 400 A.D. In 1916 W. H.
Worrell26published a number of fragments from the Freer Collection,
these being dated about midway between Rahlfs and Budge. Job,
Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Esther, and Ecclesiastes are fairly com-
plete; in this connection attention should be called to Worrell's fine
edition of the Chicago manuscript of Proverbs2"-a model work for
future laborers in this field. Lamentations exists only in lengthy
fragments of chapters 2, 3, and 5; chapters 1 and 4 have not been
found. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are wholly lacking.
In early days the workers in the Bohairic field were much more
numerous, as this was known long before the Sahidic had been recog-
nized as a distinct dialect. The earliest publication of any Bohairic
biblical text28 seems to have been that of the first psalm in 1663 at
Leyden by Theodore Petraeus, with an Arabic and a Latin translation;
the title29 is misleading, implying that the entire Psalter is given-
which, indeed, it may have been the hope of the editor to publish-
so that many who have not seen the work refer to it as containing all
the psalms. The immediately subsequent workers-Marshall, Dr.
Fell, Joseph Assemani, Louis Picques (to whom belongs the credit of
first attempting to explain the native names in the Joseph stories on
grounds of Egyptian etymology), John Mill, Eusibe Renaudot-were
chiefly concerned either with the New Testament or with the liturgies.
The first Old Testament work of importance is the Pentateuch30 of
2 The Coptic Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. This was reprinted in 1923 with a Job

fragment and considerable non-biblical material.

27 The Proverbs of Solomon in Sahidic Coptic According to the Chicago
Manuscript
(Chicago, 1931).
28 It is impossible to speak with certainty of the date of origin of Bohairic; most com-
monly it has been regarded as subsequent to Sahidic by at least a century, possibly two or
three; there would seem to be good reasons for dating it after the Council of Chalcedon
when the native church separated from the Melkite. Among the curiosities of opinion may
be noted that of Georgi (Frag. evan. S. Johan., pp. xxv-xxvi), who argued for the priority of
Bohairic, regarding it as the sacred language of ancient Egypt. H. C. Hoskier (Concerning
the Date of the Bohairic Version [London, 1911]) thinks its origin may have been as early as
200-250; this conclusion is based upon the text of the Book of Revelation as given in the
Sinaiticus, where he finds indications of the use of a Bohairic version. In almost all the
cases where he cites a dependence it might equally well have been that of the Bohairic upon
the Sinaiticus; his arguments have not been generally accepted.
29 Psalterium Davidis in lingua Coptica seu Aegyptiaca, una cum versione Arabica nunc
primum in Latinum vertit et in lucem editum.
so Quinque libri Moysis prophetae in lingua aegyptiaca ex mss. Vaticano, Parisiensi et
Bodlejano descripsit ac Latine vertit.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 THE COPTICOLDTESTAMENT 333
David Wilkins, a Prussian by birth, English by residence, which was
published at Oxford in 1731. This he purposed to follow by the
Psalms, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets, but lack of financial support
prevented the realization of any of these plans. Raphael Tuki
printed at Rome in 1744 the Psalter31 with an Arabic translation.
During the remainder of the eighteenth century interest in the Coptic
Old Testament was apparently slight; in 1786 F. Miinter published
the ninth chapter of Daniel in both dialects.32
A companion work to that of Vaschalde dealing with the Bohairic
texts is much to be desired. Lacking it, we give here a few of the more
important publications of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Lagarde33published the Pentateuch in 1868; Fallet34undertook to do
the same, but his work contained only Genesis, chapters 1-27; Anders-
son35 published an important study in 1904. In 1838-39 Henry
Tattam visited Egypt and brought back many manuscripts; of these
there were published in the Old Testament complete texts of the
Major and Minor Prophets as well as Job.36 In the case of the Psalms,
as also in the Sahidic, we are especially fortunate in the editions of
Schwartze,37 Lagarde38 and the recent editions of Burmester and
D6vaud.39 Bsciai,40Stern,41and again Burmester and D6vaud42 have
given us adequate material for the study of Proverbs. For the rest of
s: The title is in Coptic and Arabic. A second edition was published in 1749. Various
liturgical works are included.
32 Specimen versionum Danielis Copticarum nonum eius caput Memphitice et Sahidice
exhibens. To this should be added J. Bardelli, Daniel Copto-Memphitice (Pisa, 1849).
33 Der koptische Pentateuch (Leipzig,1868).
a4La version cophte du Pentateuque, publiU d'aprks les mss. de la Bibliothbque Imperiale de
Paris, avec des variantes et des notes (Paris, 1854).
35 Ausgewdhlte Bemerkungen iber den bohairischen Dialect im Pentateuch koptisch (Up-
sala, 1904).
36 Prophetae Majores in dialecto linguae Aegyptiacae Memphitica seu Coptica (2 vols.;
Oxonii, 1852). Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum libros in lingua Aegyptiaca vulgo Coptica
seu Memphitica (Oxonii, 1836). This was a collation of earlier MSS. Both of these are pro-
vided with a Latin translation. The Ancient Coptic Version of the Book of Job the Just (Lon-
don, 1846) with an English translation.
37 Psalterium in dialectum Copticae linguae Memphiticam translatum (Lipsiae, 1843).
a3 Psalterii versio Memphitica (Gittingen, 1875).
NaPsalterii versio Memphitica e recognitione P. de Lagarde, rHedition avec le texte copte en
caract~res coptes (Louvain, 1925).
40 Die proverbia Salomonis, boheirisch, koptisch, arabisch (Roma, 1886).
41"Critische Anmerkungen zu der boheirischen trbersetzung der Proverbia Salomonis,"
Zeitschrift fiir gyptische Sprache, XX (1882), 191-202.
42 Les proverbes de Salomon: Texte bohairique (Wien, 1930).

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 334 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

the Bohairic Old Testament we have to depend upon such fragments

as have appeared in various journals; although it is true that a number
of publications are described only as "Coptic" with no indication of
the dialect, and it is quite probable that some Bohairic material is to
be found in these, the whole subject remains to be examined in a more
thorough manner than is here attempted.
Knowledge of "Middle" Egyptian goes back at least to 1789, when
Father Georgi published a small fragment of St. John with much illus-
trative matter. It is only of comparatively recent years, however,
that any considerable body of material has become known; now we
have many fragments belonging to the various dialects which we
have grouped together as "Middle." We may say with certainty that
none of these was derived from either Sahidic or Bohairic; that they
supply evidence of their own as having been translated independently;
that all were early; and that it is very unlikely that anything like a
complete translation of the Bible ever existed in any one of them.
Bouriant43and Krall44have published texts in the Memphitic. Fay-
yumic texts have been published by Quatrembre,45Zoega,46Maspero,47
Krall,48Engelbreth,49 Chassinat,50all of which are very fragmentary,
rarely reaching the length of a chapter. Large colonies of Greeks had
settled in this district, had given a greater vogue to their own lan-
guage, and, consequently, there was less need for a Coptic version; it
may not have appeared until after the beginning of the Monophysite
heresy in 451 A.D. The grammar and lexicography are least well es-
tablished of any of the dialects. Practically all of our Akhmimic ma-
terial has been brought from the White Monastery, though not neces-
48Fragments memphitiques de divers livres inedits de l'6criture et des instructions
pastorales des pores de l' glise copte," Recueil des travaux, etc., VII, 82-94.
44 Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (Wien, 1887), II,
265 ff.
45 Recherches critiques et historiques sur la langue et la litt&rature de l'Egypte (Paris, 1808),
pp. 228-53.
46 Op. cit., pp. 139-68.
47 "Bruchstticke der kleinen Propheten," Recueil des travaux, etc., VII, 181-92.
48See work cited above.
49 Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Hafniae, 1811). See J. F.
Champollion, Observations sur les fragments coptes (en dialect bashmourique) de l'Ancien et
du Nouveau Testament, publids par M. W. E. Engelbreth, d Copenhague (Paris, 1818).
50"Fragments de manuscrits coptes en dialecte fayoumique," Bull. de l'Institut Fran-
gais d'Archeologie Orientale, 1902, pp. 171-206. Mostly New Testament; has only Isa.
29:34-37:3 in Old Testament.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 THE COPTICOLD TESTAMENT 335

sarily written there; it dates back to the fourth and fifth centuries.
The most important biblical text yet known is that of the Minor
Prophets ;1 there are also some fragments of Exodus;52 a manuscript of
Proverbs in the possession of Carl Schmidt has not yet been published.
Our list of the publications in these minor dialects is not exhaustive,
and probably much is yet to be found and to be put into print.
51 W. Till, Die achmimische Version der zwdlf Propheten (Havniae, 1927). Some of these
fragments had previously been published by U. Bouriant, "Fragments des petits prophttes
en dialecte de Panopolis," Recueil des Travaux, etc., XIX (1897), 1-12; and by C. Wessely,
Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum versionis Achmim Codex Rainerianus (Leipzig, 1915).
52 P. Lacau, Bull. de l'Institut Frangais d'Archdologie Orientale, VIII, 43-109; Exod. 1:1
-2:19, 4:2-25, 5:22-7:4.

This content downloaded from 197.255.100.197 on February 11, 2020 09:16:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).