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 "Beytrage zur Beforderung 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. Munter 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. Munter 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 ???-??? (459-484) and ???, ??? (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 ???-??? (239-254), ???-???, ???-??? (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 ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? (??? ?? t?? ???

e??; ?e??), viii. 23; the Woidian fragment begins ? ?????? ???? (?p??

??? ?p???), 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 Munter, 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 ???-???, 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, S??? ??t???; ver. 8, add ??? after t?te; ver. 10, om. ?? a??ta?; ver. 12, ins. ?a? before ?e??e?; ver. 17, om. d?

after p??e???; ver. 18, om. d? after ???eta?; ver. 21, e?pe? ??? for e?pe?

d?; ib. add [?] ??s??? after a?t???; ver. 28, add a?t? after ?pe?????.

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 ?-?.

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 ??-?, two columns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column. I observed the following readings: ix. 24, om. et? da?????; 44, 46, om. ?p?? ?

s????? ?.t.?.; 50, om. ?a? p?sa ??s?a ??? ???s??seta?; xi. 26, omitted; xiii. 14, om. t? ????? ?p? ?a???? t?? p??f?t??; xiv. 22, om. f??ete; 24 has ?a????.

*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 t?t???. There is occasionally a rough concordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, ?? ??????????. ?? ?. ?? ??.

??. ?, where St. John stands first. I noted down the following readings: iii. 19, om. F???pp??; 27, ??a???; 30, ??a??; 32, ???d; 32, ???? for Sa???, just as in ver. 35; iv. 26, S?d???a?; 41, om. ? ???st??; ver. 38, om. ?a? ?f?te??? s??t?????ta?. In vi. 16 ???da? ?a???? 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 ?? to ?? (sic). No sections are marked. It has these readings: xvii. 24, om. ?? t? ???? a?t??; xviii. 28, t? ?d?a; xix. 5, om. e?de? a?t?? ?a?.

*iv. Gal. i. 14-vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page, twenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked ?p? onward. It has these readings: i. 15, ? ?e??; ii. 5, ??? ??d?; ii. 20, t?? ???? t?? ?e??; iii.

1, om. t? ????e?? ? pe??es?a?; iii. 17, om. e?? ???st??; iv. 7, ????????? d?? [t??] ???st??; iv. 14, t?? pe??as?? ?? t?? ?? ?.t.?.; 15, p??; v. 1, st??ete ???.

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 tesse?????ta ?a? tesse?????ta ???ta? ... d???????? a?t?; the Sahidic is iv. 1-6 ??te ... ?p? ?e???? ????s? se. 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. Amelineau. The Old Testament in the Recueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the "Zeitschrift fur 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. Amelineau had not the opportunity of seeing the MSS.