Documenting the spread of Christianity in Egypt

A. The Coptic Dialects and Versions

Coptic is the lineal descendant of the Egyptian language. Indeed, its name "Coptic" is but a corruption of the Greek Αἴγυπτος. It makes use of the Greek alphabet, with the addition of five letters modified from the Demotic form of the Egyptian script.

Until recent years it was the custom to speak simply of the Coptic version; we now know that there are at least three distinct versions in three different dialects, viz. Bohairic, Sahidic, and Fayoumic. Athanasius, Bishop of Kos in the eleventh century, published an Arabic-Coptic Grammar, in which he pointed out the existence of three dialects, viz. the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Bashmuric. The Sahidic was spoken in Upper Egypt in the Theban district, whence the alternative name of "Thebaic" for the Sahidic version; the Bohairic belonged to Lower Egypt, or the district of Memphis, whence also the alternative title "Memphitic" for the Bohairic version; but this is a misleading title, since the third dialect we possess (not Athanasius "Bashmuric," of which we have practically no remains) is the Fayoumic, or Middle Egyptian, which to the North might overlap with the Memphitic or Bohairic.

It is claimed that of these three dialects the Sahidic is the elder and the source of the other two. The Bohairic is the more literary and polished of the three, the other two being more popular. To these three dialects we must now add a fourth, the "Akhmimic," so called from the papyri discovered at Akhmim in 1884 and written in a Coptic dialect, differing from the other three.[1]

The Bohairic or "Memphitic" Version

Many MSS. of this version are known. No one MS. contains the entire Bible,[2] but MSS. of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles are very numerous.[3] According to Headlam,[4] the Bohairic version contained all the Canonical Books of N.T., though he maintains that the Apocalypse never formed an integral part of the Canon, for it is always "distinguished from them (the other Books) in some marked way"; if this be so, the number of MSS. of the Apocalypse which have been preserved is remarkable.[5] As for the Greek text underlying the Bohairic version, it is claimed that it is akin to the text preserved in B and in Westcott and Hort's "Neutral" text.[6]

The Sahidic or "Theban" Version

This has been less well preserved than the foregoing; in recent years the copious fragments [7] have been edited by Balestri.

The Akhmimic Version

This version has been preserved in only a small number of fragments. Of the N.T. we have only Jude 1:17-20, James 4:12-13; judgment upon this version must consequently be reserved.[8]

The Fayoumic and Middle-Egyptian Versions

These are, according to Hyvernat, to be identified, though Headlam would distinguish them.[9] This version forms a group by itself, and is based upon a Greek text different from that employed for the Sahidic version.[10]

B. The Date and Critical Value of these Versions.

There can be no doubt that the spread of Christianity in Egypt was both immediate and far-reaching in extent as well as in numbers. Alexandria was the See of St. Mark, and the Thebaid became the home of countless monks at a very early period. St. Antony, circa 250-356 A.D., was well instructed in Holy Scripture; he was converted by hearing the Gospel read in Church,[11] and he insisted on his monks diligently studying the Scriptures.[12] Yet he himself knew no language save his native Coptic, and the same seems to have been the case with most of his contemporaries and disciples.[13] This early spread of Christianity, combined with ignorance of the Greek tongue, affords the soundest argument for the early existence of Coptic versions of the Bible. According to Hyvernat, the Sahidic version dates from the opening of the third century, and the Bohairic from an even earlier period.[14] These two versions were, as already stated, derived from different types of Greek MSS.; thus the Bohairic is said to show kinship with the oldest Greek MSS., and it is claimed that its original text did not contain the present "Western" readings which make it conform to the Traditional text.[15] The Sahidic version is thought to present a less pure text than the Bohairic; it is unlike the Traditional text, yet has many readings characteristic of the second century.[16] The Greek text underlying it is held to be that of Codex Bezae and of Codex Ephrami rescriptus, C, in the Gospels; while in the Epistles it represents rather Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephrami than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.[17]

One peculiar feature of the Coptic language makes these versions of great value in textual criticism. Not only does the language employ the Greek alphabet, but it has also taken over many Greek prepositions and conjunctions; it even uses alternately these and their Coptic equivalents. Hence the versions adhere somewhat slavishly to the original, so that the process of reconstruction of their underlying Greek text is rendered sensibly easier.[18]


________________________

1 Hyvernat, R.B., 1897, pp. 431, 568. According to Hyvernat, the five known dialects are the Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic, Middle-Egyptian, and Fayoumic; the Sahidic absorbed the Akhmimic, Middle-Egyptian, and probably also the Fayoumic, but in its turn was displaced by the Bohairic, I.e. p. 432.

2 - Hyvernat, R.B., 1897, p. 540.

3 - L.c. pp. 544-547; cf. Scrivener-Miller, II. pp. 110-123. We shall form some notion of the rapidity of our growth in knowledge of the Coptic Versions if we note that in 1894 (the date of publication of Miller's ed. of Scrivener's Introduction) 36 MSS. of the Coptic (Bohairic) Gospels are given, 18 of Acts and Epistles, and 10 of the Apocalypse. In 1897 Hyvernat enumerates 64 MSS. of the Gospels, 29 of Acts and Epistles, 12 of the Apocalypse.

4 - Scrivener-Miller, II. 123.

5 - Cf. note 3.

6 - See infra.

7 - Lists of large fragments of all the Books of the Bible except 1-2 Paralip., Judith, Malachi, the Epistle to Titus, and the Epistle of St. James, are given by Hyvernat, R.B., 1897, pp. 553-565.

8 - R.B. October, 1897, P- 569.

9 - Scrivener-Miller, II. pp. 141-142; cf. Hyvernat, R.B. I.e. p. 565.

10 - Hyvernat, R.B. January, 1897, p. 74.

11 - See especially the references given in Scrivener-Miller, II. pp. 95-100; also by Forbes Robinson, H.D.B. s.v. Egyptian Versions, I. pp. 670-671.

12 - L.c.

13 - L.c.

14 - Hyvernat, R.B. January, 1897, p. 70. It should be borne in mind that these critics are giving the minimum; it is quite probable that these versions should be referred to an even earlier period.

15 - L.c.

16 - L.c. p. 73; cf. Lightfoot in Scrivener-Miller, II. p. 138.

17 - Hyvernat, l.c. pp. 70-71.

18 - Lightfoot in Scrivener-Miller, II. pp. 124-125; cf. Hyvernat, R.B. January, 1897, p. 68.

by
Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M., D.S.ScR.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis
The Collegio Angelico, Rome