Coptic_versions_of_the_BiblePeter Kirby wrote:Why do these scholars propose 250-350 as the earliest period for Coptic versions of the New Testament, then?
- OT:
Bodmer III — John 1:1-21:25, Genesis 1:1-4:2; 4th century; Bohairic
Bodmer VI — Proverbs 1:1-21:4; 4th/5th century; Paleo-Theban ("Dialect P")
Bodmer XVI — Exodus 1:1-15:21; 4th century;
Bodmer XVIII — Deuteronomium 1:1-10:7; 4th century;
Bodmer XXI — Joshua 6:16-25; 7:6-11:23; 22:1-2; 22:19-23:7; 23:15-24:2; 4th century;
Bodmer XXII — Jeremiah 40:3-52:34; Lamentations; Epistle of Jeremiah; Book of Baruch; 4th/5th century;
Bodmer XXIII — Isaiah 47:1-66:24; 4th century;
Bodmer XL — Song of Songs
Bodmer XLIV — Book of Daniel; Bohairic.[2]
Schøyen Ms 114 — Psalms; Sahidic; ca. A.D. 400.
MSS
Some of the more notable manuscripts of the Sahidic are the following.
The Crosby-Schøyen Codex is a papyrus manuscript of 52 leaves (12x12 cm). It contains the complete text of Book of Jonah and 1 Peter (2 Maccabees 5:27-8:41, Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha 47-105, unidentified Homily). It is dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries and is held at the University of Mississippi.[17]
British Library MS. Oriental 7594 contains an unusual combination of books: Deuteronomy, Jonah, and Acts. It is dated paleographically to the late 3rd or early 4th century.[18]
Michigan MS. Inv 3992, a papyrus codex, has 42 folios (14 by 15 cm). It contains 1 Corinthians, Titus, and the Book of Psalms. It is dated to the 4th century.
Berlin MS. Or. 408 and British Museum Or. 3518, being parts of the same original document. The Berlin portion contains the Book of Revelation, 1 John, and Philemon (in this order). It is dated to the 4th century.
Bodmer XIX — Matthew 14:28-28:20; Romans 1:1-2:3; 4th or 5th century.
Bodmer XLII — 2 Corinthians; dialect unknown; Wolf-Peter Funk suggest Sahidic
- The first translation into the Sahidic dialect was made at the end of the 2nd century in Upper Egypt, where Greek was less well understood. So the Sahidic is famous for being the first major literary development of the Coptic language, though literary work in the other dialects soon followed.
- The manuscript contains John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist. Its original editor assigned the codex to the early third century, or around AD 200, on the basis of the style of handwriting in the codex.[1] Herbert Hunger later claimed that the handwriting should be dated to an earlier period in the middle or early part of the second century.[2] More recently, Brent Nongbri has produced a broader study of the codex and argued that when one takes into consideration the format, construction techniques, and provenance of the codex along with the handwriting, it is more reasonable to conclude that the codex was produced "in the early or middle part of the fourth century.
I have not yet read the article by Frederik Wisse, ‘The Coptic Versions of the New Testament’, in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 131-41, in which the 250 CE is mentioned.
Thanks very much for the alternate translation. It is different, but the oddness of it still stands. So here Jesus, in speaking to his apostles from the light and the clouds says "Why are you looking for me"? This is also not likely to make it into the agrapha. The setting here is that the apostles have trekked to the top of a mountain in order to pray and petition for the appearance of (the resurrected) Jesus. (Which should probably be understood as a fictional entity: resurrections do not happen). Jesus speaks to them out of the "bright clouds". In other gnostic Acts the Apostles travel hither and thither by means of a "bright cloud". All this still appears to include the possibility that these authors in antiquity are creating a parody or a satire, just like Monty Python in the 20th century.I wouldn't press too hard on that sentence, out of its context, and that translation as you have.Leucius Charinus wrote:Will you accept the possibility that the Letter of Peter to Philip contains a parody or satire?
Namely in Jesus speaking to his apostles from the light and the clouds saying "Why are you asking me"?
That's not likely to make it into the agrapha.
The more recent translation from Marvin Meyer reads:
"Listen to my words that I may speak to you. Why are you looking for me? I am Jesus Christ, who is with you forever." (p. 590)
This translation and interpretation makes more sense, in context, reading the second sentence with reference to the third.
LC