viii. 22-32, are paged ⲩⲛⲑ-ⲩⲡⲇ (459-484) and ⲭⲛⲍ, ⲭⲛⲏ (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 ⲥⲗⲑ-ⲥⲛⲇ (239-254), ⲧⲗⲇ-ⲧⲙⲅ, ⲧⲙⲝ-ⲧⲝⲁ (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 ⲁⲛⲅ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲛ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ (ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί; ὑμεῖς), viii. 23; the Woidian fragment begins ⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲣⲟϥ (ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω), 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 Münter, 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 ⲋⲙⲁ-ⲋⲙⲏ, 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, Σίμων Πέτρος; ver. 8, add οὖν after τότε; ver. 10, om. οἰ μαθηταί; ver. 12, ins. καὶ before θεωρεῖ; ver. 17, om. δὲ after πορεύου; ver. 18, om. δέ after ἔρχεται; ver. 21, εἶπεν οὖν for εἶπεν δέ; ib. add [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς after αὐτοῖς; ver. 28, add αὐτῷ after ἀπεκρίθη.

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 ⲉ-ⲏ.

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 ⲓⲑ-ⲗ, two columns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column. I observed the following readings: ix. 24, om. μετὰ δακρύων; 44, 46, om. ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ κ.τ.λ.; 50, om. καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται; xi. 26, omitted; xiii. 14, om. τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου; xiv. 22, om. φάγετε; 24 has καινῆς.

*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 τίτλοι. There is occasionally a rough concordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, ⲓⲅ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏⲋ. ⲓⲱ ⲍ. ⲙⲑ ⲓⲅ. ⲙⲣ. ⲉ, where St. John stands first. I noted down the following readings: iii. 19, om. Φιλίππου; 27, Ἰωανάν; 30, Ἰωανάμ; 32, Ἰωβήδ; 32, ⲥⲁⲗⲁ for Σαλμών, just as in ver. 35; iv. 26, Σιδωνίας; 41, om. ὁ Χριστός; ver. 38, om. καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. In vi. 16 Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου 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 ⲣⲁ to ⲣⲓ (sic). No sections are marked. It has these readings: xvii. 24, om. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ; xviii. 28, τὰ ἴδια; xix. 5, om. εἶδεν αὐτὸν καί.

*iv. Gal. i. 14-vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page, twenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked ρπθ onward. It has these readings: i. 15, ὁ θεός; ii. 5, οἷς οὐδέ; ii. 20, τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ; iii. 1, om. τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; iii. 17, om. εἰς χριστόν; iv. 7, κληρονόμος διὰ [τοῦ] χριστοῦ; iv. 14, τὸν πειρασμόν μου τὸν ἐν κ.τ.λ.; 15, ποῦ; v. 1, στήκετε οὖν.

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 τεσσεράκοντα καὶ τεσσεράκοντα νύκτας ... διηκόνουν αὐτῷ; the Sahidic is iv. 1-6 Τότε ... ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε. 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. Amélineau. The Old Testament in the Recueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the “Zeitschrift für 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. Amélineau had not the opportunity of seeing the MSS. himself, and merely published a transcript supplied him by the Coptic Archbishop Bschai, then resident in Rome. Moreover he gives no critical notes on various readings in cases where there is more than one copy extant of any passage. Nor again does he edit the fragments completely, but only such portions of the New Testament as were not previously known. His edition therefore is not without inaccuracies, which have been noticed by Ciasca, vol. ii. pp. lix-lxxvii. These defects are, however, being remedied by an edition of all these fragments by Father Ciasca (known as the editor of the Arabic Diatessaron), which is very complete. The first two volumes, containing the Old Testament with many facsimiles, have appeared: the New Testament portion is to follow. (Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani iussu et sumptibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Studio P. Augustini Ciasca. Romae. Typis eiusdem S. Congregationis. Vol. i. 1885; Vol. ii. 1889.)

2. The Crawford and Balcarres fragments mentioned above have also been edited by M. Amélineau in the Recueil des Travaux, v. (1883), p. 105.

3. To O. von Lemm we owe a considerable number of fragments. Bruchstücke der Sahidischen Bibelübersetzung nach Handschriften der kaiserlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885. And Sieben Sahidische Bibel-Fragmente. Z. A. S. 23 (1885), p. 19.

4. Fragments, mostly smaller in extent, have been edited by the following:

Bouriant Mémoires, i. 259. Recueil, iv. 1.

Maspero Recueil, vi. 35; vii. 47. Études Égyptologiques, i. 3. Paris, 1883.

Ceugney Recueil, ii. 94.

Krall Mittheilungen, ii. 68.

5. But most important of all are the newly acquired fragments of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. In 1883 that Library had the good fortune to obtain (largely through the influence of M. Amélineau) from the famous White Monastery or Deir Amba Shenoudah of Upper Egypt a large collection of Sahidic fragments. The publication of these has been begun. Considerable sections of the Old Testament have been published by Maspero (Mémoires, vol. vi), and of documents relating to Early Church History by Bouriant (ib. vol. viii). The New Testament fragments have not yet been published, but M. Amélineau, who is entrusted with them, has kindly put at my disposal the following list of contents. I have omitted smaller Fragments:

MATTHEW (167 leaves): i. 1-20; i. 17-ii. 4; i. 1-22; ii. 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15; iii. 1-11; 1-15; iii. 10-iv. 13; iii. 22-iv. 11; iv. 3-19; 21-v. 15; iv. 15-v. 17; v. 17-32; 9-28; v. 25-vi. 3; vii. 6-viii. 4; vii. 8-27; x. 9-28; viii. 1-17; 2-20; ix. 13-33; ix. 25-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 19; ix. 26-x. 19; x. 39-xxviii. 54 (36 leaves); x. 20-xii. 3; xi. 3-10; xi. 15-xii. 16; xi. 16-xii. 4; xii. 6-xiv. 31; xii. 19-40; xiii. 19-xiv. 6; xiii. 22-25; xiii. 35-50; xiii. 41-xiv. 2; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 17-35; xiv. 18-xv. 19; xiv. 20-35; xiv. 21-xv. 19; xiv. 24-xv. 11; xiv. 27-xv. 1; xiv. 31-54; xiv. 31-xv. 20; xv. 17-xvi. 19; xviii. 11-35; 15-21; xviii. 26-xix. 1; xix. 7-22; xix. 13-xx. 16; xix. 24-xx. 16; xx. 9-32; xxi. 8-12; 19-21; 12-37; 9-25; 22-33; xxi. 31-xxii. 5; xxi. 32-41; xxi. 38-xxii. 12; xxii. 22-xxiii. 12; xxiv. 7-xxvi. 64; xxiv. 2-42; xxiv. 35-xxv. 36; xxiv. 47-xxvi. 47; xxvi. 41-60; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 5; xxvi. 75-xxviii. 23; xxvii. 26-56; xxvii. 49-xxviii. 4; xxvii. 54-xxviii. 8. Also a fragment containing the last few verses and the beginning of St. Mark.

MARK (43 leaves): i. 1-17; 4-5; i. 30-ii. 1; iv. 1-8; iv. 32-v. 11; v. 30-vii. 36; v. 13-38; vi. 4-viii. 12; vii. 36-viii. 1; viii. 12-31; 23-38; x. 42-xi. 15; xi. 3-27; xi. 11-xiii. 14; xii. 12-35; xii. 31-xiii. 19; xiv. 6-xv. 2; xiv. 12-xv. 21; xiv. 20-40.

LUKE (163 leaves): i. 1-26; 1-5; 26-61; 19-35; ii. 10-33; iii. 4-v. 8; iii. 29-iv. 20; iii. 36-iv. 47; iv. 22-viii. 14; iv. 43-v. 29; v. 10-viii. 7; vi. 35-ix. 16; vii. 1-ix. 5; vii. 7-15; vii. 37, 38; 41-45; viii. 2-12; 6-15; 4-37; 7-26; viii. 14-ix. 8; viii. 32-44; ix. 3-22; 9-21; ix. 51-x. 18; x. 39-xii. 37; xi. 23-34; 24-56, xii. 1-8, 36-48; xi. 28-44; xii. 3-12; 37-51; xii. 48-xiii. 10; xii. 53-xiii. 9; xiii. 1-16; xiii. 11-31; xiii. 15-xiv. 15; xiv. 2-20; xiv. 3-xv. 2; xiv. 21-32; xv. 17-xvii. 19; xvi. 18-xvii. 16; xvii. 10-24; xviii. 4-xix. 42; xviii. 21-xix. 22; xix. 3-28; xix. 28-xxi. 22; xix. 49-xx. 6; xxi. 22-xxii. 1; xxii. 11-27; xxii. 8-xxiv. 10; xxiii. 1-39; xxiv. 27-53.

Also the following bilingual (Greek and Sahidic) texts:

iii. 15, 16; x. 11-21; xi. 16-32; xvii. 29-xviii. 1; xviii. 32-42; xxi. 25-31; xxii. 66-xxiii. 17; and two leaves in Greek.

JOHN (207 leaves). One MS. of 48 leaves, Luke iv. 38-v. 1; viii. 10-29; ix. 9-62; John i. 23-vii. 40; ix. 6-27; xix. 13-33; xx. 31-xxi. 17. i. 25-45; 25-36, ii. 7-18; i. 42-iii. 4; i. 43-ii. 11; i. 45-iv. 19; i. 67-ii. 24; ii. 11-iii. 25; ii. 24-iv. 22; iii. 4-10; 13-16; iii. 24-iv. 8; iv. 27-51; iv. 50-vii. 20; v. 24-vi. 5; vi. 12-35; 26-45; 30-41; vi. 62-vii. 17; vi. 65-vii. 10; vii. 20-39; vii. 31-x. 12; vii. 41-viii. 23; vii. 44-viii. 20; viii. 25-44; viii. 22-ix. 28; viii. 36-49; ix. 7-xi. 22; ix. 20-40; 27-39; xii. 4-18; x. 13-19; xi. 27-47; 34-48; 34-45; xi. 44-xii. 2; xii. 25-34; xiii. 7-27; 18-31; xiii. 19-xiv. 1; xiv. 21-xviii. 15; xv. 3-xvi. 15; xv. 6-26; xv. 22-xvi. 16; xvi. 1-23; xvi. 6-26; xvi. 22-xxii. 8; xvii. 14-23; xviii. 3-26; xviii. 5-xix. 40; xviii. 23-xix. 2; xviii. 33-xix. 19; xix. 18-26; xx. 8-18; 19-27; xxi. 2-14.

Also the following bilingual:

i. 19-23; ii. 2-9; iv. 5-13; 15-52; v. 12-21; xii. 36-46.

ACTS: ii. 2-17; 18-40; ii. 34-iv. 6; viii. 32-ix. 15; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix. 27-40; x. 3-4; xii. 7-xiii. 5; xii. 23-xiii. 8; xiii. 10-xvi. 4; xiv. 4-22; xviii. 21-xix. 6; xxvii. 38-xxviii. 4; xxviii. 9-23.

ROMANS: i. 26-ii. 25; ii. 28-iii. 13; iii. 20-iv. 4; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix. 12-xi. 11; ix. 15-x. 1; ix. 24-xi. 30; xi. 30-xii. 15; xiv. 4-21; xv. 10-30.

1 COR.: i. 19-ii. 10; ii. 9-iv. 1; ii. 21-vi. 4; vii. 36-ix. 5; ix. 2-x. 7; ix. 12-25; x. 13-xi. 15; xvii. 41-45; xvii. 16-21.

2 COR.: xi. 1-20; xii. 21-xiii. 13 (with Heb. i. 14); xi. 33-xii. 14.

HEB.: ii. 14-20; iv. 7-14; v. 12-vi. 10; ix. 2-14; 20-23; x. 9-10; xii. 16-xiii. 9; xiii. 7-21; xiii. 10-25.

GAL.: i. 1-vi. 18 (with Eph. i. 1-10; vi. 12-24; and Phil. i. 1-7); i. 10-24; iii. 2-16; ii. 9-iii. 10.

EPH.: iv. 17-v. 13 (with Phil. iii. 1-iv. 6).

PHIL.: i. 23-ii. 6; i. 28-ii. 20.

COL.: i. 1-29; 9-11, 15 (with 1 Thess. ii. 15-iv. 4); i. 29-iii. 1.

1 TIM.: iii. 2-v. 2.

1 PET.: i. 18-vi. 14 (with 2 Pet. i. 1-iii. 1); ii. 23-iii. 13; iii. 12-iv. 9; iii. 15-iv. 10.

6. The British Museum has recently acquired a considerable number of fragments on vellum, containing—

MATT.: xv. 11-xvi. 12; xxi. 6-22.

JOHN: ix. 7-26; x. 30-42; xi. 1-10; 37-57.

ACTS: xxii. 12-30; xxiii. 1-15.

And also a large number of papyrus fragments in the Graf collection.

7. Mr. Petrie also has in his possession a valuable papyrus MS. containing considerable portions of St. John. This will probably shortly be published by Mr. Crum.

From the above account it becomes clear that we have now already published, or preserved in European libraries, enough material to produce a complete or almost a complete edition of the Sahidic New Testament. But not only this. We have also a considerable number of fragments written on papyrus, which are much older than any of the MSS. previously known, and will enable us to write a history of the version from an early date. May we express a hope that M. Amélineau, who has made large collections for the purpose, would first of all give us an edition of the Paris fragments as accurate as that of Ciasca, and then of the Sahidic New Testament as a whole? Much more than when Bishop Lightfoot wrote is the publication of it the pressing need of Biblical criticism.]

The order of the books in the Sahidic New Testament, so far as regards the great groups, appears to have been the same as in the Bohairic, i.e. (1) The Four Gospels, (2) The Pauline Epistles, (3) The Catholic Epistles and Acts (_see_ above, p. 124). This may be inferred from the order of quotations in the Sahidic vocabulary described by Woide, Praef., p. 18; for the Sahidic MSS. are so fragmentary that no inference on this point can be drawn from them. Like the Bohairic, the original Sahidic Canon seems to have excluded the Apocalypse. In the vocabulary just mentioned it does not appear as part of the New Testament, but liturgical and other matter interposes before it is taken. Moreover in most cases it is evident from the paging of the fragments which remain that the MSS. containing this book formed separate volumes. In the Paris fragment described above this is plainly the case, and it is equally obvious in the Borgian MSS. lxxxviii, lxxxix (Zoega, p. 187). Thus in lxxxviii, pp. 39-44 contain Apoc. xii. 14-xiv. 13; and in lxxxix. pp. 59, 60, 63, 64 contain Apoc. xix. 7-18, xx. 7-xxi. 3. On the other hand in lxxxvii. where Apoc. iii. 20 begins on p. 279, this fragment must have formed part of a much larger volume, which contained (as we may suppose) a considerable portion of the New Testament.

The order of the four Gospels presents a difficulty. In the Sahidic vocabulary already referred to, the sequence is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke; and this order is also observed in the marginal concordance to the Crawford and Balcarres MS. described above. Thus there is reason for supposing that at one time St. John stood first. But the paging of the oldest MSS. does not favour this conclusion. In the Woidian and Borgian fragments of the Graeco-Sahidic Gospels, which belong to the fourth or fifth century, the numbering of the pages (see p. 130) shows that St. Luke stood before St. John. It is possible indeed that in the MSS. the transcriber was guided by the usual Greek arrangement. But in other MSS. also the synoptic evangelists precede St. John, e.g. Borg. xlvi, l, lxiv; while in other fragments again (Borg. lxx, lxxiv) the high numbers of the pages of St. John show that the Evangelist cannot have stood first in the volume, and this seems further supported by the Paris fragments, in which we find St. John following St. Luke in the same MS.

In this version, as in the Bohairic, the Epistle to the Hebrews was treated as the work of St. Paul; but instead of being placed, as there, after 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy, it stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians(115). It clearly occupies this position in the Borgian MS. lxxx (Zoega, p. 186): and by calculating the pages I have ascertained that this must also have been its place in all the other MSS. of the Pauline Epistles of which fragments after 2 Corinthians are preserved. These are the Borgian fragments lxxxii, lxxxv, lxxxvi, (Zoega, p. 186 sq.), and the Crawford and Balcarres fragment (iv) described above (p. 132); all of which happily are paged.

The Oxford MS. Hunt. 394 is a proof that the Acts followed the Catholic Epistles in the Sahidic New Testament, as is the case also in the Memphitic. Woide indeed (Praef., p. 22), when describing this MS., says, “_exorditur_ ab Actis Apostolicis”; but, even if this be so, his own account of the paging shows that the leaves have been displaced in binding, and that the Catholic Epistles originally stood first. The vocabulary also places them before the Acts.

The Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faithful to the original than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to judge, it pays more respect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently omitting the conjunction and leaving the sentences disconnected. As regards the vocabulary, it adopts Greek words with as great facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This we should hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been comparatively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher and less polished version than the Bohairic.

The real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present circumstances be assigned with any certainty. What would be received by one school of critics would not be admitted by another. But the Editor readily records the verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that the text of it, though very ancient, is inferior to the Bohairic, and less pure; that it exhibits a certain infusion of readings which were widely spread in the second century, and may very probably have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin; that it differs very largely from the Traditional text; and that both in text and in interpretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic. The coincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited by two separate translations in allied dialects from independent texts of the same original. Of any mutual influence of the versions of Upper and Lower Egypt on each other no traces are discernible.

The following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to illustrate the independence of these two versions.

BOHAIRIC. SAHIDIC. 12 ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ 12 ϩⲁϩ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲛϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲛⲁϩϯ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲁⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ ⲛϩⲓⲟⲙⲓ _ⲛ_ϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛ _ⲛ_ⲣ_ⲙ_ⲙⲁⲟ ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲭⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲣⲱⲓ ⲙ_ⲛ_ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ⁘ ⲏ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲁⲛ⁘ 13 _ⲛ_ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ 13 ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲉⲙⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲑⲉ _ⲛ_ⲑⲓ _ⲛ_ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩ_ⲛ_ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲑⲉⲥⲥⲁⲗⲟⲡⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ ⲑⲉⲥⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ ⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲓϣ ϧⲉⲛ ⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ϩ_ⲛ_ ⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ ⲧⲕⲉⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ _ⲙ_ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ _ⲙ_ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧ_ⲙ_ ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲉⲙⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧ_ⲣ_ ⲛⲓⲙⲏϣ ⲉⲩϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ⁘ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ ⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ⁘ 14 ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲥⲁⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ 14 _ⲛ_ⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϫⲉ ϫⲟⲟⲩ _ⲙ_ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ ⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲛⲓⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲉ ⲑⲣⲉϥϣⲉ ⲉϫⲉⲛ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫ_ⲛ_ ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲁⲩⲥⲱϫⲡ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲋⲱ _ⲙ_ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲛϫⲉ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘ ⲙ_ⲛ_ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘ 15 ⲛⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ 15 ⲛⲉⲧⲕⲁⲑⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲛϥ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲋⲓ ⲁⲩ_ⲛ_ⲧ_ϥ_ ϣⲁ ⲁⲑⲉⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉ ⲋⲓ ⲡϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ _ⲛ_ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϫⲓ _ⲛ_ⲟⲩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ _ⲛ_ⲧⲟⲟⲧ_ϥ_ ϣⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ⲛⲭⲱⲗⲉⲙ ⲙ_ⲛ_ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲛⲱⲟⲩ⁘ ϣⲁⲣⲟϥ ϩ_ⲛ_ ⲟⲩⲋⲉⲡⲏ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ 16 ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⁘ ϩⲉⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲙⲥ 16 ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥϫⲱⲛⲧ ⲋⲱϣⲧ ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩ_ⲛ_ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ ϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ _ⲛ_ϩⲏⲧ_ϥ_ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ϯⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲥⲟϣ ⲙⲙⲉⲧϣⲁⲙϣⲉ ⲉⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲙⲙⲉϩ _ⲙ_ⲙⲁ_ⲛ_ⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘ ⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘

[(4) The Fayoum Version.]

[The history of the discovery of the third Egyptian version, and the reasons that have caused it to be assigned to the district of the Fayoum, have been given above.

The Fayoum (ⲫⲓⲟⲙ: ⲡⲓⲟⲙ: ⲡⲓⲁⲙ) is a district of Egypt situated to the west of the Nile valley, from which it is separated by a narrow strip of desert, and lying about eighty miles to the south of the apex of the Delta. It is a large depression in the desert, which has been reclaimed and fertilized by an offshoot of the Nile, now called the Bahr-il-Yousouf, and is distinguished at the present day for its extreme fertility. It appears to have been particularly prosperous and thickly populated in Ptolemaic and Roman times; and in the desert surrounding the cultivated land are the remains of several Greek cities, and of large Coptic monasteries; and it is from here that the chief part of the collection of papyrus fragments now in Berlin and Vienna have been obtained.

The dialect of this district, both in the fragments of the Scriptures preserved in it, and in the other documents more recently discovered (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 26), presents very marked peculiarities. As regards vowels it shows the following amongst other variations as compared with Sahidic. It substitutes ⲁ for ⲉ: ⲛⲉⲕ for ⲛⲁⲕ; ⲗⲉⲛ for ⲣⲁⲛ; ⲕⲉⲉⲃ for ⲭⲁϥ : ⲕⲁⲁϥ; ⲏ for ⲉ: ⲥⲏⲛⲧⲓ for ⲥⲉⲛϯ : ⲥⲛⲧⲉ; ⲏⲙⲓ for ⲉⲙⲓ : ⲉⲓⲙⲉ; ⲁ for ⲟ: ⲃⲁⲗ for ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; ⲗⲁⲃ for ⲉⲣⲟϥ; ⲟ for ⲱ: ϩⲟⲃ for ϩⲱⲃ; ⲗⲟⲙⲓ for ⲗⲱⲙⲓ (= ⲡⲱⲙⲓ : ⲣⲱⲙⲉ). In consonants it has two very marked features, the substitution of ⲗ for ⲣ, as ⲉⲗ, ⲉⲗⲉ, ⲗⲉⲡ; ϣⲏⲗⲓ for ⲉⲣ, ⲉⲣⲉ, &c., and of ⲃ for final ϥ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲃ for ⲛⲧⲟϥ.

A considerable amount of this version still probably remains unpublished, but specimens may be discovered in the following:

1. Giorgi. Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis &c. (_see_ p. 128) contains 1 Cor. ix. 9-16.

2. Zoega. Catalogus &c. (_See_ p. 102.)

3. Engelbreth. Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Havniae, 1811.

4. Maspero. Recueil, 11 (1889), p. 116.

5. Mittheilungen, i. p. 69. Matt. xi. 27.

6. Mittelaegyptische Bibelfragmente, in Études Archéologiques Linguistiques et Historiques dédiées à M. le Dr. C. Leemans. Leide, 1885. (But perhaps this and 4 may be more correctly classed as Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic.)

On this version Bishop Lightfoot wrote: “As the Bashmuric is a secondary version, it has no independent value, and is only useful in passages where the Sahidic is wanting.” This opinion would hardly represent the present position. That the Sahidic and Fayoum versions are not independent is quite true, but the relation of them to one another is much more that they are different forms of the same version, of which on the whole perhaps the Fayoum represents the older and more primitive text.]

[(5) The Middle Egyptian(116) or Lower Sahidic Version.]

[It has already been explained that documents found on the site of Memphis exhibit a dialect different in some respects from any of those that we have yet considered. In this also fragments have been found of a translation of the New Testament.

The dialect shows a combination of Sahidic and Bohairic forms. It has ⲓⲱⲧ for Sah. ⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲙⲉⲧⲓⲱⲧ for ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲏⲥ for ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ; ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ; ϣⲧⲱⲣⲓ for ϣⲧⲱⲣⲉ. It agrees again with the Fayoum dialect (which is generally considered a variety of it) in its affection for ⲁ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲕ, and apparently in using ⲗ for ⲣ, but only occasionally.

The following specimen from Rom. xi. 31-36 will exhibit the character of the dialect and the version: the Sahidic is taken from the Borgian fragment published by Amélineau, Z. A. S. 25, 1887, p. 49; the Middle Egyptian from “Mittheilungen,” ii. p. 69.

MIDDLE EGYPTIAN. SAHIDIC. xi. 31. ⲧⲉⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲉⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ ⲉⲗⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ ⲉⲡⲉⲧ_ⲛ_ⲛⲁ · ⲣ ⲁⲧ ⲛⲁϩ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛⲏⲩ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ 32. _ⲙⲛ_ⲛⲥⲟⲥ · ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲱⲥ ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲡⲧ ⲟⲩⲁⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲩ ⲉⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲟⲩ ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲙⲛⲧⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ : ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ : 33. ⲱ ⲡϣⲱⲕ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ ⲱ ⲡϣⲓⲕⲉ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ ⲙⲁⲟ · _ⲙⲛ_ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ · _ⲙⲛ_ ⲙⲁⲟ ⲙⲛ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡ_ⲫϯ_ · ⲛⲑⲏ ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲑⲏ ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲉⲩϣⲙⲁϣⲧ ⲛⲉϩⲉⲡ ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲙⲉϣⲧ ⲛⲉϥϩⲁⲡ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ · ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲉⲛ ⲁⲧⲧⲉⲛⲗⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲁⲩⲓ · ⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ 34. ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲙⲓ ⲉⲡ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲡ ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡ_ⲟⲥ_ · ⲡⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ · ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ 35. ⲥⲉ ⲃⲓⲏ_ⲧϥ_ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ ⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲉⲓⲁⲧϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛⲗⲉϥ ⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛⲣⲉϥ ϫⲓϣⲁϫⲛⲓ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ ϫⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ · ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲗⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛϣⲁⲣⲉⲡ · ⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ 36. ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲉϥⲧⲟⲩⲓⲁ ⲛⲏϥ · ϫⲉ ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲟ ⲛʁϥ · ϫⲉ ⲡⲩⲏ_ⲣϥ_ _ϩⲛ_ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲁϥ ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲁ ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲟ ⲁ_ⲧϥ_ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲧϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲗⲁϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛ_ϩ_ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ. ϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ.

Specimens of this version may be found in—

1. Mémoires de l’Institut égyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant.

2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69.

3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie, Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1.

4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments recently acquired by the British Museum.

The lines between this dialect and version and that of the Fayoum are not, however, clearly defined, and further research may make it necessary to rearrange the different specimens mentioned in this and the preceding sections.

Textually the version is of equal value with that of the Fayoum, that is, it represents another tradition of the version of Upper Egypt, of which Sahidic was the most important representative.]

[(6) The Akhmîm Dialect.]

[It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our discussion of the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of the Akhmîm dialect. It certainly represents the language in an older form than any other dialect we have examined; unfortunately such a very small fragment of the New Testament version exists that its importance at present can hardly be estimated.

The Akhmîm dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal and Biblical fragments published by M. Bouriant (Mémoires, i. p. 243), and has the following characteristics. In its vowels its affinities are nearest to the Middle Egyptian; it has ⲁ for ⲟ, ⲁⲩ for ⲟⲟⲩ, and ⲉ for ⲁ. It does not use ⲗ for ⲣ. Like the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final ⲉ, but not ⲫ, ⲑ, ⲭ for ⲡϩ, ⲧϩ, ⲕϩ. It also has some Bohairic forms, such as ⲛⲟⲩ, ⲁⲣⲉ, ⲁϥ. In the vowels it has the following peculiarities: ⲁ for ⲉ (Sah.), ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ, ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ, ⲁⲣⲁⲕ, ⲁⲃⲁⲗ; ⲓ or ⲉⲓ for ⲏ, ⲡⲓ (sun), ⲥⲙⲉⲓ, ⲧϩⲉⲓ; ⲟⲩ for ⲱ, ⲕⲟⲩ, ϫⲟⲩ, ⲥⲃⲟⲩ; ⲟ for ⲁⲩ, ⲛⲟ, ⲥⲛⲟ.

But its most distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter, [Symbol: Coptic “hori” glyph with additional stroke to lower left]: this may represent ϣ of other dialects; [Symbol: the new glyph] for ⲉϣ (to know), ⲉϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲁϣ; or ϫ as ⲧϩⲡⲟ [with the new glyph] for ϫⲡⲟ; or ϧ : ϩ, as ⲱⲛϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲱⲛϧ; ⲥϩⲉⲓ [with the new glyph] for ⲥϧⲁⲓ.

The textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small amount of material we possess, but there seems to be little doubt that it represents in a very early form the same version that we are acquainted with in Sahidic. Further discoveries in this dialect may do much to make us acquainted with the early history of the version of Upper Egypt.

Only two short fragments of this version are known, which have been edited by Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2). They are contained in a parchment MS. of very great antiquity (Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but this is certainly too early), and contain St. James iv. 12-13, St. Jude 17-20. The following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the similarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect.

AKHMIMIC. SAHIDIC. Jude 17. _ⲛⲛ_ϣⲉϫⲉ ⲙⲡ_ⲛ_ϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ _ⲓⲥ_ 17. ⲛⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ _ⲓⲥ_ ⲡ_ⲭⲥ_ ⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ_ⲭⲥ_ ⲛⲁⲓ _ⲛ_ⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲛ _ⲛ_ϩⲁⲣⲡ’ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ · ϫⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲓⲛ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ · ⲉⲃⲟⲗ 18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧϩⲁⲉⲓ 18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ _ϩⲛ_ ⲑⲁⲏ _ⲛⲛ_ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩ_ⲛ_ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ _ⲛⲛ_ⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁϩⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲟⲩ_ⲙⲡ_ⲧ’ ϩⲉ_ϥⲧ_ · ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲡⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ · 19. ⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ 19. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ ⲉ_ⲙⲛ_ⲧⲉⲩ ⲡ_ⲡⲛ_ⲁ ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲉ_ⲙⲛ_ⲧⲟⲩ ⲡ_ⲛ_ⲁ _ⲙ_ⲙ_ⲟ_ · 20. _ⲛ_ⲧⲱⲧⲛⲉⲇⲉⲛⲁ_ⲙⲣ_ⲣⲉ · _ⲙ_ⲙⲁⲩ · 20. _ⲛ_ⲧⲱ_ⲧⲛ_ⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁ · ⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ_ⲧⲛ_ ⲕⲱⲧ _ⲙ_ⲙⲱⲧ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ_ⲧⲛ_ ⲕⲱⲧ _ⲙ_ⲡⲱⲧⲉⲛ ... ⲛⲉ _ϩⲛ_ ⲧⲉ_ⲧⲛ_ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ _ⲙ_ⲡϣ_ⲁ_ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ _ϩⲙ_ ⲡ_ⲡⲛ_ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ

It has only been possible in the above account to give a rough outline of more recent discovery. Further investigation is necessary, and the lines which divide the different dialects, especially those between Fayoumic and Middle Egyptian, require to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped also from the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the monasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up some of their treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light. Enough has been written to suggest that discoveries of great interest for the life and character of early Egyptian Christianity have been made, and that much still remains to be found, which may indirectly throw a flood of light on the early history of Christianity as a whole(117).]