It wiB be evident from this brief study of the subject, that but little is known of Egyptian Christianity outside of Ale.xandria before the tune of Pachomius. The state of the Church in his time — the history and legends of the Diocletian persecution — the increase of the Egyptian epis- copate under Demetrius and Heraclas — suggest, but do not prove, that some time before the end of the 3rd cent, there was a considerable number of native Christians. They would soon feel the -leed of a translation of the Bible. Historical evidence, then, on the whole, points to the 3rd cent, as the period when the first Coptic transla- tion was made.f But this view can only be regarded as tentative. In the light of future discoveries it may have to be modified. This translation was most probably made, not in the neighbourliood of Alexandria, but in Middle or Upper Egypt. Here the native element was stronger than in the north ; and, as Greek was less spoken, the need for a translation would be more keenly felt. All the evidence that we possess at present goes to prove that Coptic literature, whether orthodox or heretical, took its rise in the south ; its development being assisted by the hatred felt towards the foreign or Greek element.ij
X Am^l. Actes des M. p. SO fl.
,3 lb. pp. 26, 30, 103, 219.
y Zoepi (Cat. pp. 237, 239) and Amillneaa (op. eit. pp. 89, 53 f.) apeak of the martyrdom of the bishops of Ptolemaia ana Ilermoiwlis Magna. Ara^lineau {op. cit. p. 47fT.) tells of the martyrdom of the bishop of Latopolis. Fisura and three other bishops (Zoega, Cat. p. 52; Hyvernat, Actes dfi M. i. p. 1 14 fl.), and the bishop of Prosopis in Lower Eg>'pt (Zoega, Cat. pp. 62, 133; Il^-vemat, Actei d«« it. i. p. 225 ff.), were also martyred. The bishop of Akinim fled (Amelineau, Actes deJi M. I). 32). The bishop of Lycopolis used the pereecution as a means of self-agfjrandisenient (Hyvernat, Acies det M. i. 260), and. aG(-ordintr to Athanasius '{Apol. e. Arianos, 69) and Socrates (HB, I. a), actually sacriflced.
i The era of the martyrs, on which Coptic chronolo^ is usually hosed, begins with A.D. 284, the year of the accession of Diocletian.
I See Am61. Vie de PakMme, Annala du ifO. xvii. pp. 2, 83!) ; Acta 88. Mai. xlT. Vit. Pach. Prolog.; of. aUo Mime, PL, Ixxiil. 231.
C Th« evidence of MS8 docs not help us much. Our oldest M98 are frapnentary, and their date a matter of uncertainty. But a Sahidic MS of part of 2 Th 3 (Kenyon, op. cit. plate xviii), and fragments in Old Middle Eg>-ptian"of Jnde (Crum, op. cit. plate 1, No. 2), and of the Minor Prophets (Krall, t'Ohrer, p. 33, Tufel iii.) take us back to the 4th or 5th cent«. Cf. also Stem, ZAS, l&Sfl, p. 135.
« Cf. Ouidi, Sachriehtn <on dtr K. O. d. W. tu Ofttinqen,
1SS9, No. 8, p. eot.
5. Greek Text implied by Versions.— All three versions of the NT must be more carefully edited before we can determine with certainty the underlying Greek text. The Sahidic NT contains some remarkable interpolations, usually classed as Western. Two striking ones are found in Lk. The parable of Dives and Lazarus begins thus in the Sahidic Bible : ' Now there was a certain rich man, whose name was (lit. is) Nineveh' (16'").o When Joseph had laid the body of Jesus in the tomb (23°^), the Sahidic adds : ' Now when he had laid him, he placed (or laid) a stone at the door of the sepulchre, which twenty men could not have rolled '/S (cf. Dc). Several interesting ' Western ' interpolations are found in the Acts. Three ex- amples may be quoted.7 After the words ' ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, the Sahidic has a strange gloss, ' but (dWi) untU Pentecost ' (1», cf. D). The negative form of the ' Golden Rule ' is placed at the end of the apostolic injunctions to Gentile converts (15«'-^, cf. D). After the vision of the man of Macedonia to St. Paul, the tenth verse of Ac 16 runs thus : • And when he had risen, he told us the vision. Straijjhtway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, telling (or showing) them that the Lord had called us for to preach unto them' (cf. D). On the other hand, several 'Western' interpola- tions, which we might have expected to find, are absent from the Sahidic.
The text of the Bohairie version, as is well known, corresponds in general with that of Codex Vaticanus. Whether it is yet more closely allied to the text used by Cyril of Alexandria is a matter which still remains to Ije determined. There can be but little doubt that in their original form both the Bohairie and Sahidic were free from ' Antiochian ' interpoli.tions. A collation of the versions in those parts of the NT, wliere all three are extant together, proves that the iliddle Egyptian is often closely related to the Sahidic. This is most clearly seen in the Pauline Epistles. Thus an examina- tion of the three versions in I Co proves that the Sahidic and Middle Egyptian are not entirely independent translations. Sometimes they are based on a ditierent Greek text from tluit which underlies the Bohairie. But, even when they are translating the same oririnal, their rendering ia often strikingly different from that of the Northern version. We may take 1 Co 15'-"'^ as an example. Here the Sah. and M.E. translations are practically identical : ' Hut S if Christ is preached that he rose from the dead, in what manner do some amon" you say that the dead do not rise? If the dead do not rise, then Clirist did not rise. If Christ did not rise, then is our preaching vain, and vain is our c faith also.' J" The Boh. translation is not so free : ' But if Christ is preached that he was raised from the dead, how (iruit) do some among you say that there is no resurrection (di-iiffTatris) of the deadi But if there is no resurrection (dfdirTaffis) of the dead, then not even (ovSi) was Christ raised. But if Christ was not raised, then (ioa) vain is our preachin", vain also is your faith.' ij This instance — and it is one among many — shows us that the Sah. and M.E. must in some way be related to one another. A cursory examination might suggest that they are practically the same version,