Egyp'tian (properly ''"i^'?, Jfitsri', AlyvTrrioc ; but often in the plur. as a rendering in the A. V. of a"'^:i'2, Effy^if), a native of tlie land of Egypt (q. v.) ; found in the sing. masc. (Gen. xxxix, 1, etc. ; Acts xxi, 38, etc.), fem. ni"i:iri (Gen. xvi, 1), plur. masc. Qi'irj^ (Gen. xii, 12, i4 ; Acts vii, 22, etc.), fem. n'nnili'C (Exod. i, 19). The Egyptian insurrectionist of Acts xxi, 38, seems to have been a mountebank (Y<'n](^, Josephus, Bar, ii, 13, 5), or pretended prophet (Ant. XX, 7, 6). See Paul. That countrj' was pro- verbial for such characters.
EGYPTIAN PLAGUES. See Plagues of Egypt.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS of the Holy Scrip- tures. After the death of Alexander the Great the Greeks multiplied in Eiypt, and obtained important places of trust near the throne of the Ptolemies. The Greek language accordinglj' began to dift'use itself from the court among the people, so that the proper language of the country was either forced to adapt it- self to the Greek both in construction and in the adop- tion of new words, or was entirely suspended. In this way originated the Coptic, compounded of the old Egyptian and the Greek. (See Tattam, Egyptian Grammar of the Coptic, Siihidic, and Bashmuric Ver- sions, 2d edit. Lond. 1863.) See Coptic Language. There is a version in the dialect of Lower Egypt usu- ally called the Coptic, or, better, the Memphitic version ; and there is another in the dialect of Upper Egypt, termed the Sahi.dic, and sometimes the Thebaic. See Davidson, Bibl. Criticism, ii, 206 sq. ; Scrivener, Introd. to N. T. p. 270 sq. ; Westcott, N.-T. Canon, p. 322 sq.
1. The Memphitic version of the Bilile. — The 0. T. in this version was made from the Septuagint and not from the original Hebrew. It would appear from Munter (Specim. rerss. Dan. Cpt. Romre, 1786) that the original was the Ilesychian recension of tlie Sept. then current in the count-y. There is little doubt that all the O.-T. books were translated, though m:iny of them have not yet been discovered. Although this version (not the Thebaic) seems to be that exclusively used
EHI
108
EHUD
in the public services of the Copt«, it was not known ill Europe till Dr. Marshall, of Lincoln College, con- tributed some readings from it to bishop Fell's New- Testament (Oxford, 1675). The Pentateuch has been published by "Wilkins (London, 17.'il, 4to), by FuUet (Paris, 1854 sq.), and liy De Lagarde (Leipz. 18G7, 8vo) ; the Psalms at Kome (1744 and 1749) by the Propaganda Society. In 1837 Ideler published the Psalter more correcth- ; and in 1844 the best critical edition, b}' Schwartze, appeared. The twelve minor prophets were publislied by Tattam (Oxon. 1836, 8vo), and the ni;:jor jirophets by the same (1852). Bardelli published Daniel (Pisa, 1849). A few pieces of other books were printed at different times bj' Mingarclli, Quatremcrc, and Munter. The N. T., made from the original Greek, was published bj- Wilkins, with a Lat- in translation (Oxford, 1716). In 1846 a new and more correct edition was begun by Schwartze, and con- tinued, but in a different manner, after his death, by BOtticher (1852, etc.). In 1848-52, the " Society foV promoting Christian Knowledge" published the N. T. in Memphitic and Arabic (Lond. 2 vols. fol.). The text was revised by Lieder. The readings of this ver- sion, as may be inferred from the place where it was made, coincide with the Alexandrine family, and de- serve the attention of the critic. Unfortunately, the version has not yet been adequately edited. It belongs perhaps to the 3d century. Sec Davidson, in Home's Jnirod. ii, 66.
2. The T/iehaic. — This version was also made from the Greek, both in the 0. and N. T., and probably in the 2d centurj'. Only some fragments of the O.-T. part have been printed by IVIiinter, ISIingarelli, and Zoega. In the N. T. it agrees generally', thougli not uniformly, with the Alexandrine fsimily. Not a few readings, however, are peculiar ; and some harmonize with the Latin versions. Fragments of it have been published by Mingarclli, Giorgi, Miinter, and Ford.
3. The Baskmin-ic, or Amraonian. — Only some frag- ments of such a version in the O. and N. T. have been published, and ver}' little is known concerning it. Scholars are not agreed as to the nature of the dialect in which it is written, some thinking that it does not deserve the name of a dialect, while others regard the Bashmuric as a kind of intermediate dialect Ijctween those spoken in Upper and Lower Egypt. Hug and De Wette are inclined to believe that it is merely the version of tapper Egypt transferred to the idiom of the particular place where the Bashmuric was spoken. The origin of this version belongs to the 3d or 4th century. See Tregelles, in Home's Introduct. iv, 287- 299. — kitto, s. V. See Veusions (of the Bible).
E'hi (Heb. Echi', "^HX, prob. a modified form of the name Am ; Sept. 'Ay^^i't; ; Vulg. Echi), one of the "sons"' of Benjamin (Gen. xlvi, 21), ajiparently the grandson called AiiiRAM (q. v.) in Num. xxvi, 38 (from which the name is perhaps contracted). In the parallel passage (1 Chron. viii, 6) he seems to be call- ed Ehitd (q. v.).
E'liud (Heb. Ehud' , "l^nx, union), the name of two or three Bcnjamites, and ajjparently hereditary in that tribe, like Gera (q. v.).