The Berlin-strasbourg Apocryphon: A Coptic Apostolic Memoir (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161551062, 9783161551079, 3161551060

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

370

Alin Suciu

The Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon A Coptic Apostolic Memoir

Mohr Siebeck

Alin Suciu, born 1978; holds a PhD degree in Religious Studies from Université Laval, Québec (2013); former research fellow at the Hiob Ludolf Centre for Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg (2013–2014); since 2015, senior researcher at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-155107-9 ISBN 978-3-16-155106-2 ISSN  0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Times New Roman typeface, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgments Although the dissertation upon which this book is based was written within a relatively short period of time, its production lasted nearly seven years. Throughout this period, I received encouragement and guidance from many scholars. My professors from Laval University, Québec – especially my doctoral advisor, Paul-Hubert Poirier, and the co-advisors, Louis Painchaud and Wolf-Peter Funk – offered me constant scholarly support. During my stay in Québec (2005–2009), we often discussed issues related to my thesis and we also enjoyed wonderful moments together outside of the university setting. In the same period, I presented different parts of my work at the meetings of the Groupe de recherche sur le christianisme et l’Antiquité tardive (GRECAT) and those of the Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi research group, where I received many useful suggestions and insights from the other members of the Laval crew: Michel Roberge, Anne Pasquier, Tuomas Rasimus, Eric Crégheur, Steve Johnston, Serge Cazelais, and Julio Cesar Dias Chaves. I am also grateful to Pierluigi Piovanelli (University of Ottawa) and to André Gagné (Concordia University, Montreal), who were members of the doctoral commission, for their pertinent comments. After my move to Finland in 2009, my wife, Päivi Vähäkangas, and the other colleagues in the Department of Biblical Studies of the University of Helsinki granted me their generous support. I learned a great deal from the contributions of Antti Marjanen, Ismo Dunderberg, Ulla Tervahauta, Elina Perttilä, Minna Heimola, Ivan Miroshnikov, Outi Lehtipuu, and Pia ­McKeown. During 2012–2014, I was a research fellow at the Hiob Ludolf Centre for Ethiopian Studies in Hamburg. I feel particularly indebted to the director of the institute, Alessandro Bausi, for hosting me there, and to Maija Priess for initiating me into the study of Ethiopic. Bausi and Harrassowitz publishing house, who edit Aethiopica. International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies, also kindly allowed me to use several pages from an article published in this journal in Chapter 4 of the present book. I am also grateful to several other scholars who helped me in various ways during all these years. Anne Boud’hors (CNRS, Paris) has always shown

VI

Acknowledgments

interest in my work, encouraging me and supporting me with her knowledge. Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), who has done more than anyone else to advance our knowledge of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon, kindly suggested to me some corrections of the Coptic text and possible restorations of lacunae. Christian Askeland (Indiana Wesleyan University), Jacques van der Vliet (Leiden University), and Tony Burke (York University) also helped improve parts of the book. I am thankful to Janet Johnson (University of Chicago) for sending me a copy of George R. Hughes’ unpublished translation of the Qasr el-Wizz codex, to Christian Greco (currently manager of the Egyptian Museum in Turin), who kindly put at my disposal the complete list of Egyptian antiquities (including pottery, metal objects, manuscripts, and other artifacts) acquired by the Rijksmuseum in Leiden from Karl J. Möger between 1959 and 1984, and to those who sent me transcriptions or photographs of Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic manuscripts: Adam McCollum (University of Vienna), Fr. Awad Wadi of the Franciscan Center in Cairo, brother Wadid of the Monastery of St. Macarius in Wadi el-Natrun, and Gesa Schenke (Oxford University). While revising the manuscript for this book, I received generous help and support from my colleagues and friends at the Göttingen Academy and the University of Göttingen: Frank Feder, Diliana Atanassova, Ulrich Schmidt, Heike Behlmer, Malte Rosenau, Theresa Kohl, Felix Albrecht, Troy Griffitts, and Uwe-Karsten Plisch. My wife and daughter, Päivi and Elsa, also deserve a special mention for all their love, encouragement of my work, and their confidence in me. Finally, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Tito Orlandi (Rome/Hamburg) and to Enzo Lucchesi, whose knowledge of Coptic literature remains a beacon to aspire to, for reasons too many to mention. Therefore, I dedicate the present research to these two brilliant scholars.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A New Ancient Gospel? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Other Documents Emerge: The Strasbourg Fragments and the Qasr el-Wizz Codex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Reframing the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 P. Berol. 22220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location and Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origin of P. Berol. 22220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paleography and Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scribal note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Codicology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strasbourg Copte 5–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location and Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papyrological Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paleography and Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Qasr el-Wizz Codex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discovery and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content of the Codex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description and Dating of the Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 26 29 30 34 35 38 39 39 39 40 41 42 42 43 45

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon and the Relationship Between the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Outline of the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship between the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship between P. Berol. 22220 and Strasbourg Copte 5–7 . . The Relationship between the Strasbourg Fragments and the Qasr el-Wizz Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship between P. Berol. 22220 and the Qasr el-Wizz Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Qasr el-Wizz Version of the Hymn of the Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Placing P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Placing Strasbourg Copte 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48 55 55 56 58 61 65 66

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon in Coptic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 “We, the Apostles.”The Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon and Other Similar Coptic Stories Attributed to the Apostles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . “O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”: Apostles, Martyrs, and Monks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Literary and Liturgical Function of the Coptic Memoirs of the Apostles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Local Egyptian Character of the Apostolic Memoirs . . . . . . . . . . . Dating the Apostolic Memoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 108 121 125 128

The Christology of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon: Christ as King and Son of the King. The Dating of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Edition of P. Berol. 22220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Edition of Strasbourg Copte 5–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Edition of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex 165 Translation of P. Berol. 22220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Translation of Strasbourg Copte 5–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Translation of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Table of Contents

IX

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Greek-Coptic Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Coptic Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Conjugation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Pronominal PTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

207 207 210 210 220 222 224 232 237

List of Abbreviations BHG BHO CAVT CANT CMCL CPG

CSCO EMML PG

F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca 3 vols. (3rd edition; Subsidia Hagiographica, 8a; Brussels: Societé des Bollandistes, 1957). Paul Peeters, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis (Subsidia Hagiographica, 10; Brussels: Societé des Bollandistes, 1910). Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1998). Maurice Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1992). Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari (available online at http://www.cmcl.it/; retrieved October 12, 2016). M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum: qua optimae quaeque scriptorum patrum graecorum recensiones a primaevis saeculis usque ad octavum commode recluduntur 5 vols. (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1974–1987); supplemented in M. Geerard – J. Noret, Clavis Patrum Graecorum: Supplementum (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1998). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library. J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca (Paris).

For the reconstruction of the White Monastery codices I have adopted the sigla established by the CMCL project. According to this system, each reconstructed codex is designated by the abbreviation MONB (= “Monastero Bianco”), followed by two letters of the Latin alphabet (e. g. MONB.AA, MONB.AB, MONB.AC etc.). I have also referred to the identification numbers of the literary works preserved in Coptic according to CMCL’s “clavis coptica” (= Clavis Patrum Copticorum).

Introduction Although Coptic literature is in many regards similar to the religious literature transmitted into other languages of Eastern Christianity, there is something that singles it out as being in a class of its own. Thus, while Coptic manuscripts are of venerable age, most of them dating from the first Christian millennium, they are heavily damaged, so much so that they are often reduced to mere fragments. Consequently, the Coptologist has not only the painstaking task of solving a puzzle with many pieces missing, but also of identifying the literary works preserved by the debris of dismembered manuscripts. Not surprisingly, examples of misidentifications or misattributions of fragments are not few. Paul Devos, one of the most accomplished scholars of Coptic hagiography, once wrote about the challenges encountered by the Coptologists dealing with fragmentary manuscripts: What allows someone to distinguish beforehand a hagiographic work from a piece related to preaching, a sermon from an epistle or, again, an apocryphal writing from a simple homily? What at first sight seemed to come from an apocryphal gospel, did it not prove to belong to a discourse? Conversely, what seemed to derive, because of the tenure and form, from a homiletic writing, did it not appear to belong to an apocryphal legend or to the biography of some monk? The list of misunderstandings will not close very soon.1

The Coptic writing examined in this book has suffered a similar fate. The text is an apocryphal story of Jesus and the apostles, placed shortly before the Passion. At a certain point in the narrative occurs a long hymn sung by Christ to the cross on which he will shortly be crucified, while the apostles dance and answer “Amen.” The work is transmitted in the debris of two Sahidic manuscripts. The first is a fragmentary parchment manuscript held in the Papyrussammlung of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin (P. Berol. 22220), which was published for the first time in 1999 by Charles W. Hedrick and

1 P. Devos, “Introduction,” in E. Lucchesi, Répertoire des manuscrits coptes (sahidiques) publiés de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris (Cahiers d’orientalisme, 1; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1981) 10 (my translation).

2

Introduction

Paul A.  Mirecki.2 The second manuscript, which consists of numerous small papyrus fragments, is preserved in the National and University Library in Strasbourg as Copte inv. no. 5–7. These papyrus fragments have been known for a long time under the generic title the “Strasbourg Coptic Gospel.”3 The manuscripts have been studied separately until Stephen Emmel identified them as two witnesses of the same work.4 Finally, another parchment manuscript, discovered in 1965 at Qasr el-Wizz, in Nubia, contains an abbreviated and redacted version of the Hymn of the Cross.5 As the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts are fragmentary, the title of the text has not survived. Furthermore, the recension of the hymn in the Qasr el-Wizz codex is untitled. The subtitles which appear in this manuscript – “the second hymn (ὕμνος) of the cross” and “the fourth dance (χορεία) of the cross,” the former being partly recoverable also in the Berlin parchment – refer only to the textual divisions of the hymn and cannot be extrapolated to the entire work. Because of the title conventionally assigned to P. Berol. 22220 in the editio princeps, the text is largely known today as the Gospel of the Savior.6 The title in question suggests – with little accompanying evidence – that the text is an apocryphal gospel possibly bypassed in the formation of the canon of the Christian scriptures. However, as this possi C. W. Hedrick – P. A. Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel (California Classical Library; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1999). 3  A. Jacoby, Ein neues Evangelienfragment (Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner, 1900). 4 S. Emmel, “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium = The Strasbourg Coptic Gospel: Prolegomena to a New Edition of the Strasbourg Fragments,” in H.-G. Bethge et al. (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruction. Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Ocassion of the Berliner Arbeitkreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 54; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002) 353–374; Idem, “The ‘Gospel of the Savior’: A New Witness to the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel,” Bulletin de l’AELAC 12 (2002) 9–12. 5 Editio princeps in P. Hubai, A Megváltó a keresztről. Kopt apokrifek Núbiából (A Kasr el-Wizz kódex) (Cahiers patristiques. Textes coptes; Budapest: Szent István társulat, 2006). German translation of the Hungarian version in Idem, Koptische Apokryphen aus Nubien. Der Kasr el-Wizz Kodex (Texte und Untersuchungen, 163; Berlin – New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 2009). 6 On the arguments in favor of this title see Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 17. Another early Christian writing, preserved in a single Greek fragment from Oxyrhynchus, has received the same title from its latest editor, albeit it does not have any literary connection with our text, see M. J. Kruger, The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P. Oxy. 840 and Its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity (Texts and Editions for New Testament Study, 1; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2005). This papyrus fragment (P. Oxy. 840) was edited for the first time by C. Wessely, Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme écrits sur papyrus vol. 2 (Patrologia Orientalis, 18/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1924) 488–490 [264]-[266]. 2

Introduction

3

bility is subject to serious caveats, the title Gospel of the Savior should be avoided altogether. In German publications the text is usually called the “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium,” in reference to the location of the Berlin manuscript. However, this label too is problematic, as not only also implies that the text is a gospel, but, given that the Strasbourg fragments belong to the same work, it is now obsolete. Other tentative identifications of the Berlin parchment, like the Gospel of Peter (Hans-Martin Schenke),7 the Gospel of Andrew (UweKarsten Plisch),8 and the Gospel of the Twelve (Stephen Emmel, Christoph Markschies),9 have not received widespread support from scholars. The titles that have been ascribed to Strasbourg Copte 5–7 are equally problematic. Walter E. Crum called them the “Strassburg Gospel Fragments.”10 The title of the editio princeps, “A New Gospel Fragment,” is also based on the assumption that they belong to an apocryphal gospel.11 Although various attributions have been proposed for the Strasbourg fragments – Gospel of the Egyptians (Adolf Jacoby),12 Gospel of the Ebionites (Carl Schmidt and Theodor Zahn),13 and Gospel of the Twelve (Eugène Revillout)14 – none of them is supported by evidence. A more satisfactory title is the one given by the Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari (= CMCL) project, directed by Tito Orlandi (Rome/Hamburg). In the CMCL database, our text is called Apocryphon Berolinense/ Apocryphon Argentoratense. This title, coined after the location of the two manuscripts, has the advantage of integrating the text into the more capa“Das sogenannte ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE),” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 2 (1998) 199–213.  8  U.-K. Plisch, “Zu einigen Einleitungsfragen des Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums (UBE),” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 64–84.  9 S. Emmel, “Ein altes Evangelium der Apostel taucht in Fragmenten aus Ägypten und Nubien auf,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 85–99, at 95; C. Markschies, “Was wissen wir über den Sitz im Leben der apokryphen Evangelien?,” in J. Frey – J. Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen. Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach‑ und Kulturtraditionen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 254; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 61–90, at 71, 82. 10 W. E. Crum, “Notes on the Strassburg Gospel Fragments,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 22 (1900) 72–76. 11  Jacoby, Evangelienfragment. 12  Jacoby, Evangelienfragment, 27–30. 13  C. Schmidt, review of Jacoby, Evangelienfragment, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 162 (1900) 481–506, at 500–503; T. Zahn, “Neue Funde aus der alten Kirche,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 11 (1901) 347–370, 431–450, at 366–368. 14 E. Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes I: Les Évangiles des douze apôtres et de Saint Barthélemy (Patrologia Orientalis, 2/2; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904).  7 H.-M. Schenke,

4

Introduction

cious genre of apocryphal writings.15 Thus, unless the title of the writing is recovered one day, the most convenient name for the text is the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon, abbreviated henceforth BSApo. Although Hedrick and Mirecki’s edition of P. Berol. 22220 has now been superseded, their evaluation of the text as a previously unknown ancient Christian gospel continues to dominate the perception of the BSApo in scholarship. For example, at the end of 2012 appeared post-mortem Hans-Martin Schenke’s German translation of the Berlin manuscript in the first volume of the revised edition of Hennecke and Schneemelcher’s ancient Christian apocrypha collection, which comprises gospels and related writings.16 Similarly, a new English translation of the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts has appeared in a popular collection of apocryphal gospels prepared by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše.17 The present book, which is an improved version of the dissertation which I defended in June 2013 at the Faculté de théologie et des sciences religieuses, Laval University, Québec, approaches the BSApo from the angle of Coptic literature. The book also includes a new edition and translation of the text. The evidence that the BSApo does not belong to the context of early Christian gospels, but to that of post-Chalcedonian Coptic literature, is set out in the four chapters of the introduction. The first chapter is dedicated to previous research on the BSApo. As this chapter will show, the announcement concerning the imminent publication of the Berlin manuscript by Hedrick and Mirecki was leaked into the media, which exploited the so-called Gospel of the Savior in a sensationalist fashion. As to the scholarly publications, most of them endorsed uncritically Hedrick and Mirecki’s early dating of the text and its identification as an apocryphal gospel. The next two chapters concern the manuscripts and the relationships between them. Thus, chapter 2 offers a detailed paleographical and codicological inspection of the manuscript evidence. This chapter includes descriptions of P. Berol. 22220, Strasbourg Copte 5–7, and of the Qasr elWizz codex, an overview of their publication history, and observations on 15  http://cmcl.it/ (retrieved October 12, 2016). The text can be found in the CMCL’s Clavis Patrum Copticorum (= clavis coptica) under the number 0870. 16 H.-M. Schenke, “Das Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium, auch ‘Evangelium des Erlösers’ genannt,” in C. Markschies – J. Schröter (eds.), Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung vol. 1/2: Evangelien und Verwandtes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 1277–1289. 17  B. D. Ehrman – Z. Pleše, The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 217–225. This is an enriched edition of B. D. Ehrman – Z. Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), but without the original Greek, Latin, and Coptic texts.

Introduction

5

their possible dating on the basis of paleographical comparisons with other Coptic manuscripts. Chapter 3 documents the parallels between the Berlin and Strasbourg witnesses of the text. Here, I also provide arguments that the Hymn of the Cross in the Qasr el-Wizz codex, much of which is recoverable in the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts, although sometimes in a different order, contains an abbreviated and redacted version of the Hymn of the Cross in the BSApo. Chapter 4, the core of the book, inserts the BSApo into the post-Chalcedonian Egyptian setting. This chapter tries to penetrate the cloak of complexity which covers the Coptic apostolic memoirs, a group of apocryphal texts to which the BSApo also belongs.18 The writings included in this literary genre consist of narratives and revelation dialogues between Jesus and his disciples on various topics related to Coptic religious festivals. An original feature of these texts is that the apostles write down the dialogue in the first person plural in a book which they deposit in a library in Jerusalem. Sometimes, the texts mention that the alleged apostolic writing was discovered by one of the fathers of the Coptic church, who transcribed and included it in a sermon delivered for a specific religious festival. The memoirs of the apostles treat different topics – usually of hagiographic nature – from the enthronement of angelic beings (such as the archangels Michael and Gabriel, the Four Bodiless Creatures, and Abbaton, the Angel of Death), to accounts of New Testament figures like Jesus’ parents, Mary Magdalene, Gamaliel, and Pilate (who is regarded as a saint in Coptic sources). The birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are also among the favorite topics of the memoirs. It becomes apparent that, by attributing these texts to the apostles and, at the same time, to the church fathers, their authors tried to confer on them double authority, both apostolic and patristic. While many of the apostolic memoirs have survived in Coptic, some of them are no longer extant in this language. Thus, some apostolic books are preserved only in Arabic and Ethiopic (Gǝʿǝz), but they are arguably based on lost, or not yet identified, Coptic originals. As the BSApo has clear literary connections to the corpus of apostolic memoirs, in the same chapter I will make an inventory of these pseudepigraphic writings and briefly review them and the manuscripts in which they are preserved. The Coptic apostolic books can be broadly divided into two categories: memoirs included in a patristic homily and memoirs without a homiletic framework. 18 The label “memoirs of the apostles” was applied to these texts by P. Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever: Dancing and Singing with Jesus in the Gospel of the Savior and the Dance of the Savior around the Cross,” Early Christianity 3 (2012) 229–248, at 238.

6

Introduction

1) 18 apostolic memoirs embedded in a pseudo-patristic sermon: Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ (CPG 3604; clavis coptica 0113), Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On Mary Magdalene (CANT 73; clavis coptica 0118), Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life of the Virgin (clavis coptica 0005), Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Dormition of the Virgin (no clavis number), Ps.-Bachios of Maiuma, On the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace (clavis coptica 0068), Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, On the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt (no clavis number), Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, On the Dormition of the Virgin (CANT 147, 153), Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Lament of Mary (CANT 74), Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Martyrdom of Pilate (CANT 75), Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis, On the Archangel Gabriel (clavis coptica 0045), Ps.-Basil of Caesarea, On the Building of the Church of the Virgin (CPG 2970; clavis coptica 0073), Ps.-John Chrysostom, On the Four Bodiless Creatures (CPG 5150.11; clavis coptica 0177), Ps.John Chrysostom, On the Archangel Michael (no clavis number), Ps.-John Chrysostom, On John the Baptist (CPG 5150.3; CANT 184; clavis coptica 0170), Ps.-John Chrysostom, Revelation on the Mount of Olives, 40 Days after the Resurrection (no clavis number), Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin (no clavis number), Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On the Archangel Michael (CPG 2529; clavis coptica 0404), Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On Abbaton (CPG 2530; clavis coptica 0405), Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin (CPG 7153; clavis coptica 0385); 2) nine apostolic memoirs without a homiletic framework: History of Joseph the Carpenter (BHO 532–533; CANT 60; clavis coptica 0037), Enthronement of Michael (clavis coptica 0488), Enthronement of Gabriel (clavis coptica 0378), Mysteries of John (clavis coptica 0041), Book of Bartholomew (CANT 80; clavis coptica 0027), Discourse of the Savior (the Stauros-text) (no clavis number), Ps.-Evodius, On the Dormition of the Virgin (CANT 133; clavis coptica 0151), Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 1 (clavis coptica 0149), Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 2 (CANT 81; clavis coptica 0150); Additionally, at least three texts seemingly belong to the genre of apostolic memoirs, but as they have survived fragmentarily, we cannot decide whether they belonged to the first or to the second category: a Miaphysite Christological extract, a Sahidic fragment discovered at a monastery from Bala’izah in Upper Egypt, and the BSApo. The parallels between these three texts, especially the BSApo, and the other apostolic memoirs will be documented in Chapter 4. At least one text in the list above requires further explanation. In the sermon of Ps.-Bachios of Maiuma about the Three Children, the author

Introduction

7

claims that he received from the Babylonian Christians an old book in which Jechonias relates, as an eyewitness, the lives of Ananias, Azarias and Misael.19 Jechonias is the Israelite king who reigned for only three months, before Nebuchadnezzar deported him to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:9), just like Daniel and his three companions. Said to be one of Christ’s ancestors in the Davidic line (Matthew 1:11), he may have sparked the imagination of the Egyptian Christians because of the confusion with Joachaz-Jechonias, who died in Egypt according to 2 Kingdoms 23:34. Thus, although this homily is not an apostolic memoir per se, Ps.-Bachios uses a similar literary strategy to legitimize the text. Moreover, Bachios is invoked in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s homily On the Life and the Passion of Christ as the one who deciphers an apostolic memoir written by the apostle Peter. This further supports the inclusion of the text attributed to him in the same category. Although some of apostolic memoirs are framed by a pseudo-patristic sermon whereas others are not, it can vigorously be affirmed that they all belong to the same cycle as their numerous literary parallels suggest. For example, the synopsis below shows some structural parallels between three memoirs embedded in a sermon and three without homiletic framework. I. Introduction. Ps.-Chrysostom, On the Four Bodiless Creatures:

“It happened one day when we, the apostles, were gathered on the Mount of Olives that, behold, the Savior came mounted on the cherubs.”20

Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On Abbaton:

“It happened that as our Savior, the entire root of Goodness, was finishing everything, that the day of his ascension has been completed for him to go up to his Father, he raised his hand over each one of his holy apostles.”21

Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis, On Gabriel:

“It happened while the holy apostles were sitting on the Mount of Olives, our God Christ appeared to them and taught them great hidden mysteries.”22

19  U. Zanetti, “Le roman de Bakhéos sur les trois jeunes saints de Babylone. Fragments coptes sahidiques,” in B. Janssens et al. (eds.), Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 137; Louvain: Peeters, 2004) 713–747, at 718. 20 Translation from L. Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica from the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (CSCO, 524–525. Scriptores coptici, 43–44; Louvain: Peeters, 1991) 2: 32. 21  Translation from I. Saweros – A. Suciu, “The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death. A New Translation and Introduction,” in T. Burke – B. Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha. More Noncanonical Scriptures vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016) 536. 22 My translation of the Bohairic text in H. de Vis, Homélies coptes de la Vaticane vol. 2 (Coptica, 5; Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Roghandel-Nordisk Forlag, 1929) 249–250.

8

Introduction

Enthronement of Michael:

“It happened when the good Savior came on the Mount of Olives, he with his disciples and holy apostles sat there for many days, teaching them about the creation of heaven and earth and the creation of the eons of light.”23

Enthronement of Gabriel:

“It happened when the apostles gathered with our Savior, the king of life and peace, in order to ask from him about the assurance of everything, about the limit of the eons of light.”24

Discourse of the Savior (the Stauros-text):

“My beloved, it happened one day, while our Savior was sitting on the Mount of Olives, four days before he was taken up to heavens, while his apostles gathered with him. He told them the incomprehensible mysteries.”25

II. An apostle (Peter or Thomas) questions Christ concerning the specific topic of the memoir. Ps.-Chrysostom, On the Four Bodiless Creatures:

Thomas, “My Lord, my God, and my Savior, why did you reveal to us all the mysteries, those of heaven and those of the earth, and did not hide anything from us? Why then, O our Lord, have you not revealed to us the mystery of these four creatures? … We want you to reveal their names to us and on what day you established them so that we might preach them in the entire world.”26

Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On Abbaton:

Peter, “My Lord and my God, behold, you have informed us about everything that we asked from you and you have not hidden anything from us. Now then, my Lord and my God, behold, you are sending us to the whole world to proclaim your holy resurrection to all nations … Now then, my Lord, we would like you to inform us about the day when you established Abbaton, the Angel of Death.”27

Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis, On Gabriel:

Peter, “My good Savior, you made us hear hidden words filled with life by informing us about all those things that will happen. Therefore, I want, O my Lord, that you inform me and my fellow-apostles who are these two youth with a very beautiful face that follow your Lordship?”28

Enthronement of Michael:

Peter, “O my Lord, there is a little word on my heart that I want to ask.”29

23  My translation of the Sahidic text in C. D. G. Müller, Die Bücher der Einsetzung der Erzengel Michael und Gabriel 2 vols. (CSCO, 225–226. Scriptores coptici, 31–32; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962) 1: 2. 24  My translation of the Sahidic text in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 61. 25  Translation, with modifications, from P. C. Dilley, “The Discourse of the Savior and the Dance of the Savior,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 193. 26  Depuydt, Homiletica 2, 32–33. 27 Saweros – Suciu, “The Investiture of Abbaton,” 536. 28 My translation of the Bohairic text in de Vis, Homélies coptes 2, 250. 29 My translation of the Sahidic text in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 4.

Introduction

9

Enthronement of Gabriel:

Thomas, “O my Lord, there is a little word on my heart that I want to ask from you. … My Lord and my God, we want you to inform us how many angels lead the day and how many the night, and you inform us about the condition of each of them, so that we might preach their honor in the whole world, just as you revealed to us the day and the enthronement of the archangel Gabriel.”30

Discourse of the Savior (the Stauros-text):

Peter, “Our Lord and our God, and the Savior of the souls … You have revealed to us all the mysteries, and also now, may you reveal to us the mystery which we will ask you … Our Lord, and our God, and our Savior, we want you to tell us the mystery of the cross … so that we will hear from you concerning it, and preach it in the whole world.”31

III. Christ commissions the apostles to proclaim in the whole world what he just revealed to them. Ps.-Chrysostom, On the Four Bodiless Creatures:

“Now then (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ), O my brethren, my beloved ones, preach to the entire world and let them make offerings and do charity in their names.”32

Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On Abbaton:

“Now then (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ), O my holy apostles, behold, I informed you how my Father made Abbaton frightful and disturbing … Proclaim him to all humanity.”33

Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis, On Gabriel: Missing

Enthronement of Michael:

“Now then (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ), O my disciples, arise and go out to the world and proclaim the four gospels and their sweet teachings, the ones that I told you.”34

Enthronement of Gabriel:

“Now then (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ), O my blessed disciples, go out in the whole world and gather my scattered sheep, take them and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”35

Discourse of the Savior (the Stauros-text):

“Now then (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ), O my holy members, go and proclaim to the whole world, so that they will follow the cross, so that they will possess this great glory on the day which is under that fear.”36

The parallels supplied above show that these six apostolic memoirs were seemingly written following a certain pattern, albeit they otherwise differ in detail.  My translation of the Sahidic text in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 62.  Dilley, “Discourse of the Savior,” 193. 32  Depuydt, Homiletica 2, 35. 33 Saweros – Suciu, “The Investiture of Abbaton,” 542. 34 My translation of the Sahidic text in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 59. 35  My translation of the Sahidic text in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 81. 36  Translation, with modifications, from Dilley, “Discourse of the Savior,” 194. 30 31

10

Introduction

Delimitating such a large corpus of writings necessitates some further clarifications. What exactly allows the historian of Coptic literature to include a certain text among the apostolic memoirs? As the label itself implies, the writing must claim to be an apostolic book written by the apostles and, most often than not, embedded in a sermon pronounced by a church father. Consequently, not every Coptic writing that includes apocryphal stories about Christ and the apostles falls into this category. For example, texts like Ps.-Severian of Gabala’s encomium on the twelve apostles (CPG 4281; clavis coptica 0331),37 Ps.-Chrysostom’s homily on the Resurrection and the apostles (CPG 5150.11; clavis coptica 0167),38 or the four homilies on the Passion (CPG 3598–3601; clavis coptica 0114–117) and the homily on the cross (CPG 3602; clavis coptica 0120),39 all attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, cannot be counted as apostolic memoirs. Although these texts are also Coptic apocrypha of the New Testament, and some of them even have literary connections with the memoirs, they do not claim to be authentic books penned by the apostles. Therefore, I would define the Coptic apostolic memoirs as writings probably composed directly in Coptic which use the first person plural narrative in order to convince the reader that they are authentic records of the apostles, and focus on specific issues connected to the Egyptian liturgical calendar. Their unity as a genre is ascertained by a whole string of literary commonalities, which include both thematic features and textual parallels. A remark is in order concerning the literary genre of the apostolic memoirs. Calling these texts either homilies or apocrypha seems to be ambiguous as the category “apocrypha” is often too rigidly delimitated in scholarship. The numerous manuscripts that preserve apostolic memoirs demonstrate that they were read during liturgy in the churches and monasteries of Egypt 37 This text is preserved in two recensions. The first one is attested only in Sahidic, see Michael E. Foat’s edition and translation in L. Depuydt (ed.), Encomiastica from the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (CSCO, 544–545. Scriptores coptici, 47–48; Louvain: Peeters, 1993) 1: 85–130 (Coptic text), 2: 65–101 (English translation). The second recension is attested in Sahidic, Bohairic, and Arabic. Only the Arabic version has been published until now, D. Righi, Severiano di Gabala, In apostolos: Clavis Coptica 0331 (CPG 4281) 2 vols. (Rome: C. I. M., 2004). On the differences between the two recensions and the apocryphal traditions they feature, see S. Voicu, “Pseudo Severiano di Gabala, Encomium in XII Apostolos (CPG 4281): Gli spunti apocrifi,” Apocrypha 19 (2008) 217–266. 38  Sahidic text edited and translated by Zlatko Pleše in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1: 56–76 (Sahidic text), 2: 57–80 (English translation). 39 On these and other similar pseudepigraphic homilies attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem in Coptic, see R. van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ. A Coptic Apocryphon (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 118; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2013) 71–111.

Introduction

11

throughout the Middle Ages. What I find relevant here is that, although the memoirs often claim to contain hidden mysteries revealed by Christ, they do not profess the teachings of a marginal Christian group; rather, they are meant to bolster the orthodox doctrines of the Egyptian church. As I will argue, some Coptic sources show signs of a conflict inside the Coptic church concerning the use of the apostolic memoirs. Nevertheless, the Egyptian monks continued to copy these untold stories about Jesus and the apostles, first in Coptic and, when this language came out of use, in Arabic. The endeavor to document the literary connections between the BSApo and the Coptic apostolic memoirs was made independently alongside my work by Joost Hagen. In 2010, while I was still working at my dissertation, Hagen published an important article, which is essential for anyone who wishes to comprehend this text.40 However, the limits of an article obliged Hagen to provide only a partial picture of the literary setting to which the BSApo belongs. Therefore, I felt that there was a need to go farther and offer a detailed account of the relationships between the BSApo and the other apostolic memoirs. As this book will show, the parallels are so clear and numerous that they leave little room to doubt that this is the context in which the BSApo must be included. Special attention will be given to two basic characteristics of the memoirs, which appear also in the BSApo: the first person plural narrative voice and the vocative “O my holy members,” a peculiar expression used by Jesus in addressing the apostles, rarely attested outside this category of texts. The literary analysis of the apostolic memoirs will reveal that they were composed in the cultural setting of post-Chalcedonian Egypt. As we will see, this provenance emerges plainly from their Christology, which bears the marks of the fifth century polemics concerning the person of Christ. In some memoirs, the Coptic Miaphysite position is clearly expressed, which indicates that they should be dated after the council of Chalcedon (451).

40 J. L. Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext für die Berliner und Straßburger ‘Evangelienfragmente.’ Das ‘Evangelium des Erlösers’ und andere ‘Apostelevangelien’ in der koptischen Literatur,” in Frey – Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 339–371.

Chapter 1

History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon A New Ancient Gospel? During the 1995 American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in Philadelphia, Charles W. Hedrick announced the discovery, in the papyrological collection of the Egyptian Museum in West Berlin, of a Coptic parchment manuscript (P. Berol. 22220) that presumably preserved an ancient Christian gospel.1 He reiterated the announcement at the 6th International Congress of Coptic Studies, which took place in Münster, July 20–26, 1996.2 At the Philadelphia meeting, Hedrick found out that another scholar, Paul A. Mirecki, was already working on the same manuscript. Thus, the editio princeps of P. Berol. 22220 was published conjointly by Hedrick and Mirecki a few years later.3 As the original title has not survived in the manuscript, but Christ is named “Savior” almost throughout the text, the editors called it conventionally the Gospel of the Savior.4 Already in the two preliminary reports, Hedrick underlined that the manuscript contains logia of Jesus, which do not follow literally those known from the New Testament. This feature may suggest, according to Hedrick, that P. Berol. 22220 does not draw on the canonical gospels but, rather, on the oral tradition of the sayings of Christ.5 Later, in the introduction to the editio princeps, Hedrick approximately dated the manuscript between the 1  C. W. Hedrick, “A Newly Discovered Gospel (Berlin MSS P22220) and the Early Christian Tradition,” in American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998) 381–382. 2 C. W. Hedrick, “A Preliminary Report on Coptic Codex P. Berol. Inv. 22220,” in S. Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit. Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.–26. Juli 1996, vol. 2: Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 6/2; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999) 127–130. 3  Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior. 4 With three exceptions, when Christ is called “Lord” (ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ), see P. Berol. 22220 97, col. A,32–col. B,1; 107, col. A,5, 12. 5 Hedrick, “Preliminary Report,” 130.

A New Ancient Gospel?

13

fourth and the seventh century, but, as for the writing itself, he postulated a lost Greek original, no later than the second half of the second century CE.6 This early dating would underline the importance of the text, which represents a product of proto-orthodox Christianity: the Gospel of the Savior was composed at a time when Christian oral traditions were still influential as written gospel texts. Thus the latest date for the composition of the Gospel of the Savior that best fits these conditions is the later half of the second century before the canonical gospels had consolidated their influence over the church and at which time the oral tradition remained a viable competitor to the written texts.7

In another contribution published a few years later, Hedrick expressed again the same view, emphasizing that the logia of P. Berol. 22220 are as venerable as those in the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.8 Apparently, Mirecki’s first conclusion after he checked the manuscript in Berlin was that the writing “is comprised of gospel-like material that was originally embedded in another text of a different genre, such as a homily or a letter.”9 However, the first editors of the Berlin manuscript have not explored further this possibility, but they rather favored the hypothesis that P. Berol. 22220 features a sayings gospel, perhaps punctuated by some narrative episodes.10 According to Hedrick, the original language of such a venerable document must necessarily be Greek. He tried to find arguments in this regard by underlining the “unusual use” of the verb ϣⲟⲣⲡ⸗.11 Thus, Hedrick stated that in P. Berol. 22220 110, col. B,13–15 the Coptic verb ϣⲱⲣⲡ, which normally means “to be early to/for,” renders here the metaphorical sense of the Greek ὀρθίζειν, “be eager” or “go eagerly.” However, Peter Nagel documented that this sense of the word was well known in Coptic, albeit Crum’s dictionary does not mention it.12 He has pointed out that, in conjunction with the preposition ⲉ‑ or ⲉⲣⲟ⸗, ϣⲟⲣⲡ⸗ sometimes translates the metaphorical meaning of ὀρθίζειν πρός τινα in the Sahidic version of the Bible. Consequently, its use

 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 2, 15. Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 23.  8 C. W. Hedrick, “An Anecdotal Argument for the Independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the Synoptic Gospels,” in Bethge et al. (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruction, 113–126, at 123.  9  Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 19. 10  Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 18–19. 11 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 12–13. 12 P. Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern vor der Auferstehung’ – zur Herkunft und Datierung des ‘Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums’,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (2003) 215–257, at 227–229.  6

 7 Hedrick –

14

Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

in P. Berol. 22220 does not necessarily imply that the work was translated from Greek.13 Immediately after the announcement concerning the rediscovery of the manuscript, and presumably because the label “ancient gospel” has been attached to it, discussions were stirred up both among scholars of early Christianity and the public at large.14 Henry W. Leathem Rietz wrote in a 1997 issue of the Religious Studies News: Fragments of a previously unknown Coptic gospel have been identified in a Berlin museum. Paul A. Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas, and Charles W. Hedrick, professor of religious studies at Southwest Missouri State University, announced in March their discovery of a previously unknown Christian gnostic gospel that provides an important witness to Jesus traditions and attests to the rich diversity of Christianity in the early period.15

The title Gospel of the Savior attracted rapidly the attention of mass media, which presented the new “gospel” as a sensational discovery. In a media report, Paul Mirecki stated that, “[t]his lost gospel presents us with more primary evidence that the origins of early Christianity were far more diverse than medieval church historians would tell us … Early orthodox histories denigrated and then banished from political memory the existence of these peaceful people and their sacred texts, of which this gospel is one.”16 In April 2006, when the National Geographic Society introduced the Gospel of Judas and the Tchacos codex, the Gospel of the Savior had already gained its place among early Christian apocryphal writings, being quoted in the list of texts that were bypassed during the formation of the New Testament canon. About the same period, Bart D. Ehrman remarked: “In the 1980s a book called the Gospel of the Savior turned up, which narrates Jesus’ last hours and his final words delivered … to the cross! And now there is the Gospel of Judas, another Gnostic dialogue that discusses the ‘secret revela13 Charles Hedrick has accepted Nagel’s arguments, although not his suggestion that the text was composed in Coptic, see C. W. Hedrick, “Dating the Gospel of the Savior: Response to Peter Nagel and Pierluigi Piovanelli,” Apocrypha 24 (2013) 223–236, at 224–225. 14  The public at large was informed via Reuters agency, which released a media announcement in March, 1997, stating that the text “probably belonged to one of the so-called Gnostic groups of the first or second century” (the words actually belong to the late William Brashear, at that time director of the Berlin Papyrussammlung), see M. Schmidt-Bleek, “Home of ‘Lost Gospel’ May Hold Other Finds,” Daily News, March 14–16, 1997, 4. 15  H. W. L. Rietz, “Scholars Announce Discovery of New Gnostic Gospel,” Religious Studies News 12:2 (May 1997) 4. 16 Available at http://www.oread.ku.edu/Oread97/OreadMarch7/page5/researchers.html (retrieved October 12, 2016).

A New Ancient Gospel?

15

tion’ Jesus gave to Judas Iscariot.”17 The view that the text is a gospel which escaped from the canon has been expressed by the same author elsewhere.18 The belief that the writing would feature certain Gnosticizing elements, something timidly suggested already in the editio princeps, explains why David M. Scholer included P. Berol. 22220 in the “Nag Hammadi Bibliography.”19 In her classic book which challenges the category “Gnosticism,” Karen L. King mentions the Gospel of the Savior as being an “evidence of early stages of the Jesus tradition.”20 In another article, King noted that P. Berol. 22220 and other similar apocryphal texts, “evince a wide variety of theological and philosophical perspectives … giving a remarkable glimpse into the cultural hybridity of ancient urban pluralism.”21 April DeConick attempted to discern in P. Berol. 22220 early Christian ideas inherited from Jewish apocalypticism. She confessed: “When Paul Mirecki asked to consult with me on this find in the spring of 1998, I was both delighted and shocked with the manuscript. Here we have a splendid example of an early Christian text exhibiting features associated with Jewish mystical ascent traditions.”22 As regards the origins of the document, she postulated “an early second-century Syrian text that was involved in the continuing debate between those Christians who identified themselves with the Syrian vision mystics and those Christians who supported the perspective of the Johannine faith mystics.”23 A possible Jewish or Jewish-Christian connection of the text has been explored by Claire Clivaz.24 She suggested that P. Berol. 22220 102, col. The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006) 179. 18  B. D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003) 50: “[The Gospel of the Savior is] the most recent non-canonical gospel discovery.” See also the remarks of the same author in Idem, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003) 52–53. 19  D. M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1995–2006 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 65; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2009) 68–70. 20  K. L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 2003) 151 n. 10, 163. 21 K. L. King, “Gnosticism,” in S. Iles Johnston (ed.), Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 2004) 652–655, at 654. 22  A. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series, 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 136–137. 23 DeConick, Voices of the Mystics, 151. 24 C. Clivaz, “L’Évangile du Sauveur, He 5,7 et la prière de supplication: en quête d’autres traditions sur la prière au Mont des Oliviers,” Apocrypha 18 (2007) 109–138; Idem, “Hebrews 5.7, Jesus’ Prayer on the Mount of Olives and Jewish Christianity: Hearing 17 B. D. Ehrman,

16

Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

A,2–6; col. B,6–10, where Jesus is described mourning in the garden of Gethsemane, could be an interpretation of Hebrews 5:7, “in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death.” According to Clivaz, in the BSApo Christ prays to his Father and supplicates in tears on behalf of the people of Israel, a literary theme for which she postulated a Jewish origin.25 However, it is not clear that the mourning of Christ in P. Berol. 22220 is an interpretation of Hebrews 5:7. As the evangelists say, in the Gethsemane garden Christ “began to be sorrowful and very troubled (ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν),” and “exceedingly sorrowful” (περίλυπός) (Matthew 26:37–38/Mark 14:33–34). In order to argue that Jesus intercedes for Israel, Clivaz quotes a passage from Stephen Emmel’s translation of the Berlin parchment: 45 […4+/‑ lines untranslatable (the Father questions the Son) why] are you weeping and [distressed], such that [the] entire angelic host [is alarmed]?”

46 [And] he (the Son) replied [in this] manner, “[… 5 lines untranslatable … 47 I am [greatly distressed …] kill […] at the hands of the [people of] Israel. 48 O my [father], if it be [possible], let this [cup] pass from me! 49 Let [me] be […] at the hands of some other […] people who […] if […] Israel [… 3 +/− lines untranslatable …].”26

However, it should be underlined that the Sahidic text says exactly the opposite: Christ does not intercede for Israel, but rather expresses his distress because he will be killed “by the people [of] Israel” (ϩⲓⲧⲙ︥ⲡⲗⲁ[ⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲓⲏ︦ⲗ︦) (P. Berol. 22220 102, col. A,5–6). Furthermore, instead of focusing on the supplication for the Jews, the passage’s concern is the emotional state of Christ. This theme seems to show the awareness of the author with the fifth century debates concerning the humanity and divinity of Christ. The treatment of the Gethsemane scene in the BSApo accords well with the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, who says that Jesus Christ was identical to us in all things, sin excepted. In the First Letter to Succensus (CPG 5345), Cyril writes: “The scripture says that he was wearied from the journey, exEarly Christian Voices in Canonical and Apocryphal Texts,” in R. Bauckham et al. (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses. The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts (Library of New Testament Studies; New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2008) 187–209. 25 Clivaz, “L’Évangile du Sauveur,” 113: “Jesus pleure … et explique que cette tristesse est due à son souci et à son amour pour le peuple d’Israël.” This has already been anticipated by J. Frey, “Leidenskampf und Himmelsreise. Das Berliner Evangelien-Fragment (Papyrus Berolinensis 22220) und die Gethsemane-Tradition,” Biblische Zeitschrift 46 (2002) 71–96, at 89–90. 26 Clivaz, “Hebrews 5.7,” 194–195, quoting the English translation in S. Emmel, “Preliminary Reedition and Translation of the Gospel of the Savior: New Light on the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel and the Stauros-Text from Nubia,” Apocrypha 14 (2003) 9–53, at 40.

A New Ancient Gospel?

17

perienced sleepiness, anxiety, pain, and all the blameless human passions.”27 The aforementioned passage from the BSApo is meant to underline the frailty and, consequently, the reality of Christ’s human nature, by showing his anxiety in the face of death. The opinions of the aforementioned authors indicate that there has been a scholarly consensus in favor of Hedrick and Mirecki’s proposal concerning an early dating of the text contained by the Berlin manuscript. The examples can be easily multiplied: Philip Jenkins called it “[t]he most recent candidate for a primitive gospel,”28 whereas second or early third century origins have been postulated by Arthur J. Dewey,29 Birger A. Pearson,30 Timothy Paul Jones,31 Pheme Perkins,32 John S. Kloppenborg,33 and Hans-Josef Klauck.34 While Hedrick and Mirecki’s edition was still in press, Hans-Martin Schenke published an article on P. Berol. 22220, or the “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium,” as he called it. 35 His article had begun life as a con27 Translation from J. A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its History, Theology, and Texts (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 23; Leiden – New York, NY – Köln: E. J. Brill, 1994) 357. 28  P. Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001) 230. 29 A. J. Dewey, “The Gospel of the Savior: A Gem in a Jigsaw Puzzle,” Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 22 (2002) 1–15. 30  B. A. Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity; London – New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2004) 58: “sometime early in the third century.” 31  T. P.  Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 133: “Not only Gospel of Peter but also other post-apostolic accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus – Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Savior, Gospel of Truth and several others – emerged in the second and third centuries.” 32  P. Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007) 281–287. 33 J. S. Kloppenborg, Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008) viii: “The discovery of new extra-canonical Gospels in the past sixty years – the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of the Savior, the Gospel of Judas – has made it clear that the Jesus movement was variegated and diverse, with early Jesus groups constituting themselves around differing sets of traditions, differing ethnocultural identities, and differing ecclesial practices.” 34  H.-J. Klauck, The Apocryphal Gospels. An Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2004) 28: “External indications suggest a dating of the codex between the fourth and the seventh centuries; the balance of probabilities tilts slightly towards the sixth century … Initially, an early date (between 100 and 150 CE) was suggested, but more cautious counsels have prevailed: the earliest plausible date is the close of the second or early third century.” 35 Schenke, “‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE).” An updated translation appeared in Schenke, “‘Evangelium des Erlösers’.” While Schenke’s first translation follows

18

Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

ference paper he delivered in Halle in 1998. Additionally to translating the Berlin manuscript into German, Schenke added some commentaries and observations to the text. Schenke proposed a tentative identification of P. Berol. 22220 with an otherwise lost section of the Gospel of Peter (BHG 1486x; CANT 13). The arguments would be: 1) the Berlin manuscript is written in the first person plural, which could mean that Peter, one of the twelve apostles, is recounting the story using the pronouns “we,” “us”; 2) both texts blame the Jews for crucifying Christ; 3) the theme of the descensus ad inferos, briefly referred in P. Berol. 22220 97, col. B,27–31 and in Gospel of Peter 10:41–42; 4) the personification of the cross is a feature that appears in both texts. In order to argue for the last point, Schenke offered a few examples in which Christ addresses the personified cross in the Berlin manuscript. Of interest to note in this regard is that he preferred to translate P. Berol. 22220, col. B,13–15, [ϣ]ⲟⲣⲡ︤ⲕ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ [ⲡ]ⲉⲥ̣̄⳨ⲟ̄̄ⲥ︥̄· ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩ[ⲱ] ϯⲛ̣ⲁϣⲟⲣⲡⲧ︥ ⲉ̣ⲣⲟⲕ, as “You go in front of me, I, myself, shall go in front of you,” and compared this passage to Gospel of Peter 42, where the resurrected Christ walks in front of the cross.36 Schenke supplied also a series of points on which P. Berol. 22220 and the Gospel of Peter differ in details.37 Comparing the text of the Berlin manuscript with the Gospel of Peter, Judith Hartenstein rightly emphasized that, although the two writings share some features in common, there is not enough ground to identify them.38 However, Hartenstein concedes that it is possible that the Gospel of Peter had an influence upon the putative author of the BSApo. It is in Schenke’s mold that Uwe-Karsten Plisch sees the Gospel of Peter, along with the gospels of Matthew and John, as the most important source used in the BSApo39, which he would date to the second century CE.40 As the order of the pages in Hedrick and Mirecki’s edition, the second takes into consideration the righted order, as Emmel established it, see the discussion in Chapter 2 infra. 36  Schenke, “‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’,” 205–207. See supra the discussion of the translation of ϣⲟⲣⲡ⸗. 37  Schenke, “‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’,” 207. 38  J. Hartenstein, “Das Petrusevangelium als Evangelium,” in T. J. Kraus – T. Nicklas (eds.), Das Evangelium nach Petrus. Text, Kontexte, Intertexte (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007) 159–181, at 170. 39 Plisch, “Einleitungsfragen.” Plisch has provided also a German translation in Idem, Verborgene Worte Jesu – verworfene Evangelien. Apokryphe Schriften des frühen Christentums (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft und von Cansteinsche Bibelanstalt, 2000) 27–34. 40 Plisch, “Einleitungsfragen,” 72: “Another (and, together with John and Matthew, the most important) source of the UBE is the Gospel of Peter” (my translation). See his arguments on the literary relationships between the BSApo and the Gospel of Peter in “Einleitungsfragen,” 76–78.

A New Ancient Gospel?

19

to the identification of the work, he maintained that P. Berol. 22220 could have been part of the lost Gospel of Andrew. Plisch pointed out that, in the Acts of Andrew (CANT 225), the cross is also personified, like in the Gospel of Peter and the BSApo. Moreover, in the Acts of Andrew and the BSApo, the two protagonists, Andrew and Christ, address the cross before their death. Plisch indicated that some of the words in the speech of the apostle to the cross are recognizable in a passage from the Berlin parchment. The occurrence of the name Andrew in P. Berol. 22220 97, col. A,31–32 would be another argument that the BSApo is related to the literature connected to this apostle. Finally, the Decretum Gelasianum mentions the Gospel of Bartholomew – which Plisch assumes to be the same text as the Coptic Book of Bartholomew (CANT 80; clavis coptica 0027) – immediately before the Gospel of Andrew. This would explain the connection between the Book of Bartholomew and the BSApo, which has abundantly been documented by Stephen Emmel.41 In Plisch’s view, all these arguments suggest that the Berlin manuscript preserves portions of the lost Gospel of Andrew, which presumably served as a source for the Acts of Andrew as well. The similarity between the address to the cross in the Acts of Andrew and the BSApo, which was mentioned only in passing by the editio princeps of P. Berol. 22220, is something worth taking into consideration.42 However, serious arguments militate against identifying the two texts. Firstly, the influence of the Gospel of Peter upon the BSApo is not clear, as the parallels provided up until now are either too vague, or are common literary topoi. Furthermore, the only occurrence of the name of the apostle Andrew in P. Berol. 22220 demonstrates in fact that the BSApo could not have been attributed to him. While the text refers to “we, the apostles” (P. Berol. 22220 101, col. A,2–3), being thus written in the first person plural, Andrew is mentioned in the third person singular: “Andrew replied and said: ‘My Lo[rd]’” (P. Berol. 22220 97, col. A,31–32). Last but not least, it is doubtful that the Decretum Gelasianum is relevant for our argument because the BSApo does not have literary contacts with the Gospel of Bartholomew mentioned therein, but rather with the Book of Bartholomew preserved only in Sahidic, which is not the same text. The first who proposed that some Sahidic fragments related to the apostle Bartholomew belong to the Gospel of Bartholomew was Eugène Revillout, but André Wilmart and Eugène Tisserant firmly rejected this hy41 S. Emmel, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior (“Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium”): Righting the Order of Pages and Events,” Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002) 45–72, at 48 et passim. 42  Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 116.

20

Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

pothesis.43 According to them, Revillout’s Coptic fragments are only “a poor rhapsody,” “a metaphrastic and notably divergent redaction” of the Gospel of Bartholomew.44 However, even this hypothesis must be now dismissed, because the studies of Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Pierre Cherix have revealed that the Sahidic Book of Bartholomew is a later independent writing that has no literary connection with the Gospel of Bartholomew.45 According to them, the latter text is closer to the Questions of Bartholomew (CANT 63), extant also in Latin, a fact that explains its presence in the list of heretical books denounced by the so-called Decretum Gelasianum. Consequently, these arguments make it unlikely that the BSApo would be in any way related to the Acts or the Gospel of Andrew. The interpretation of the Bible in the BSApo, especially the numerous parallels to the farewell discourse in the Gospel of John, have been explored in detail by Jörg Frey and Titus Nagel.46 The research carried out independently by the two scholars led to the conclusion that the text of the apocryphon depends on the canonical gospels and not on the oral sayings tradition, as the editio princeps suggested. Analyzing the parallels between the gospels of John and Matthew and the BSApo, Nagel proposes that the best way to explain the similarities in wording is to adopt the hypothesis of a literary dependence, in the sense that the BSApo could not exist in its present form without the canonical gospels.47

Other Documents Emerge: The Strasbourg Fragments and the Qasr el-Wizz Codex Several articles published by Emmel have given a real impetus to the research on the BSApo. Not only that Emmel has properly reconstructed the Berlin manuscript on codicological grounds, which led to a better understanding of the order of the events in the BSApo, but he also brought a salient contribution  E. Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1; A. Wilmart – E. Tisserant, “Fragments grecs et latins de l’Évangile de Barthélemy,” Revue biblique n.s. 10 (1913) 161–190, at 169, 170. 44 Wilmart – Tisserant, “Évangile de Barthélemy,” 169, 170. 45  J.-D. Kaestli, “Où en est l’étude de l’Évangile de Barthélemy?” Revue biblique 95 (1988) 5–33; J.-D. Kaestli – P. Cherix, L’Évangile de Barthélemy (Collection Apocryphes; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993) 13–26. 46 Frey, “Leidenskampf und Himmelsreise”; T. Nagel, “Das ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ und das Johannesevangelium,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (2002) 251–267. 47  Nagel, “Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium,” 264. 43

Reframing the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

21

to the literary history of the text, by documenting the relationship between P. Berol. 22220 and other Coptic writings.48 Thus, Emmel has argued that P. Berol. 22220 and the papyrus fragments Strasbourg Copte 5–7 are two copies of the same work. Studying the parallels between the two manuscripts, Emmel remarked that, “this newly discovered text (i. e. P. Berol. 22220) is, in fact, a second witness to the work that has been known for a century from the ‘Strasbourg Coptic Gospel Fragments’.”49 In order to prove this hypothesis, he showed that the two manuscripts display word for word parallels. Emmel has identified yet another text that has literary connections with the Berlin parchment, in a manuscript discovered in 1965 at Qasr el-Wizz, near the Sudanese border. The manuscript in question contains two texts: an apostolic memoir featuring a revelation of Christ concerning the role of the cross at the final judgment, and the abbreviated version of the Hymn of the Cross in the BSApo. Unfortunately, at the beginning of his research on the BSApo, Emmel did not have access to the Qasr el-Wizz codex, except for photographic reproductions consisting of only a few pages. In the absence of the necessary evidence, he speculated that the first text in this codex might coincide with the BSApo. Since then, Péter Hubai has finally published the manuscript, offering the opportunity to document the relationships between the codex in question and the BSApo, and, in so doing, to dismiss this possibility.50 Regarding the dating of the BSApo and its relevance in the context of early Christian literature, Emmel has followed the hypothesis of other scholars in assuming that it “is an invaluable witness to older Christian traditions that bypassed the canon.”51 In his most recent article on this issue, he has proposed, cautiously, that the text might be the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles to which refer Origen and Jerome.52

Reframing the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon We have seen that most of the scholars who have studied P. Berol. 22220 have considered it to be an early Christian gospel. However, a different approach to the text has also been advocated, although it remained margin48 On the codicological reconstruction, see Emmel, “Righting the Order” and chapter 2 infra. 49  Emmel, “Prolegomena.” 13. See also Idem, “Preliminary,” 15: “the parchment manuscript in Berlin and the papyrus manuscript in Strasbourg are two copies of one and the same ancient work.” 50 Hubai, A Megváltó a keresztről; Idem, Koptische Apokryphen. 51 Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 51. 52  Emmel, “Ein altes Evangelium der Apostel,” 95.

22

Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

al. According to this perspective, the BSApo is much later, being probably composed in the fifth century at the earliest. Peter Nagel has made the first attempt to reframe the context of P. Berol. 22220. In his response to the arguments advanced by Hedrick and Mirecki in their editio princeps, Nagel said that the so-called “gospel” might in fact be a genuinely Coptic composition.53 In his opinion, this is suggested by the quotations from the New Testament, which follow throughout the Sahidic version.54 As to the dating of the text, Nagel pointed out that the Christology of the BSApo bears the marks of the trinitarian debates sparked by the Arian crisis. In order to prove this, he compared a passage from P. Berol. 22220, in which Christ says, “I am the king, Amen! I [am] the [son] of the king, Amen!” (108, col. A,17–20), with a similar Christological position expressed by Shenoute of Atripe in the homily And We Will Also Reveal Something Else (clavis coptica 0821):55 “The Lord, the king Christ, and the son of the king.” According to Nagel, both the author of the BSApo and Shenoute subscribed to the view that Christ is not only the son of God (i. e. son of the king), but also God (i. e. king). Furthermore, he remarked that a passage about the eucharist in the BSApo, “The one who does not [receive] my body [and] my blood, this is a stranger to me” (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. A,11–15) is congruent with Shenoute’s refutation of those who do not believe in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist.56 Finally, he found P. Berol. 22220 paleographically similar with some manuscripts from the Monastery of Apa Shenoute (i. e., the White Monastery), which would suggest that it might also come from the same source. These characteristics made Nagel believe that the BSApo was produced somewhere in Upper Egypt in an environment familiar with the theology of Shenoute, sometimes in the second half of the fifth or early sixth century. However, there is nothing in the BSApo which would specifically show any direct influence from the works of Shenoute. Although Nagel is certain53  Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’.” Doubts concerning the gospel genre of the document were suggested to Charles Hedrick by Wolf-Peter Funk and Tito Orlandi, see Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 19 n. 24. It is also stated in the same place that, “This was Mirecki’s initial, but tentative, assessment of the fragments in 1991.” 54 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 234–238. However, I agree with Hedrick, “Dating the Gospel of the Savior,” 227, that the fact that the biblical quotations and allusions conform to the Sahidic version of the Bible is not a proof that the text was composed in Coptic. Translators usually adapted the biblical quotations according to their own version of the Bible, in this case the Sahidic. 55 For the bibliography on this sermon, see S. Emmel, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus 2 vols. (CSCO, 599–600. Subsidia, 111–112; Louvain: Peeters, 2004) 2: 657. 56 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 245–247.

Reframing the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

23

ly correct in showing that some parallels between the BSApo and Shenoute exist, they are rather common literary themes, which could only demonstrate that they sprung from the same literary milieu. As we will see in chapter 4, Christ’s depiction as king and, at the same time, as son of the king, rely in fact on a widespread exegesis of Psalm 71:1 (LXX): τὸ κρίμα σου τῷ βασιλεῖ δὸς καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ βασιλέως. While the Christological interpretation of this Psalm appears already in Origen’s Commentary on John (CPG 1453),57 it becomes fairly common only from the fifth century onwards, in the context of the Nestorian crisis. In Coptic literature, the depiction of Christ as king and the son of the king is a literary cliché often used, not only in the BSApo, but also in other apostolic memoirs. Therefore, the parallel provided by Nagel does not necessarily imply an influence of Shenoute upon the BSApo. In a seminal article, Joost Hagen has explored the relationship between the BSApo and what he calls Coptic “apostolic diaries.”58 He showed that the use of the first person plural narrative in the BSApo does not imply that the text should be identified with the lost Gospel of the Twelve, as Emmel proposed. Hagen adroitly remarked that there are similar texts in Coptic allegedly written by the apostles in the first person plural, and they share a series of literary features with the BSApo. If they have not been quoted in the research pertaining to the BSApo is because they are fairly obscure outside a small circle of Coptologists: These Coptic texts are obviously a terra incognita for the research devoted to apocrypha, which can be due to a gap between theologians and Coptologists (which also affects the present author). This is why until now many of the characteristics of the true nature of this fragmentary “Gospel of the Savior” have not been recognized. Because, in my opinion, only the group of these “new” Coptic writings constitute the real context of this “apocryphal gospel.”59

As to the genre of the text, Hagen challenged the gospel label applied by previous studies, emphasizing that the other texts which he used for comparison are rather homilies with apocryphal insertions. 57  C. Blanc, Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean (Sources chrétiennes, 120; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966) 156–157. 58 Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext.” See also Idem, “The Diaries of the Apostles: ‘Manuscript Find’ and ‘Manuscript Fiction’ in Coptic Homilies and Other Literary Texts,” in M. Immerzeel – J. van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000 2 vols. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta; 133–134; Leuven – Paris – Dudley: Peeters, 2004) 1: 349–367, although this study does not mention the BSApo. 59 Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext,” 348 (my translation).

24

Chapter 1: History of Research on the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Pierluigi Piovanelli has explored the Hymn of the Cross in the BSApo and the round dance of the cross from the Acts of John 94–95.60 To these sources, he added the hymn in the Qasr el-Wizz codex, which he thinks to be different from the one in the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts. Piovanelli considers the BSApo as a late antique, rather than early Christian writing, elaborated in monastic circles. He remarked the “compilatory, not to mention novelistic, nature of the Gospel of the Savior, whose narrator does not hesitate to blend different traditions taken from both canonical (especially the gospels of Matthew and John) and extra-canonical sources.”61 Furthermore, Piovanelli has pointed out that the interpretation of John 10:30 in the BSApo, “I and my Father, we are a single one” (P. Berol. 22220 98, col. B,28–30), fits well in the contexts of the Christological debates over Jesus’ nature. The author of the text comes from a long Egyptian exegetical tradition of John 10:30, which regarded this passage “as a proof of the hypostatic identity of the natures of the Son and the Father, as well as a sign of Christ’s divine will that will allow him to triumph over all his human weaknesses in the garden of Gethsemane.”62 My research gravitates around the same axis, proposing a fresh look at the text from the angle of Coptic literature. The similarity of the BSApo with numerous other Coptic writings suggests that this text is not an early Christian gospel, but rather belongs to a common literary genre of Coptic literature. Thus, the BSApo is likely to be one of the Coptic apostolic memoirs, a series of related writings which claim to be written by the apostles. Often, the books of the apostles are embedded in sermons attributed to the great figures of the church. These texts, more than two dozen, are either preserved in Coptic, or in Arabic, Ethiopic, and, more rarely, Old Nubian. In the latter cases, it can be proven that the texts go back to Coptic models. As it is well known, many Christian Arabic texts preserved in Egyptian exemplars are translations from Coptic. Due to the strong influence of the Alexandrian patriarchate upon the Abyssinian church, these texts passed from Arabic into Ethiopic.63 The Coptic apostolic memoirs often appear to be narratives about

60 Piovanelli,

“Thursday Night Fever.”  Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever,” 237. 62  Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever,” 239. 63  Many translations were made in the fourteenth century during the tenure of Abuna Salama II, see A. van Lantschoot, “Abbā Salāma, métropolite d’Éthiopie (1348–1388) et son rôle de traducteur,” in Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Quaderni, 48; Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1960) 397–401. 61

Reframing the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

25

Christ and the apostles, usually placed on the Mount of Olives.64 They treat topics such as various angelic beings, the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ, holy figures and places, which all happen to coincide with specific events in the Egyptian liturgical calendar. The apostles record the revelation and deposit the book, most often, in the library of Jerusalem for the benefit of future generations.

64 These apocryphal narratives are often embedded in homiletic texts attributed to different Fathers of the Coptic church, see, e. g., T. Orlandi, “Gli Apocrifi copti,” Augustinianum 23 (1983) 57–71, at 70–71.

Chapter 2

The Manuscripts P. Berol. 22220 Location and Acquisition Under the inventory number P. Berol. 22220, the Papyrussammlung of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin preserves thirty damaged fragments of a parchment codex written in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The manuscript fragments originally belonged to the papyrological collection of the Egyptian Museum in West Berlin, which was housed from 1967 in the Stüler building in Charlottenburg. This is where Mirecki saw the vestiges of this codex in 1991 and 1993, and Hedrick in 1995. Some ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the manuscript was moved, together with the entire papyri collection belonging to the western part of the Egyptian Museum, to the headquarters of the Papyrussammlung, the Museumshöfe at Kupfergraben. There I had the opportunity to study the fragments several times between 2008 and 2011. At that time the manuscripts of the Egyptian Museum in East Berlin were kept in a different location in storage at the Pergamon Museum on the Museum Island. In 2012, the museum collections of East and West Berlin were finally brought together, and the manuscripts, including P. Berol. 22220, are housed now in the newly built Archäologisches Zentrum in Geschwister-Scholl-Strasse. According to the catalogue of acquisitions, P. Berol. 22220 was purchased on March 20, 1967 for 300 German Marks. Hedrick mentioned that when he checked the fragments, a handwritten note was included with them, indicating that they were purchased in March 1971.1 However, he doubted the accuracy of this note, rightly relying instead on the date supplied in the catalogue of acquisitions. During my research missions in the Berlin Papyrussammlung, I was not able to find the note in question. All I could check was a piece of paper from 1967 on which Helmut Satzinger wrote: “Fragmente mehrere, Pergam.-Blätter: neutestamentliches Apokryphon (angebliche Reden Jesu). 1 Hedrick –

Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 3.

P. Berol. 22220

27

Etwa 6. Jh. (alt!) VORSICHT!”2 Someone, perhaps the former director, Werner Kaiser, wrote later with pencil on the same paper: “Erwerbung nr. 37/(19)67,” confirming once again the 1967 acquisition.3 For a long time after its purchase in 1967, P. Berol. 22220 remained unconserved; most of the fragments were kept in four paper folders. According to Hedrick, only the largest fragment – i. e. Frag. 1 A–B – was mounted between glass plates.4 This situation lasted until 1996–1997, when Hedrick mounted the parchment fragments under eight glass plates. Finally, the conservation work was completed in 1997 by Jürgen Hofmann, who was at that time papyrus conservator at the Egyptian Museum in Berlin.5 The fragments were purchased by the West Berlin Museum from Karl Johan Möger, a Dutch antiquities dealer who sold many Coptic manuscripts to different other collections across the world, especially in the ‘60s and ‘70s of the last century. It appears that Möger, who was based in Soestdijk, near Utrecht, occupied a significant role in the trajectory of Coptic antiquities from Egypt to western archives after the Second World War; he was one of the most prominent dealers of the period following the death of Maurice Nahman, who transacted most of the notable Coptic manuscripts discovered in the first half of the twentieth century. His name is recorded as Karl J(ohan), Karl, or Johan Möger in the acquisition catalogues of the collections that purchased antiquities from him. Although none of the Sahidic manuscripts sold by Möger that I have been able to find and, sometimes, to examine, is paleographically related to P. Berol. 22220, the possibility that one or more of them could come from the same source should not be dismissed a priori. Thus, I think they are worth a few words. One of the manuscripts which passed through Möger’s hands is the Morgan Library & Museum M 910, a parchment codex of the Acts of the Apostles in Sahidic. Although the Morgan collection purchased 2 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 2. The first person who pointed out that this note was written by Helmut Satzinger was Plisch, “Einleitungsfragen,” 64. Satzinger was at that time cataloguing the Coptic manuscripts in West Berlin, see H. Satzinger, Koptische Urkunden III. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen Berlin (Berlin: Verlag Bruno Heßling, 1968). However, P. Berol. 22220 is not recorded in Satzinger’s catalogue, as it was acquired after the completion of his work. In a private communication dated January 24, 2013, Satzinger informed me that he wrote the note before the acquisition of the manuscript. The dealer left the parchment fragments in the museum and Werner Kaiser asked Satzinger to examine them and express his opinion on whether they were worth purchasing. 3  According to the numbering system that was created in West Berlin for new acquisitions, these numbers mean that it was the 37th acquisition of the year 1967. 4 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 3. 5 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 3–4.

28

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

the manuscript from Möger as early as 1962, its conservation process has not yet begun. Consequently, the codex still remains inaccessible for research.6 In his catalogue of the Coptic manuscripts in the Morgan collection, Leo Depuydt tentatively dated M 910 to the fifth-sixth centuries.7 In 1965, Möger sold to the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden 15 fragments of Coptic manuscripts and two folios from a Syriac lectionary, the latter coming from the Monastery of the Syrians, in the Wadi el-Natrun, Egypt.8 Between 1966 and 1967, the Papyrological Institute of the University of Leiden bought from Möger 31 Greek, Demotic, and Coptic papyri, from which several may formerly have belonged to the collection of George Michaelides.9 Although these transactions took place around the time the Egyptian Museum in West Berlin purchased P. Berol. 22220 from Möger, most of the manuscripts are documentary texts and late paper fragments, very likely without any connection to our manuscript.10 About a decade later, in 1976, the Leiden National Museum of Antiquities purchased in a single lot from the same dealer 35 Coptic parchment fragments. The only documents published from this lot are Leiden F 1976/4.26, a leaf from Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria, Panegyric on John the Baptist (CPG 7151; clavis coptica 0386),11 and Leiden F 1976/4.27, which belongs to a still unidentified sermon, probably attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria.12  Some photographic reproductions of this manuscript are available in L. Depuydt, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 4–5; Oriental Series, 1–2; Leuven: Peeters, 1993) 2: pl. 350, 353, 464.  7 L. Depuydt, Catalogue 1, lxxx, 41–42 (= no. 28). Apparently, Depuydt relies on Julius Assfalg’s notes, which are kept with the manuscript in the Morgan Library & Museum.  8  The source of the Syriac leaves was documented by M. Vilders, “Two Folios from a Syriac Lectionary in Leiden,” Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 65 (1985) 77.  9 S. J. Clackson, “The Michaelides Manuscript Collection,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994) 223–226, at 226. 10  The collection of the Papyrological Institute in Leiden is described in N. Kruit – J. J.  Witkam, List of Coptic Manuscript Materials in the Papyrological Institute Leiden and in the Library of the University of Leiden (Leiden: Papyrological Institute, Legatum Warnerianum in Leiden University Library, 2000). 11 K. H. Kuhn, “Four Additional Sahidic Fragments of a Panegyric on John the Baptist Attributed to Theodosius, Archbishop of Alexandria,” Le Muséon 96 (1983) 251–265, at 263–265. 12  J. van der Vliet, “S. Pachôme et S. Athanase: un entretien apocryphe,” Analecta Bollandiana 110 (1992) 21–27. This fragment has not been identified, but it may belong to one of the Coptic texts attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria that mention Pachomius. These include: On Luke 11:5–9 (CPG 2194; clavis coptica 0057), On the Archangel Michael (CPG 2191; clavis coptica 0048), the letter to Horsiesius and Theodore concerning  6

P. Berol. 22220

29

Other related fragments include: F 1976/4.1 (Life of Moses of Abydos; BHO 777; clavis coptica 0423),13 F 1976/4.2 (John Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Romans; CPG 4427), F 1976/4.4 (Ps.-Theodosius of Jerusalem, On Stephen the Protomartyr; BHO 1093; CANT 302; clavis coptica 0491),14 F 1976/4.5, 8 (Ps.-Theodore of Antioch, On Theodore Stratelates; clavis coptica 0436),15 F 1976/4.28 (Acts of the Apostles), F 1976/4.31 (Ps.-Evodius of Rome, On the Passion 1; clavis coptica 0149), and F 1976/4.33 (Matthew). As no written records concerning the provenance of these fragments sold by Möger is known to survive, none of them can be decidedly connected with P. Berol. 22220. Origin of P. Berol. 22220 Nothing is known concerning the ultimate provenance of P. Berol. 22220. As I have anticipated in the previous chapter, Nagel suggested that the manuscript could have belonged to the library of the Monastery of Apa Shenoute, also known as the White Monastery, situated near Sohag in Upper Egypt, whose debris are scattered today all over the world.16 However, this possithe death of Pachomius (CPG 2190; clavis coptica 0453), and an unidentified papyrus fragment published by V. Ghica, “Frammento inedito di tradizione pacomiana,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 70 (2004) 451–456. 13  Edited in C. ten Hacken, “A Coptic Text on Macrobius of Tkoou, Spiritual Son of Moses of Abydos,” Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden te Leiden 79 (1999) 103–116; see also A. Campagnano, “Monaci egiziani fra V e VI secolo,” Vetera Christianorum 15 (1978) 223–246, at 235; C. ten Hacken, “Coptic and Arabic Texts on Macrobius, an Egyptian Monk of the Sixth Century,” in Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien 2, 117–126, at 119–120. 14  The Vatican Library fragments Vat. copt. 111, ff. 119–122 are codicologically related to Leiden F 1976/4.4 and F 1976/4.5, 8. These fragments belong to a lot of fragments integrated into the Vatican collection in 1974. According to Delio Vania Proverbio, the fragments belonged to Yassa ‘Abd al-Masih, former librarian of the Coptic Museum in Cairo, see D. V. Proverbio, “Additamentum Sinuthianum. Nuovi frammenti dal Monastero Bianco in un codice copto della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Rendiconti ser. 9/12 (2001) 409–417 (although the fragments Vat. copt. 111, ff. 119–122 are not mentioned therein). It still remains to be established if the fragments Leiden F 1976/4.4 and Vatican Vat. copt. 111, ff. 119–122 were all transacted by Möger. 15 Two additional fragments of the same codex, and text, belong to the private collection of Tom Vossen, in Kerkrade, the Netherlands. Furthermore, a fragment in Vossen’s possession is related to another one in Leiden, the two forming parts of the same leaf, see A. Suciu, “The Vossen Collection of Coptic Manuscripts,” Patristics, Apocrypha, Coptic Literature and Manuscripts [blog], July 16, 2016, https://alinsuciu.com/2016/07/16/thevossen-collection-of-coptic-manuscripts/ (retrieved October 12, 2016). 16 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 239: “According to its paleographical and codicological characteristics, the codex of the ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ may very well come from a scriptorium of the White Monastery” (my translation).

30

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

bility is unlikely for several reasons. Firstly, the hand of the copyist who inscribed P. Berol. 22220 is not recognizable elsewhere among the numerous other White Monastery fragments that have survived. Furthermore, the pattern of deterioration of the manuscript differs from the one that affected the fragments which certainly belonged to the White Monastery. Thus, while P. Berol. 22220 shows signs of decay that might safely be ascribed to insects or, less likely, rodents, the manuscripts of the White Monastery normally display a different damage pattern, due either to human hand, or to rigidity, which causes the parchment to break into pieces. A different archaeological context is suggested also by the dark color of the recto of P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 3. The alteration of the color indicates an excessive exposure to the sun, the manuscript being probably kept in an open space for a long period of time, which is uncommon for the White Monastery fragments.17 Furthermore, the manuscripts of this monastery have been scattered piecemeal across the world, as a consequence of the fact that they were removed from their cache in separate batches. On the contrary, the large number of surviving parchment fragments of P. Berol. 22220 which ended up in the hands of the same dealer rather implies that these are the sole remains of a manuscript that has never been dismembered. All these arguments suggest that P. Berol. 22220 did not belong to the library of the White Monastery, but its true place of origin remains unknown. Paleography and Dating P. Berol. 22220 is made of good quality parchment. Although badly damaged, the vellum still preserves some of its former characteristics, such as elasticity, cleanness and thinness.18 The hair and flesh sides of the skin are generally easy to discern on the basis of the level of ink absorption, with the writing on the hair side being better preserved. However, even though the two sides of the skin are clearly distinguishable, they exhibit a relatively uniform white color. This feature, together with the overall aspect of the skin, suggests a calf-parchment codex.19 17 Yet another possible explanation for the dark aspect of this page is that it was affected by fire, as suggested by Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 13. However, as no other fragment displays a similar type of damage, I think this possibility should be eliminated. 18  By comparison, most of the parchment manuscripts preserved today are more fragile and friable. The induration and elasticity of the skin is one of the signs of a good quality manuscript. 19 The sheep parchment usually has a more yellow aspect on the hair side and it is thicker. Of course, the quality of the parchment may depend as well on the age of the animal.

P. Berol. 22220

31

The text is written in two columns. The exact number of lines per column cannot be determined for every page because of the fragmentary state of the manuscript. However, 32 lines are recoverable on pages [101], [102], 107, and 108, which are better preserved than the others. For the sake of convenience, my edition is based on the assumption that all columns contained the same number of lines. The page ornaments do not display color variations, as they are drawn in the same black ink as the rest of the manuscript. Every new paragraph begins with a minor initial, slightly projected to the left. The coronis, which mark the beginning of paragraphs and adorn the margin of the pages, have a curved aspect and often develop elaborate spirals.20 The copyist used the same type of decoration for some of the letters. Thus, the two arms of ϫ coil when this letter is written in ekthesis (see, e. g., 107, col. A,5; [109], col. A,12, 16). The tail of ϣ turns into a spiral if it appears on the last line (see, e. g., [102], col. B; [103], col. A; [104], col. B; [105], col. B; 107, coll. A–B; [109], col. B; Frag. 13F). The same ornamental feature is used sometimes when ⲣ is written on the first line. In this case, its vertical stroke is elongated to the upper margin of the page and curled (see, e. g., 99, col. B; [102], col. B; [106], col. B; 107, coll. A–B; 108, col. A; [110], col. A). The manuscript is copied in a neat and elegant unimodular script, whose main paleographical features are:21 – ⲙ is round, mostly in three strokes and with a low saddle. P. Berol. 22220 employs also the four-stroke ⲙ, which is attested at least once, at [102], col. A,4; – ⲩ is executed most often with two strokes and it has a short foot which does not extend below the line. The scribe used also three-stroke ⲩ, see, e. g., [97], col. A,20; col. B,30; 98, col. A,28, 30; [101], col. A,1; col. B,3, 6; [102], col. A,4; col. B,2, 25; [105], col. A,32; col. B,3; [110], col. A,25. – ⲁ is round, with a peculiar elongated loop. – the letters ⲅ, ⲧ, ϯ and the cross symbol (⳨) have serifs at the bottom of the vertical stroke. A serif is added as well at the left end of the horizontal stroke of ϫ, when it is the first letter of a line. the function of the coronis sign in Coptic manuscripts, see T. Petersen, “The Paragraph Mark in Coptic Illuminated Ornament,” in D. Miner (ed.), Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954) 295–330. 21  On the terms “unimodular” and “bimodular,” see G. Cavallo, “Grammata Alexandrina,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 24 (1975) 23–54. In the unimodular manuscripts, all letters of the Coptic alphabet fit into the same, large, modulus. In the bimodular manuscripts, the letters ⲉ, ⲑ, ⲟ and ⲥ are narrow and oval, very different in size from the others. 20 On

32

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

The marks of punctuation are the lower, the middle, and the raised dot, the colon, the angular stroke (lower and upper), and the trema. Additionally, the Berlin manuscript employs, albeit rarely, the diple (see [102], col. A,23; 108, col. B,21).22 The pagination style is simple; the scribe writes only a line above the numerals. Hedrick has tentatively dated the Berlin manuscript between the fourth and the seventh century.23 However, this wide dating range requires some further elaboration, especially because the chronology of Coptic literary hands is usually problematic.24 The type of uncial used in P. Berol. 22220 is fairly common in Sahidic literary manuscripts. For example, it resembles the Chester Beatty MS Copt. 814 (Acts and John).25 Other paleographically related manuscripts include a liturgical fragment in the collection of the Catholic University in Louvain, which disappeared in a fire that devastated the University’s library in May 1940.26 Similar also is a fragment of Sirach in the collection of the John Rylands Library in Manchester,27 and several fragments kept in the Montserrat Abbey near Barcelona.28 22 Although

the second example seems to function rather as line filler. Gospel of the Savior, 15. This dating is based on M. Cramer, Koptische Paläographie (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), which aims to be a catalogue of Coptic handwriting styles, but without any mention of the manuscripts from which they come. This makes the book very unreliable. 24 It has already pointed out that Coptic paleography still lacks reliable scientific fundamentals, see B. Layton, “Towards a New Coptic Palaeography,” in T. Orlandi – F. Wisse (eds.), Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies. Roma, 22–26 September 1980 (Rome: C. I. M., 1985) 149–158. 25 The text of the Acts of the Apostles in this codex was published in H. Thompson, The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), while the variant readings of the text of John were recorded in H. Quecke, Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschriften 813 and 814 der Chester Beatty Library und der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 11; Rome – Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1984). 26 L.-Th. Lefort, “Coptica Lovaniensia,” Le Muséon 51 (1938) 1–65, at 22–24 and pl. 2; republished in Idem, Les manuscrits coptes de l’Université de Louvain 1: Textes littéraires (Louvain: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1940) 102–104 and pl. 9. 27  This is Manchester, Coptic Frag. 7, briefly mentioned in W. E. Crum, “New Coptic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 5 (1918–20) 497–503, at 498. 28 P. Monts Roca II 10 (Song of Songs) and P. Monts Roca II 12 (Matthew), both published in S. Torallas Tovar, Biblia Coptica Montserratensia. P. Monts. Roca II (Orientalia Montserratensia, 2; Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat – Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, 2007) 55–58, 65–67. Paleographically related is also P. Monts Roca 735, a fragment of ascetic content, see S. Torallas Tovar, “A New Sahidic Coptic Fragment: Sortes Sanctorum or Apophthegmata Patrum?,” Journal of Coptic Studies 17 (2015) 153–164. 23 Hedrick – Mirecki,

P. Berol. 22220

33

Of them all, the Chester Beatty manuscript stands out as particularly relevant for our investigation. This codex was discovered, together with four other similar Sahidic parchment manuscripts, in a jar unearthed near the Giza pyramids around 1924. The Chester Beatty Library in Dublin owns three of the codices, while the other two are kept in the collection of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.29 From the evidence supplied by the manuscripts’ colophons we can infer that they were produced in the Monastery of Apa Jeremias at Saqqara.30 It is unanimously accepted that the Saqqara codices date to the very late sixth or early seventh century. This dating is based on the fact that together with the manuscripts were found some coins from the reigns of Justinian, Justin and, perhaps, Maurice Tiberius, which range from 568 to 602 CE. Herbert Thompson pointed out in this regard that “the condition of all the coins is very good and none can have been long in circulation. Therefore the burial of the vessel and its contents cannot have been earlier than about 580 and may have been as late as the first quarter of the seventh century.”31 Although the Chester Beatty Copt. 814, the other aforementioned fragments, and P. Berol. 22220 share the same type of uncial, the Berlin manuscript stands out as different in this group. Firstly, while P. Berol. 22220 accommodates the text on two columns per page, all the other paleographically related manuscripts are written as a single column. What is more, their formats also differ. While all the others are either pocket books or miniature codices,32 the Berlin manuscript resembles more the later liturgical codices of larger dimensions (ca. 25 cm height × 20 cm breadth). Finally, P. Berol. 22220 does not have the sober physical aspect of the others, being instead 29  On the discovery, acquisition and description of the five codices see Thompson, Acts of the Apostles, ix–xx; L. A. Shier, “Old Testament Texts on Vellum,” in W. Worrell, Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection (Ann Arbor, MI – London: University of Michigan Press – Humphrey Milford – Oxford University Press, 1942) 23–167, at 27–32; C. T. Lamacraft, “Early Book-Bindings from a Coptic Monastery,” The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, 4th series, 20 (1939–1940) 214–233. 30  On the monastery of Apa Jeremias, excavated early in the twentieth century, see J. E.  Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara (1908–9, 1909–10). The Monastery of Apa Jeremias (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1912) and C. Wietheger, Das Jeremias-Kloster zu Saqqara unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Inschriften (Arbeiten zum spätantiken und koptischen Ägypten, 1; Altenberge: Oros Verlag, 1992). 31  Thompson, Acts of the Apostles, x. 32  The Chester Beatty codex measures 8.4 × 7.0 cm (see Thompson, Acts of the Apostles, xvii); the Louvain Anaphora is 8.0 × 7.0 cm (see Lefort, Manuscrits coptes, 102); P. Monts Roca II 10 and P. Monts Roca II 12 are 5 × 4.5 cm and 7 × 4 cm, respectively (see Torallas Tovar, Biblia Coptica, 55, 65); P. Monts Roca 735 is 5 × 5.8 cm (see Torallas Tovar, “A New Sahidic Coptic Fragment,” 156).

34

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

abundantly decorated with spirals.33 All these features make one think that P. Berol. 22220 must postdate the aforementioned manuscripts, although how much younger it is cannot be verified. All we can sensibly say about it is that it must be a post-600 CE manuscript. Scribal note A partial confirmation of this dating seems to be provided by a note on the bottom margin of page 97, scribbled upside down in semi-cursive characters perhaps as a probatio pennae. It is hard to say if it came from the pen of the codex’s copyist, or if it was inscribed later, as it appears in a different handwriting style. Although Hedrick supposed that this text uses a mixture of Greek and Coptic, the surviving words actually seem to be exclusively Coptic and Greco-Coptic. As the parchment is wrinkled and torn in several places, the format of the text and the number of lines are not immediately obvious. Here is a tentative transcription and translation:34 [ⲥ]ⲙⲟⲩ̣ […] . . […] [ⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲟ]ⲩⲥ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡ[ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ . . . . . . . . . ⲣⲁ ⲉ̣ⲣⲟⲕ ⲁⲛⲟ[ⲕ] […] […] ⲡⲓ ⲉⲗⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ . . . . . . . . . ⲉⲃⲟ̣ⲧ . . . [

bless […]… twelve apostles […] me … you, I […] more wretched than any man … month … […]

The occurrence of the word ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ, which Hedrick read as ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲓ, on the first line led Christoph Markschies to ask, with caution, whether the text could be identified with the Gospel of the Apostles, or the Gospel of the Twelve, mentioned by Origen and Jerome. However, it is doubtful that the note is useful for the identification of P. Berol. 22220.35 From the information that can be gleaned from the small amount of text, we can infer that it represents one of the short prayers and supplications that monks, either scribes or readers of the books, wrote on the margins of the manuscripts, or in whatever blank space seemed fit. Although paleographically dating non-literary Coptic manuscripts is not any easier than dating the literary hands, the shape of certain letters seems 33 The paragraph marks (obeloi) of Chester Beatty MS Copt. 814 are also simple compared to the more elaborate style used in P. Berol. 22220. 34  In the current state of preservation, the number of lines and succession of the words is difficult to discern. My transcription is based on the autoptic examination of the manuscript, supplemented by a Photoshop montage in which I cut and repasted the parchment in several pieces. 35 C. Markschies, “Was wissen wir?,” 71, 82. See already Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 239 n. 103.

P. Berol. 22220

35

to indicate that this note could originate in the late seventh or early eighth century.36 Arguments in this regard are supplied by the minuscule-type of ⲣ and ⲧ, which both have a “hook” oriented to the right at the lower end of their vertical stroke, and by the shape of ⲃ, ⲕ, ⲗ and ⲭ, which are much larger than the other letters.37 One last brief comment: it is important to point out that the word ⲉⲃⲟⲧ is fairly legible on the last line of the text. If this reading is correct, the note included a date, unfortunately now lost. Codicology When complete, the manuscript measured about 25 cm height × 20 cm breadth.38 Such a large codex was likely meant for liturgical usage in a church or monastery. The first thing that strikes someone who checks the photographs of P. Berol. 22220 available in the editio princeps is the constant reversal of the hair and flesh sides of the vellum.39 The flesh side of parchment manuscripts is usually easily recognizable as the ink tends to fade away on this side because of the animal fats, which cannot be removed completely during the preparation process of the skin. Furthermore, other physical signs, like the absence of pilosity marks, and a brighter aspect, make the flesh side to be relatively easy to recognize. As T. C. Skeat, an authority in manuscript studies, remarks: Despite the superiority of the flesh side, it is usually the hair side, with its rougher and more absorbent surface, which holds the ink better than the smooth and shiny flesh side, from which ink tends to flake off. Often, when the leaves of an ancient manuscript are turned over, revealing alternate openings of flesh side, there is a surprising difference of legibility in favor of the hair side.40

However, the editio princeps does not follow this fundamental codicological principle. Someone who checks the plates can see, for example, that page 107 (= Frag. 1B) is called the flesh side, although the script is impeccably 36  On the shortcomings, see L. S. B. MacCoull, “Dated and Datable Coptic Documentary Hands Before A. D. 700,” Le Muséon 110 (1997) 349–366, at 349–351. The dating mentioned has been suggested to me by Tonio Sebastian Richter (Free University, Berlin) and by Anne Boud’hors (CNRS, Paris). 37 For similar specimens see V. Stegemann, Koptische Paläographie (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums und des Mittelalters, 1; Heidelberg: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1936) plate 12. 38  This is the size of Frag. 1, whose length and breadth are clearly discernable. 39  S. Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 61. 40 T. C. Skeat, “Early Christian Book Production: Papyri and Manuscripts,” in J. K. Elliott (ed.), The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 113; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004) 33–59, at 41.

36

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

preserved. On the other hand, its verso (page 108 = Frag. 1A), whose script is very much faded, is designated as the hair side. Thus, although the reconstruction of the manuscript allegedly observes the so-called Gregory rule (parchment codices are constructed so that flesh faces flesh side, hair faces hair side, and the first sheet of a quire is folded with the flesh side on the outside), the comparison of the edition against the photographic plates proves the contrary.41 After the publication of the editio princeps, Emmel and Hedrick stated their options on the possible arrangements of the surviving folios of the codex. Their respective conclusions had an impact on the order of the material in the text.42 Emmel adroitly remarked that Hedrick’s reconstruction of the manuscript does not follow the “normal” quire structure of parchment codices. According to the aforementioned Gregory rule, the quires of a parchment codex are usually made of four superimposed sheets folded in two, so as to obtain eight folios, i. e. sixteen pages. Although there are a few exceptions to the rule, this standard pattern must be taken as a working hypothesis when we reconstruct dismembered Coptic manuscripts, unless strong arguments against it occur.43 As no such argument appears in the case of P. Berol. 22220, one must presuppose that the quires of the manuscript were each formed of four bifolios. However, in spite of the evidence, the first editors postulated instead a non-standard scheme of binions – that is, gatherings of two bifolios. 41 This

rule increased the aesthetics of the manuscript when opened, since both visible pages had the same color. See C. R. Gregory, “Les cahiers des manuscrits grecs,” Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 4th ser. 13 (1885) 261–268; E. G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977) 56. 42 Emmel, “Righting the Order”; C. Hedrick, “Caveats to a ‘Righted Order’ of the Gospel of the Savior,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003) 229–238. 43  Although I refer here to the “normal” structure of a quire, it is not unusual that one or more quires of a codex is made of less than eight leaves. This is the case, for example, with the Morgan Library & Museum M 595, whose last gathering is formed of only four leaves. As the scribe was getting closer to the completion of his transcription, and realized that he did not need an entire quire of eight leaves, he gathered together a smaller cluster of bifolios. We encounter the same situation in a fragmentary White Monastery codex, which contains an encomium on the Archangel Gabriel attributed to John Chrysostom. Thus, the outermost bifolio of the last quire of this manuscript (formed of two leaves in the National Library in Vienna, K 9670 and K 351) is paginated 81–82, and 87–88, respectively. This means that the last gathering comprised only four leaves. On this manuscript, see H. Förster, “‘Streck dich nicht mit einer Verheirateten zum Weingelage hin’ (Sir 9,9a). Edition von P. Vindob. K. 9670,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 14 (2010) 273–305, and E. Lucchesi, “Deux témoins coptes de l’homélie sur l’Archange Gabriel, attribuée à Jean Chrysostome,” Analecta Bollandiana 129 (2011) 324.

37

P. Berol. 22220

On the other hand, Emmel convincingly reconstructed a single quire made of four bifolios. The arguments that favor Emmel’s reconstruction can be summarized as follows. First of all, three bifolios have survived: Frags. 1, 2, and 4. Secondly, the following page numbers can be recovered on the extant fragments: 99–100 (= Frag. 2A) and 107–108 (= Frag. 1B). Through the fortuitous occurrence of a quotation from Matthew 26:31, which starts on the hair side of Frag. 3 and continues on the hair side of Frag. 2A (pages 99–100), it can be established that the former represents pages 97–98 of the manuscript. At this point, the quire can be reconstructed once we establish the folding direction of the three extant bifolios. Emmel rightly pointed out that, “[t]he direction of the fold at the spine of each bifolium is determinable, with page 100 folded toward page 109, page 102 towards page 107, and page 104 toward page 105.”44 Thus, the quire can be reconstructed as follows: [97] [98]  99 100 [101] [102] [103] [104]  [105] [106]  107 108  [109] [110]  111* 112*

If we now consider the fact that the first page preserved must have been paginated 97, and that each quire normally comprised 16 pages, we may infer that the reconstructed quire was the seventh of the codex. Given that the three surviving bifolios are wrongly indicated in Hedrick and Mirecki’s edition as folding in the opposite direction, this mistake led to a wrong sequence of the manuscript’s pages. Below is a synopsis of the actual page numbers and those which appear in the editio princeps. Naturally, the former constitutes the system of references adopted in the present volume:45 True pagination [97]–[98] 99–100 [101]–[102] [103]–[104] [105]–[106] 107–108 [109]–[110] 111*–112*

44 Emmel, 45

Editio princeps 91*–92* [97]–[98] 99–100 [113]–[114] 115*–116* 121*–122* 107–108 [105]–[106]

“Righting the Order,” 62.  The pages marked with an asterisk (*) are missing.

Fragment Frag 3 F/H Frag 2A H/F Frag 1A F/H Frag 4B H/F Frag 4A F/H Frag 1B H/F Frag 2B F/H (leaf missing)

38

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

Orthography The language of the document is standard Sahidic. Hedrick remarked that there is only one instance where the language might have been influenced by another dialect. Thus, the plural of “heaven” (ⲡⲏⲩⲉ) is written ⲡⲏⲟⲩⲉ at 97, col. A,10–11 and 101, col. A,9–10. Hedrick postulated, with reservation, a possible Akhmimic or old Sahidic origin of this form of the word.46 He also mentioned an alternative explanation suggested to him by Wolf-Peter Funk, who indicated that, as the letter ⲩ can never open a new text line in manuscripts, the scribe wrote an ⲟ before it.47 Indeed, if we check the Berlin manuscript, we can observe that this rule applies in both cases mentioned above. This explanation finds support in other Sahidic manuscripts. For example, a White Monastery fragment in Venice, containing a portion from the Sahidic version of John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews (CPG 4440; clavis coptica 0169), employs the same spelling of ⲡⲏⲩⲉ when the word is divided between two lines, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲏϩ | ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲡ|ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏ|ⲟⲩⲉ.48 Similarly, the Sahidic Psalms manuscript (London, BL Or. 5000) published by Ernest A. T. Wallis Budge provides yet another example of this orthographical rule, ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲉϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲙ̄ⲡⲏ|ⲟⲩⲉ ⲧⲁϫⲣⲟ (Psalm 32:6).49 The same principle features in a fragment of unidentified content kept in the Rijksmuseum in Leiden, ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲙ̄ⲡⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲏ|ⲟⲩⲉ.50 Whereas other examples can be quoted, those provided above suffice to demonstrate that ⲡⲏⲟⲩⲉ is not a dialectal variation of ⲡⲏⲩⲉ, but a variant spelling conforming to the rules of Sahidic orthography.51

 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 12. communication to Hedrick, see Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 12. 48 MS Venice, Marciana 192, f. 79r, col. A,13–16. The fragment belongs to the White Monastery codex MONB.CR, which contains homilies by John Chrysostom. Published in G. L.  Mingarelli, Ægyptiorum codicum reliquiæ Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatæ vol. 2 (Bologna: Typis Lælii a Vulpe, 1785) 282 (= no. 11). 49  E. A. W. Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter (London: Kegan Paul, 1898) 34. 50 Insinger no. 62v, col. B,20–21. Text in W. Pleyte – P. A. A. Boeser, Manuscrits coptes du Musée d’antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1897) 314. 51 Needless to say, the principle that a new line cannot open with a naked ⲩ is general, and does not apply only to the word ⲡⲏⲩⲉ. 46

47 Private

Strasbourg Copte 5–7

39

Strasbourg Copte 5–7 Location and Acquisition The papyrus fragments Copte 5–7 are currently housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire in Strasbourg. They were purchased in 1899 by Wilhelm Spiegelberg and Richard Reitzenstein during a research trip to Egypt. The goal of their mission was to build a papyrological collection for the Strasbourg Imperial Library. Unfortunately, the ultimate provenance of the fragments remains unknown. Adolf Jacoby provided their editio princeps in 1900.52 Papyrological Reconstruction The Strasbourg manuscript consists of about a dozen papyrus fragments, most of them of small dimension. The fragments are currently mounted under five glass plates inventoried as Copte 4, 5, 6, 7, and 7a.53 In order to avoid confusion in bibliographical references, it has been decided to employ in the present edition the old shelf-marks. However, here are the correspondences between the old and the new call numbers: Copte Frags. 7.1, 11 = Copte 4; Copte 5 and Copte 7.9 = Copte 5; Copte 6 and Copte 7.7, 8, 10 = Copte 6; Copte 7.2, 3, 4, 6 = Copte 7; Copte 7.7 = Copte 7a. All the fragments were copied in the same scribe’s hand. The text is arranged in a single column. The largest fragment is Copte 5, which measures ca. 21 cm height × 11 cm breadth. This fragment preserves vestiges of 24 lines of text on both sides but, as the bottom of the leaf is lost, the actual number of lines remains unknown.54 The second significant fragment in terms of size is Copte 6, which measures 11 cm height × 15.5 cm breadth. This fragment is the only one that still bears page numbers, being paginated 157 on the recto (↑) and 158 on the verso (→).  Jacoby, Evangelienfragment. See also Crum, “Strassburg Gospel Fragments”; W. Spiegel­berg – A. Jacoby, “Zu dem Strassburger Evangelien-fragment. Eine Antikritik,” Sphinx 4 (1901) 171–193; W. Schneemelcher, “The Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus,” in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (rev. ed.; Cambridge – Louisville, KY: James Clarke – Westminster – John Knox Press, 1991) 103–105; and D. Bertrand, “Papyrus Strasbourg copte 5–6,” in F. Bovon – P. Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1997) 425–428. 53 Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 366–367. 54 Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 369, suggests that the pages might have contained up to 40 lines. 52

40

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

At the time when the editio princeps was published, under the number Copte 7 were inventoried eleven fragments of various sizes (nos. 1–11), which remained unplaced by Jacoby. Carl Schmidt, who studied the fragments in Strasbourg soon after their acquisition, published a bitter review of Jacoby’s edition, in which, among other things, he managed to place several pieces of Copte 7:55 I examined these again on the spot and have come to the following conclusion. Copt. 7 no. 7 is, as mentioned, directly connected to Copt. 6. Furthermore, no. 9 fills a part of the large gap in the middle of Copt. 5 at lines 10–11, and no. 10 must be joined directly to Copt. 6, line 9. The pieces nos. 2, 6, 3, 4 belong to the same single sheet of papyrus, which, in all probability, immediately precedes the leaf Copt. 5. Given that on two pieces we read traces of ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ, the whole text is expected to belong to the prayer of Jesus, who speaks here about his σταυρός and his Father. One would probably have to consider the vertical side of the leaf as its verso. So only nos. 1, 8, 11 still need to be placed. No. 1 is necessarily a fragment from a lost leaf, which perhaps included no. 8 as well, unless the latter belongs to Copt. 6. No. 11 is from the margin of another leaf. We would therefore have fragments of five leaves.56

Schmidt made these suggestions on purely papyrological grounds, which means that he established the relationship between the fragments only by observing the continuity of the papyrus fibers. One century later, Schmidt’s hypothesis finally received full confirmation when Emmel realized that P. Berol. 22220 and Strasbourg Copte 5–7 are two manuscripts of the same work and, consequently, was able to place some fragments with the help of the parallel text in the Berlin parchment.57 With the sole exception of the fragment 7.10, which does not seem to fit in the place indicated by Schmidt, all the other fragments placed by him have been integrated into my edition.58 Language The language of Strasbourg Copte 5–7 is classical Sahidic, without manifest idiosyncrasies. The orthography is also standardized. In the surviving portions of the manuscript, the scribe used as punctuation marks the raised dot, the comma, and the trema on iota.  Schmidt, review of Jacoby, 486. The whole affair of the rivalry between Carl Schmidt, on the one side, and Adolf Jacoby and Wilhelm Spiegelberg, on the other, is summarized in Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 354–360. 56 Schmidt, review of Jacoby, 486 (my translation). 57 Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 361–364. 58  Although ↑ side of this fragment seems possible to attach to the recto of Copte 6, the surviving traces of letters on → side makes unlikely the placement to the verso of Copte 6. 55

Strasbourg Copte 5–7

41

Paleography and Dating The Strasbourg fragments are inscribed with a rounded uncial. Some notable paleographical features include: – ⲩ is round, made of two strokes and does not extend below the line; – ϫ is peculiar, with a long horizontal stroke which ends with a serif on the right side. Its arms are round and curved; – ⲣ has a small loop and the vertical stroke is slightly curved at the inferior end; – ⲙ is three-stroke and has a low saddle. Jacoby placed the manuscript, with caution, in the fifth-sixth century.59 For his part, Schmidt tentatively postulated a fourth-fifth century date.60 Emmel dated it on the basis of the codex’s format “probably not later than the fifth century.”61 Paleographically, the manuscript resembles a couple of papyrus codices kept in the Egyptian Museum in Turin, notably codex GIOV.AI.62 This manuscript was also copied in one column. It contains the Coptic versions of three genuine homilies by John Chrysostom: On David and Saul III (CPG 4412.3; clavis coptica 0168), On Joseph the Patriarch (CPG 4566; clavis coptica 0171), and On Susanna (CPG 4567; clavis coptica 0178).63 On the basis of the paleographical resemblance between the Strasbourg fragments and the papyrus codex in Turin, we may conclude that the two manuscripts probably date from the same period. Given that John Chrysostom died in 407 CE and that some time must have passed before his homilies were translated into Sahidic, a fourth or fifth century dating for the transcription of GIOV.AI and the paleographically related papyrus in Strasbourg should be excluded from the outset. Keeping with this line of reasoning, one can speculate that the manuscripts date to the sixth century at the earliest.

 Jacoby, Evangelienfragment, 3.  Schmidt, review of Jacoby, 483. 61  Emmel, “Preliminary,” 30 n. 67; Idem, “Prolegomena,” 369–370. 62 The Turin papyri apparently came from a monastery or church dedicated to John the Baptist, situated near Tin in Upper Egypt. Hence the CMCL abbreviation of these codices as GIOV (= “Giovani Baptista”), followed by two letters of the Latin alphabet. On the description of the collection, see T. Orlandi, “Les papyrus coptes du Musée Égyptien de Turin,” Le Muséon 87 (1974) 115–127; Idem, “The Turin Coptic Papyri,” Augustinianum 53 (2013) 501–530. 63 The texts were published in F. Rossi, “Trascrizione con traduzione italiana dal copto di due omelie di S. Giovanni Crisostomo con alcuni capitoli dei Proverbi di Salomone e frammenti vari di due esegesi sul giorno natalizio del nostro Signore Gesù Cristo,” Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 2nd ser., 40 (1890) 99–208. 59 60

42

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

The Qasr el-Wizz Codex Discovery and Location When the High Dam was built in the 1960s, almost the entire Nile valley between Aswan and Wadi Halfa was inundated in order to create Lake Nasser. As the waters were rising, many archeological sites were destroyed, while others, such as the well-known temples of Abu Simbel, were removed from their original location and re-erected elsewhere. In that period, the archeological mission of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago was trying to rescue some of the sites endangered by the construction of the High Dam and the Lake Nasser. In 1964, an American team led by Keith C. Seele discovered and partly excavated a Christian monastery at Qasr el-Wizz, situated just a couple of kilometers north of Faras, in Lower Nubia. As that part of the Nile became more and more difficult to navigate, Seele was obliged to leave the site before completing the excavations. In October-November 1965, George Scanlon, at the time director of the American Research Center in Egypt, ventured to explore the monastic settlement in dangerous conditions, before the waters of the Nile flooded the area forever.64 Scanlon’s bravery was rewarded and he managed to salvage a multitude of ancient artifacts. Among these, Scanlon and his team discovered on the floor of a cell inside the monastery a small parchment book written in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. Although the binding of the manuscript was missing, its pages were in a nearly intact condition. Several media and scholarly reports appeared soon after the discovery.65 Photographs were sent to Chicago and, during the summer of 1966, George R. Hughes of the Oriental Institute prepared a translation of the codex, which remains unpublished.66 After its discovery in 1965, the Qasr el-Wizz codex was kept for a period of time in the Coptic Museum in Cairo under the inventory number 6566.67 In 1999, the manuscript was moved to the newly founded Nubian Museum  See the report of G. T. Scanlon – G. Hingot, “Slip-Painted Pottery from Wizz/La poterie engobée de Wizz,” African Arts/Arts d’Afrique 2 (1968) 8–13, 65–69; G. T. Scanlon, “Excavations at Kasr el-Wizz: A Preliminary Report,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 56 (1970) 29–57; 58 (1972) 7–42. 65  See, e. g., Sanka Knox, “Old Coptic MS. Earthed Near Abu Simbel,” New York Times Dec. 24, 1965, 15; “New Words of Jesus?,” Time Magazine Jan. 7, 1966, 32. 66  G. R. Hughes, “A Coptic Liturgical Book from Qasr el-Wizz in Nubia,” Oriental Institute Report 1965/1966 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1966) 10–13. The translation is dated July 1, 1966 and it bears the label “NOT FOR PUBLICATION.” 67 See G. Gabra, Cairo: The Coptic Museum and Old Churches (Cairo: Egyptian International Publishing Co.: 1993) 90 (photograph of ff. 1v–2r). 64

The Qasr el-Wizz Codex

43

in Aswan, where it has been inventoried as Special Number 168.68 The editio princeps of the manuscript was prepared by Péter Hubai and it appeared in Hungarian in 2006, and in German in 2009.69 Content of the Codex The little Coptic book from el-Wizz includes two texts: A) ff. 2r–12r (= pp. 3–23) contain a revelation dialogue of Jesus with the apostles on the Mount of Olives, conventionally called the Discourse of the Savior or the Stauros-text; B) on ff. 12v–17r (= pp. 24–33) features the abbreviated version of the hymn that Christ sings to the cross in P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,17 ff. and Strasbourg Copte 7 and 5r. The first text of the el-Wizz codex is introduced as, “A discourse which our savior and our Lord, Jesus Christ, told to his glorious saints, the apostles, before he was taken up, about the power, assurance, and the way of being of the glorious and vivifying cross” (ⲟⲩⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲡⲉⲛⲥ̄︤ⲏ̄︥ⲣ̄︥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲛⲇⲉⲥⲡⲟⲧⲏⲥ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄︥ ⲡⲉⲭ̄ⲥ̄︥ ⲧⲁⲙⲉ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉⲧϩⲁⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧⲟⲩⲁⲛⲁⲗⲁⲙⲃⲁⲛⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲧϭⲟⲙ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲁⲣⲣⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲧⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϩⲁⲉⲟⲟⲩ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲣⲉϥⲧⲁⲛϩⲟ). The apostles are gathered together on the Mount of Olives, four days before the Ascension. Christ promised to reveal everything to them, so Peter questions him concerning the mystery of the cross and its role at the  P. Hubai, “Unbekannte koptische Apocryphe aus Nubien (Vorläufiger Bericht)”, in H. Győry (ed.), Le lotus qui sort de terre. Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga (Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts. Supplément; Budapest: Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2001) 309–323, at 312–314. 69  Hubai, A Megváltó a keresztről; Idem, Koptische Apokryphen. As the latter publication, which represents the German translation of Hubai’s Hungarian book, is more easily accessible, I will quote from it throughout. See also the following reviews of Hubai’s work on the Qasr el-Wizz codex: Jakab in Apocrypha 18 (2007) 342–344 (review of the Hungarian book); Poirier in Laval théologique et philosophique 67 (2011) 187–189 (review of the German version). English translations of the texts in the Qasr el-Wizz codex can be found in Ehrman – Pleše, The Other Gospels, 226–230; A. Tsakos – C. Bull – L. Abercrombie – E. Thomassen, “Miscellanea Epigraphica Nubica IV: A New Edition of the Wizz Codex with an English Translation,” Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 10 (2013) 193–209; Dilley, “Discourse of the Savior,” 184–196. The first text of the codex is translated into German in P. Nagel, “Ein Stauros-Text aus Qasr el-Wizz in koptischer und altnubischer Parallelversion,” in J. Budka – R. Gundacker – G. Pieke (eds.), Florilegium Aegyptiacum. Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013 (Göttinger Miszellen, Beihefte, 14; Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, 2013) 271–286, and the second in Idem, “Koptischer Kreuzhymnus aus Nubien (6.–8. Jh.),” in B. Jaspert (ed.), Christliche Frömmigkeit. Studien und Texte zu ihrer Geschichte vol. 1: Von den Aufängen bis zum 15. Jahrhundert (Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz, 2013) 320–322. 68

44

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

last judgment, so that the apostles might proclaim it to the whole world. A revelatory speech follows in which Jesus explains to the apostles the way he will judge the righteous and the sinners at the end of times in the valley of Jehoshaphat. This revelation discourse has been known for a long time in an Old Nubian version. Discovered at East Serra and kept today in the collection of the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, the Nubian text was published in 1913 by Francis Llewellyn Griffith.70 Whereas in the Qasr el-Wizz codex the revelation of Jesus is followed by the abbreviated version of the Hymn of the Cross from the BSApo, in the Old Nubian manuscript it closes with an excerpt from the homily In venerabilem crucem sermo (CPG 4525) attributed to John Chrysostom. This pseudo-Chrysostomic hymn comprises an extensive Laus Crucis, which is an assembly of epithets and appellations for the cross. Although In venerabilem is not a genuinely Chrysostomic piece, it must have been composed relatively early, perhaps even during John Chrysostom’s lifetime. There is a Latin translation that belongs to the collection of 38 homilies attributed to Chrysostom known to Augustine early in the fifth century.71 Beside Latin, In venerabilem is attested in Syriac,72 Old Nubian,73 Arabic,74 70 The manuscript was purchased in Cairo in 1906 by Carl Schmidt. F. L. Griffith, The Nubian Texts of the Christian Period (Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jg. 1913. Phil.-hist. Classe, 8; Berlin: Reimer, 1913) 41–53; see also Idem, “Some Old Nubian Christian Texts,” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909) 545–551. The text was reedited by G. M. Browne, “Griffith’s Stauros-Text,” Studia Papyrologica 22 (1983) 75–119, which is considered to be the standard edition. A German parallel translation of the Sahidic revelation discourse from el-Wizz and the Nubian version of the same text from Serra East has been provided in Nagel, “Ein Stauros-Text.” 71  A. Wilmart, “La collection des 38 homélies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome,” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1918) 305–327, at 315; B. Altaner, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altlateinischen Übersetzungen von Väterschriften,” Historisches Jahrbuch 61 (1941) 208–226; and S. Voicu, “Le prime traduzioni latine di Crisostomo,” in Cristianesimo latino e cultura Greca sino al sec. IV. – XXI incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 7–9 maggio 1992 (Studia ephemeridis ‘Augustinianum’, 42; Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1993) 397–415. 72  G. M. Browne, “Ps.-Chrysostom, In venerabilem crucem sermo: The Syriac Version,” Le Muséon 99 (1986) 39–59, Idem, “Ps.-Chrysostom, In venerabilem crucem sermo: The Greek Vorlage of the Syriac Version,” Le Muséon 103 (1990) 125–139. 73 G. M. Browne, Chrysostomus Nubianus: An Old Nubian Version of Ps.-Chrysostom, In venerabilem crucem sermo (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 10; Rome – Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1984). 74  K. Samir, “A propos du volume II de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43 (1977) 182–197, at 195; J.-M. Sauget, “Une ébauche d’homéliaire copte pour la Semaine Sainte: le manuscrit Borgia arabe 99,” Parole de l’Orient 14 (1987) 167–202, at 188.

45

The Qasr el-Wizz Codex

Ethiopic,75 Slavonic,76 and Armenian. Moreover, the popularity of litanies of the cross from In venerabilem is further demonstrated by the existence of the so-called Ethiopic ሐጹረ፡ መስቀል፡ (Ḥaṣurä mäsqäl), the Rampart of the Cross, written in the mold of the pseudo-Chrysostomic hymn.77 Although no Coptic manuscript of In venerabilem has been discovered as yet, in all likelihood, the text circulated in Coptic as well, and this version may have served as the source for the Old Nubian and Arabic translations. Furthermore, several similar anaphoras of the cross appear in Coptic and in Greek sources of Egyptian provenance.78 The relationship between the BSApo, the Qasr el-Wizz, and the East Serra Old Nubian texts can be sketched as follows: Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

East Serra Old Nubian manuscript

Qasr el-Wizz Coptic manuscript

Revelation of Christ 1

Revelation of Christ 2 (the Stauros-Text)

Revelation of Christ 2 (the Stauros-Text)

Hymn of the Cross

Ps.-Chysostom, In venerabilem (excerpt)

Hymn of the Cross (abbreviated)

Revelation of Christ 1 (continuation)

Description and Dating of the Manuscript The Qasr el-Wizz codex is a small format manuscript, measuring 16.7 cm height × 10 cm breadth.79 The codicological structure is irregular, as the codex is formed of four quires comprising a total of 17 leaves (= 34 pages). The first gathering is made of five folios: two bifolios and a leaf conjugated with 75  The Ethiopic translation is not mentioned in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, but see D. V.  Proverbio, La recensione etiopica dell’omelia pseudocrisostomica De ficu exarata ed il suo tréfonds orientale (Äthiopistische Forschungen, 50; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1998) 75, 90, 96; W. Witakowski, “John Chrysostom,” in S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica vol. 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007) 293–295, at 294. 76  C. Hannick, Maximos Holobolos in der kirchenslavischen homiletischen Literatur (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien, 14; Vienna: VÖAW, 1981) 99 n. 21. 77  S. Grébaut, “Litanies de la Croix,” Aethiopica 3 (1925) 187–190; D. Lifchitz, Textes éthiopiens magico-religieux (Travaux et mémoires de l’Institut d’éthnologie, 38; Paris: Institut d’éthnologie, 1940) 87–147; B. Burtea, “Ḥaṣurä mäsqäl,” in S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica vol. 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005) 1045–1046. 78  See the sources mentioned in A. Suciu, “Ps.-Theophili Alexandrini Sermo de Cruce et Latrone (CPG 2622): Edition of Pierpont Morgan M595 with Parallels and Translation,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 16 (2012) 181–225, at 194–197. 79 Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 22.

46

Chapter 2: The Manuscripts

a stub. The complete leaf of this sheet, the first in the codex, accommodates on the verso an illuminated cross, filled with interlaced stripes in the usual Coptic style. The second and the third quires are actually binions, containing only four leaves each. Finally, the last gathering is formed of a single bifolio, to which were added two extra sheets, both of them single leaves conjugated with a stub. Another Coptic cross is drawn on the verso of the last leaf. The Gregory rule is not strictly observed, as the first three gatherings begin with a hair side page. Moreover, the facing pages 10–11 and 26–27 are flesh/hair and hair/flesh, respectively. Although the codex is not paginated, the succession of the leaves is not problematic since they were still bound together at the moment of discovery. The leaves of the manuscript are decorated with geometric, vegetal, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs. The text is arranged in a single column varying between 9 to 13 lines.80 The letters are thin and elongated – somewhat unusual when compared to Coptic handwriting styles, but similar to the Sahidic, Old Nubian, and Greek manuscripts from Nubia, or from the Coptic monasteries under Nubian patronage.81 If we compare paleographically the Qasr el-Wizz codex to other Sahidic codices, perhaps the closest parallel is supplied by some of the Edfu manuscripts, which are today in the British Library, albeit their formats are different.82 Particularly interesting in this connection are BL Or. 6804, which contains the Book of Bartholomew,83 and a series of Sahidic fragments of 2 Enoch (CAVT 66), recently identified by Joost L. Hagen.84 Their resemblance demonstrates that there must have been a Nubian style of copying Coptic manuscripts. The British Library codex containing the Book of Bartholomew has a colophon, but it is unfortunately undated and thus of little help for establishing the age of the el-Wizz manuscript. Arnold van Lantschoot placed the London codex in the twelfth 80 I do not take into consideration f. 12r (= p. 23), which, being the last page of a text, contains only five lines followed by a decoration. The scribe left the remaining part of the page blank. 81  See, e. g., R. de Rustafjaell, The Light of Egypt from Recently Discovered Predynastic and Early Christian Records (London: Kegan Paul – Trench – Trübner & Co., 1909) pl. 39, 46–47, 49–51. 82 On the Edfu-Esna manuscripts, check B. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired since the Year 1906 (London: British Library, 1987) xxvi–xxx. 83  Photographic reproductions of the manuscript in de Rustafjaell, Light of Egypt, pl. 47 and E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1913) pl. 1–48. 84 J. L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in A. A. Orlov – G. Boccaccini (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch. No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica, 4; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2012) 7–34.

The Qasr el-Wizz Codex

47

century, but this must be too late, especially if we take into consideration the fact that the dated Edfu codices range between 974 and 1053 (or 1056) CE.85 It is more likely that the manuscript of the Book of Bartholomew also dates, like the other codices from the Edfu trove, to around 1000 CE. On the basis of the paleographical resemblance, the Qasr el-Wizz codex probably dates to the same period.86

van Lantschoot, Recueil des colophons des manuscrits chrétiens d’Égypte vol. 1/ fasc. 1 (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 1; Leuven: J.-B. Istas, 1929) 218–220 (= no. 122). The earliest date is attested in London, BL Or. 7028 + BL Or. 6780, description in Layton, Catalogue, 194–196 (= no. 162), while the latest appears in London BL Or. 6799, description in Layton, Catalogue, 89–90 (= no. 83). The latter is actually dated differently, Paone 15, 769 Era of the Martyrs (= 1053 CE) and the 448th Year of Hijra (= 1056 CE). 86 The same dating has been proposed by Emmel, “Preliminary,” 25 n. 48. On the other hand, Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 36 dated it to the middle of the ninth century, but I think this is too early. 85 A.

Chapter 3

The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon and the Relationship Between the Manuscripts Outline of the Text The BSApo mostly consists of a dialogue between Jesus and the apostles. The dialogue is punctuated by some narrative episodes, as it is readily evident despite the numerous lacunae which prevent a fluent reading of the text. The extant portions contain numerous quotations, allusions or paraphrases of various biblical books. The text also includes a hymn addressed by Jesus to the cross.1 This hymn has the peculiar characteristic that an “Amen” pronounced by the apostles follows each of Christ’s utterances. The beginning of the work is missing. The surviving text starts on page 97 of the Berlin manuscript, with a discourse of Christ, but its topic is not immediately obvious, as the preceding section is lost. Perhaps this portion somehow addressed the kingdom of heaven since this expression appears three times in the first surviving lines (97, col. A,9–10, 13–14, 16–17). Apparently, Jesus refers here to something as being situated at the right hand of the apostles in the kingdom of heaven. Mirecki believes that a parallel of this saying can be found in Matthew 20:21, where the mother of the sons of Zebedee asks Jesus that her sons, “May sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.”2 However, the lost subject is clearly not found at the right hand of Christ, who is the one who speaks, but, rather, of the apostles. The speech of the Savior precedes a question from the apostle Andrew. Unfortunately, his question is completely lost in the lacuna which affects 1 This hymnic section is badly damaged. It is, however, obvious from the extant portions that the Savior speaks to the cross several times using the formula “O cross!,” resembling the passage from the Acts of Andrew in which the apostle speaks to the cross before his martyrdom, and addresses it with the formula ὦ σταυρέ, see the synopsis of the Armenian and Greek texts of the “discourse to the cross” in J.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae. Textus et indices (Corpus christianorum. Series apocryphorum, 6; Turnhout: Brepols, 1989) 738–745. 2  Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 89.

Outline of the Text

49

most of the second column of page 97. In the only extant part from what seems to be the answer of Christ, the harrowing of Hell is mentioned. The text continues on page 98, perhaps with a discussion about sin and free will. The Greek word αὐτεξούσιος appears twice at this point (98, col. A,32; col. B,7–8) and regrettably the manuscript is badly damaged, making the text unintelligible. Perhaps, a new section begins after this, because at the end of page 98, col. B,14 the scribe inserted a colon.3 If so, a new textual unit began on page 98 col. B,15, introduced by the words of the Savior to the apostles: “Arise, let us leave this place. For the one who shall hand me over has approached” (Mark 14:42; Matthew 26:46). In the text that follows (98, col. B,21–99, col. A,16), the Savior anticipates his passion and explains to the disciples the virtues of self-sacrifice. This portion is a patchwork of allusions to New Testament texts: You shall all flee and be offended because of me. You shall all flee and leave me alone, but I do not remain alone for my Father is with me. I and my Father, we are a single one. For it is written: “I shall strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.” I am the good shepherd. I shall lay down my soul for you. You, yourself, lay down your souls for your companions to be pleasing to my Father, for there is no commandment greater than this: that I lay down my soul for people. This is [why] my Father loves me, because I fulfilled [his] wish.

At 99, col. B,1–8, a question from one or more apostles has survived, but only in part. Apparently, the apostles wanted to know what they should do after the death of Jesus. A new section starts after a long lacuna that affects almost the entire second column of page 99. The Savior is asking his disciples to stand up and pray. The scene of the dialogue changes at this point, and at 99, col. B,1 Christ and the apostles appear to be on a mountain, presumably the Mount of Olives. Here, Jesus ascends to heaven, while the apostles experience a mystical vision during which they see everything into the seventh heaven. As the Savior is crossing the heavens, the great force of his ascent shakes everything on the way, so that the angels are distressed and fear that they will be destroyed. When Christ reaches the seventh heaven, where the tabernacle of God is situated, the other heavens remain open so that the apostles, still on the mountain, can see what occurs inside it. The author borrowed the description of the tabernacle of the Father from Revelation 4, where it is said that the heavenly throne is surrounded by the Four Bodiless Creatures and the thrones of the twenty-four elders. The apostles recount that, 3 The

function of this punctuation sign in P. Berol. 22220 is to mark the end of a section.

50

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

when Jesus Christ enters into the Father’s throne room, he is welcomed with great pomp by the heavenly beings which surround the throne of God (101 col. A,24–col. B,11). The Son bows in front of his Father, uttering the words of Matthew 26:39: “O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me!” This clarifies that, while the entire section is an interpretation of the Gethsemane scene, in the BSApo the prayer of Christ before his arrest takes place in heaven. Unfortunately, most of the details of this episode are lost because pages 103–106 of P. Berol. 22220 are the worst affected of the entire quire. In the similar passage from one of the manuscripts of the Book of Bartholomew, the Savior ascends to heaven before the Passion in order to kneel before the throne of the Father. However, in this text the apostles do not remain on the Mount of Olives, but rather ascend to heaven with the Savior: “We, ourselves, went with him in the height to the tabernacle of the good Father in the seventh heaven. Then, the Savior bowed at the feet of the Father.”4 Although the parchment is damaged at the bottom of the second column of page 105, it is still obvious from the few surviving letters that it preserves the vestiges of an anaphora of the wood of the cross. Thus, the last four lines of page 105 begin with ⲡϣⲉ (“the wood”), which in the first three cases is followed by the preposition ⲙ̄-. It is likely that the last line contained the same construction. Furthermore, the scribe inserted a raised dot at the end of the first two lines of the following page, indicating that the anaphora extended beyond page 106 and that each verse filled one line in the manuscript. The text can be reconstructed as follows: P. Berol. 22220 105, col. B,29–105, col. A,2: [The] wood of […].

The wood of […]. The wood of […]. The wood […]. [The wood of] strength. [The wood of forgiveness] of sin.

Similar anaphoras of the wood of the cross appear in other Coptic writings. For example, in a Sahidic homily on the cross and the Good Thief attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria (CPG 2622; clavis coptica 0395), we find an

4 Sahidic text in M. Westerhoff, Auferstehung und Jenseits in koptischen ‘Buch der Auferstehung Jesu Christi, unseres Herrn’ (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999) 154.

Outline of the Text

51

analogous succession of the virtues of the cross.5 What is more, the manuscripts of this work also display a symmetrical arrangement of the verses:6 ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲫⲑⲁⲣⲥⲓⲁ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲕⲁ ⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲣⲉϥⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲣⲉϥϯ ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲙⲧⲟⲛ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ̈‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲙⲟⲩ‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ̄‧ ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ

The wood of incorruptibility, The wood of forgiveness of sin, The wood of the healer, The wood of the fruit-giver, The wood of relief, The wood of gladness, The wood of joy, The wood of salvation, The wood of blessing, The wood of life, The wood of grace

In six cases, the verses of this anaphora begin with ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄‑ (“the wood of”). Moreover, P. Berol. 22220 106, col. A,2 can tentatively be restored as [ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲕⲁ ⲛⲟ]ⲃⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ (“[The wood of forgiveness] of sin”) on the basis of the second verse in Ps.-Theophilus’ anaphora. The same formula appears in a Sahidic Antiphonary, which belonged to the Monastery of the Archangel Michael in the Fayyum: ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ̄︤ⲥ︥̄ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ⸳ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲕⲁ ⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ (“The cross is the wood of gladness and the wood of forgiveness of sin”).7 As can be observed, both qualities of the wood of the cross mentioned in the Antiphonary occur as well in Ps.-Theophilus, indicating that we are dealing with a hymn which must have been fairly common in Coptic sources. Probably, the Berlin manuscript contained a similar hymn. By comparison with the poorly-preserved vestiges of pages 103–106, the next two pages, i. e. 107–108, are in nearly intact condition. From the opening lines of page 107, we can infer that the scene of the dialogue changed again, the topic being now the body of Christ after the resurrection, “We said to him: ‘Lord, in what form will you appear to us? Or in what kind of body will you come? Tell us’.” It appears that the resurrection will transform Christ’s humanity, his post-resurrectional physical body being unbearable to humans: “Do not touch me until I go up to [my] Father who [is your] Father, [my God] who is your God, and my Lord who is your Lord. If someone approaches me, he will [burn]. I am the [fire that] blazes. The [one who is 5 This

sermon has survived in four manuscripts, two of which are incomplete, see Suciu, “Ps.-Theophili Alexandrini,” 181–186. 6 Suciu, “Ps.-Theophili Alexandrini,” 211. 7  The manuscript is kept today in the Morgan Library & Museum in New York as M 575. The quotation above occurs on f. 9v. See the edition by M. Cramer – M. Krause, Das koptische Antiphonar (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 12; Münster, Aschendorf, 2008) 90.

52

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

close] to me [is] close to [the] fire. The one who is far from me is far from life” (P. Berol. 22220 107 col. A,31–col. B,16). The answer of the Savior uses the Noli me tangere theme from John 20:17 and the so-called “Agraphon of the Fire.” Unlike in the Gospel of John, Christ does not address the Noli me tangere utterance to Mary Magdalene, but rather to the apostles. Furthermore, our text adds to the New Testament quotation the words, “my Lord who is your Lord.” This longer form of the saying is not attested elsewhere except in another Coptic apostolic memoir, namely, the Book of Bartholomew.8 The “Agraphon of the Fire” is also stripped of its original meaning, the focus being shifted on the post-resurrectional nature of Christ’s body. Pierluigi Piovanelli considers that the agraphon has been reinterpreted in the light of the Noli me tangere motif. The saying, “has been not only reemployed, demetaphorized (in spite of his human nature, the risen Christ will truly burn), and contextualized into a new narrative framework, but also adapted to the Johannine perspectives of its new environment.”9 This agraphon appears under various forms in the Gospel of Thomas,10 in Origen’s Homily in Jeremiah 3.3 (CPG 1438), which is preserved only in Jerome’s Latin translation,11 in the Commentary on the Psalms by Didymus the Blind (CPG 2551), transmitted fragmentarily in some Patristic catenae to the Psalms,12 and in a Syriac commentary on the Gospel parables attributed to Ephrem, extant only in an Armenian translation.13  8 Emmel,

106.

“Righting the Order,” 57; Coptic text in Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung,

 9 P. Piovanelli, “The Reception of Early Christian Texts and Traditions in Late Antiquity Apocryphal Literature,” in L. DiTommaso – L. Turcescu (eds.), The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11–13 October 2006 (Bible in Ancient Christianity, 6; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008) 429–439, at 437. 10 B. Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (Nag Hammadi Studies, 20; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989) 84–85. 11   W. A.  Baehrens, Origenes Werke vol. 8: Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten Kommentar zum Hehelied in Rufins und Hieronimus’ Übersetzungen (Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, 33; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1925) 312; P. Nautin – P. Husson, Origène, Homélies sur Jérémie vol. 2 (Sources chrétiennes, 238; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1977) 324–325 (Latin text and French translation). 12  E. Mühlenberg, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung vol. 2 (Patristische Texte und Studien, 16; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977) 168. See also M.-J. Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIIe-Ve siècles) vol. 1: Les travaux des Pères grecs et latins sur le Psautier. Recherches et bilan (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 219; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982) 116–117. 13 G. A. Egan, Saint Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel 2 vols. (CSCO, 291–292.

53

Outline of the Text

Nagel analyzed the five known sources of the agraphon and concluded that the form of the saying in the BSApo and Ps.-Ephrem is secondary compared to that in the Gospel of Thomas, Origen, and Didymus. Thus, while the original form of the agraphon says, “The one who is close to me is close to the fire. The one who is far from me is far from the kingdom,” the BSApo and Ps.-Ephraim read “far from life” instead of “far from the kingdom.”14 BSApo

Ps.-Ephrem

Origen

Didymus

Gospel of Thomas

ⲡ[ⲉⲧϩⲏⲛ] ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟ̣[ⲓ̈ ⲉϥ]ϩⲏⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ ⲉ[ⲡⲕ]ⲱ̣ϩ︤ⲧ· ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈, ⲉϥⲟⲩⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛ︤ϩ

Որ մերձենայ առ իս, առ հուր մերձենայ. և որ հեռի է յինէն, հեռի է ի կենաց.

Qui iuxta me est, iuxta ignem est; qui longe est a me, longe est a regno.

ὁ ἐγγύς μου, ἐγγὺς τοῦ πυρός, ὁ δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ έμοῦ μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας.

ⲡⲉⲧϩⲏⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲉⲓ ⲉϥϩⲏⲛ ⲉⲧⲥⲁⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲉⲓ ϥⲟⲩⲏⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ

[The one who draws] close to me, draws close to [the] fire, the one who is far from me, is far from life.

The one who draws close to me, draws close to the fire, and the one who is far from me is far from life.

The one who is near me is near the fire, the one who is far from me is far from the kingdom.

The one who is near me is near the fire, and the one who is far from me is far from the kingdom.

The one who draws close to me, draws close to the fire, and the one who is far from me is far from the kingdom.

Nagel also remarked that a comparison between the BSApo and the Gospel of Thomas indicates that the two texts do not depend on each other, which excludes the possibility of a direct influence.15 Returning now to the meaning of the passage under scrutiny, it should be highlighted that the idea that Christ will have after the resurrection an intangible body, which cannot be touched by humans, appears in a similar context in other Coptic writings. For example, in a homily on the Passion attributed Scriptores armeniaci, 5–6; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1968) 1: 67 (Armenian text), 2: 62 (English translation). This works is considered genuine by G. A. Egan, “A Re-consideration of the Authenticity of Ephem’s ‘An Exposition of the Gospel’,” in P. Granfield – J. A. Jungmann (eds.), Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Münster: Aschendorff, 1970) 128–134. However, strong arguments against its authenticity have been raised, see B. Outtier, “Une explication de l’Évangile attribuée à saint Ephrem. À propos d’une édition récente,” Parole de l’Orient 1 (1970) 385–407; D. Bundy, “An Anti-Marcionite Commentary on the Lucan Parables (Pseudo-Ephrem A),” Le Muséon 103 (1990) 111–123. 14 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 232–234. 15 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 233, and also Idem, “Apokryphe Jesusworte in der koptischen Überlieferung,” in Frey – Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 495–526, at 501–503.

54

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

to Cyril of Jerusalem (CPG 3598; clavis coptica 0114) the resurrected Christ tells Mary, who in this text is not the Magdalene, but the Virgin: Morgan Library & Museum M 595, f. 25v: ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲕⲱⲗⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϫⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲑ︤ⲃⲥⲱ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲧⲁⲁⲥ ϩⲓ̈ⲱⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥ︤ⲧ ⲙⲛ̄ϣϭⲟⲙ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲣⲙ︥ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲣⲝ ϫⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ϣⲁⲛϯⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲧⲁϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲩⲱϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ He stopped her saying: “My mother, do not touch me, for the garment that my Father has put on me when he raised me cannot be touched by a man of flesh until I go up to sit on the right of my Father.” 16

Interestingly, both the BSApo and Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem use John 20:17 in order to show that the body of Christ at the resurrection cannot be touched by human beings. Obviously, the two texts share the same view concerning Christ’s post-resurrectional body. A new textual unit starts at 107, col. B,17, namely the Hymn of the Cross. Christ asks his disciples to encircle him while he sings to the cross, and dances around it. The apostles are replying “Amen” to the utterances of the Savior. The hymn resembles the dance scene in the Acts of John 94–96 (CANT 215.1),17 but also the Manichaean Amen hymn.18 It is possible that this scene in the BSApo is based on Matthew 26:30/Mark 14:26, “After they had sang a hymn, they went to the Mount of Olives.”19 The Hymn of the Cross breaks off at the end of page 110 of the Berlin manuscript, but its continuation, especially the final part, can be recovered 16 A slightly different recension of this passage was published in E. Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1, 53–54. 17  This theme is explored in M. Pulver, “Jesu Reigen und Kreuzigung nach den Johannes-Akten,” Eranos-Jahrbuch 9 (1942) 141–177; W. C. van Unnik, “A Note on the Dance of Jesus in the Acts of John,” Vigiliae Christianae 18 (1964) 1–5; A. J. Dewey, “The Hymn in the Acts of John: Dance as Hermeneutic,” Semeia 38 (1986) 67–80; J.-D. Kaestli, “Response to A. J. Dewey,” Semeia 38 (1986) 81–88; P. G. Schneider, The Mystery of the Acts of John: An Interpretation of the Hymn and the Dance in Light of the Acts’ Theology (San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press, 1991); B. E. Bowe, “Dancing into the Divine: The Hymn of the Dance in the Acts of John,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 83–104; M. G. Beard-Shouse, The Circle Dance in the Acts of John: An Early Christian Ritual (M. A. thesis; Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas, 2009) (bellydance.numinousdance.com/webfm_send/10; retrieved October 12, 2016); ­Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever”; P. C. Dilley, “Christus Saltans as Dionysos and David: The Dance of the Savior in Its Late-Antique Cultural Context,” Apocrypha 24 (2013) 237–254. 18  C. R. C. Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book part 2 (Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection, 2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938) 189–191. 19 Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 160; Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever,” 241–242.

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

55

on Strasbourg Copte 5 recto (↑). The verso of this fragment contains a new section, which shows that the dialogue continued after the hymn. Christ is encouraging the apostles to remain and keep watch with him (cf. Matthew 26:41/Mark 14:28). The Strasbourg papyrus becomes lacunose here. We do not know what the BSApo contained afterward, but at least the occurrence of the Passion and, possibly, the resurrection, may be suggested. An abbreviated version of the Hymn of the Cross appears in the Qasr el-Wizz codex ff. 12v–17r (= pp. 24–33). The question of the relationship between the shorter and the longer version of the hymn will be addressed in the next section, where will be discussed the connections between the three manuscripts.

The Relationship between the Manuscripts The Relationship between P. Berol. 22220 and Strasbourg Copte 5–7 Although certain verbatim parallels between P. Berol. 22220 and the Strasbourg fragments Copte 5–7 were pointed out already in the editio princeps and in Schenke’s article, Emmel demonstrated for the first time that the two manuscripts were different copies of the same work, by aptly providing a series of textual parallels between them.20 The fact that the two manuscripts contain the same work is not immediately obvious, unless one checks the small fragments inventoried together as Strasbourg Copte 7. As I have said in the previous chapter, these remained unplaced in Jacoby’s book, but Schmidt partly organized them in his review of the editio princeps of the Strasbourg fragments. While examining Schmidt’s work, Emmel realized that the two manuscripts overlapped at some points word-for-word. He remarked in this regard: “It is striking not only that they have strings of letters in common at mutually predictable intervals, but also that the two independently reconstructed manuscripts can be used to restore one another’s lacunas convincingly.”21 Although Schmidt joined together Strasbourg Copte 7.2 and 6 on the sole basis of fiber pattern, Emmel has been able to ascertain their textual continuity by showing that that both their recto (↑) and verso (→) parallel the Berlin manuscript.22 Fur Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 23–24; Schenke, “‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE),” 207; Emmel, “Prolegomena.” 21 Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 366. 22  C. Schmidt, review of Jacoby, 486. Their recto parallel P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,10–14, while their verso correspond to P. Berol. 22220 110, col. B,6–10. 20

56

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

thermore, Copte 7.4 and Copte 7.3 join to the same leaf as the two preceding fragments.23 Unlike Schmidt, who was unable to identify the recto and verso faces of these small papyrus scraps, Emmel could rightly infer on the basis of the parallel passage in P. Berol. 22220 that the vertical fibers represent the recto, while the horizontal fibers are on the verso. The papyrological examination of the fragments led Schmidt to conclude that Strasbourg Copte 7 was immediately followed in the original manuscript by Copte 5, which is now the best-preserved leaf. As the beginning of this fragment parallels P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 23H,3–7, Emmel suggested that the latter must be the first identified scrap from the otherwise lost pages 111–112 of the Berlin parchment.24 Indeed, as Copte 7 corresponds to P. Berol. 22220 109–110, and the next leaf of the papyrus codex was Copte 5, which parallels P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 23, it means that the latter fragment must necessarily be part of pages 111–112 of its codex of provenance. The parallel provided by Emmel demonstrates sufficiently that his hypothesis must be correct: P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 23H,1–7 (= p. 111)

Strasbourg 5 recto ↑, 1–3

[ⲡⲉⲟⲟ]ⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲡ[ϣⲏⲛ] ⲉⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲡⲉϥⲕ̣ⲁⲣ[ⲡⲟⲥ] ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲱ][…] [ϫⲉ ⲉ]ⲩ̣ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ︤ϥ ϩⲛ̄[ⲛⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̣︤ϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫ̣[ⲉ ⲉ]ⲩ̣[ⲛ]ⲁⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ︥ [ϩⲛ︥ⲛ]ⲉ̣ⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ϣ]ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ‧ ⲛ̄ⲥⲉϯⲉⲟ̣[ⲟⲩ ⲛ]ⲁ̣ϥ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ⲛ̄ⲛ̄[ϣ︤ⲙⲙ]ⲟ ⲛ̄ⲥ̣ⲉ̣ϯ̣ⲉ[ⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ]ⲁ̣ϥ̣ ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ︤ⲙⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ‧ [Glory] to you, tree whose [fruit] appeared so that it might be known in the lands of the foreigners and might be glorified […]

[…] [so that] it might be known in [the lands of the] foreigners and might be glorified through its fruit.

The Relationship between the Strasbourg Fragments and the Qasr el-Wizz Manuscript The fact that the recto (↑) of Strasbourg Copte 5 has the final part of the hymn sung by Jesus to the cross is confirmed by the second text in the Qasr el-Wizz codex, which is an abbreviated version of this hymn. Several proposals have been put forth in the past century for the reconstruction of the lacunae which appear on the recto (↑) of Strasbourg Copte 5, but we are only now able to restore them with a higher degree of confidence with the help of

23 Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 361–366. Copte 7.4 recto (↑) = P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,19–23; verso (→) = P. Berol. 22220 110,16–19. Copte 7.3 recto (↑) = P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,31–110, col. A,2; verso (→) = P. Berol. 22220 110, col. B,29–111*,1. 24  Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 367.

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

57

the el-Wizz witness. Here is the reconstruction of this part of hymn, based on its corresponding version in the other manuscript:  5

10

15

20

25

Strasbourg 5 recto ↑

Qasr el-Wizz 30,10–32,6

[  ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲙⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϭⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕ [ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄] ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ [ⲉⲥⲛⲁϩ]ⲩ̣[ⲡ]ⲟⲙⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̣[ⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲓ̈ [ⲉϫ︤ⲙⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨]ⲟ̄︤ⲥ︥̄ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ[‧ ⲁⲓ̈]ϫⲓ [ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϭ]ⲣⲏⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ‧ [ϩⲙ︥ⲡϣⲉ‧ ⲧⲉ]ϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ [ⲙ̄]ⲡⲉⲧⲟ [      ⲟⲩ]ⲱϣ︤ϥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲟⲩ [   ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲉⲑ]ⲃⲃⲓⲟ‧ ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓ [        ] ⲁⲓ̈ⲣ̄ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ϩⲙ︥ⲡϣⲉ‧ ⲱ ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ [ⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ ϩ]ⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈‧ [ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡ]ϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲟⲩ [ⲱⲥϥ̄ ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉ [ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︦ⲥ︦ ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏⲛ ⲡⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ [ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ]ⲃⲟⲗ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲛ︥ⲛⲓⲙ [ϩⲓⲧⲙ︥ⲡⲙ]ⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ϩⲁ [ⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲧⲙ]ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ [ⲧⲁⲡϣⲏⲣ]ⲉ ⲧⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲉⲣⲉ [ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ϣⲟ]ⲟⲡ‧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲧⲱⲛ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩ̣ⲙ̣̄ [ⲡϣⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ      ]

ⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕ ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲓⲉϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲁⲓ̈ϫⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲉⲣⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡ̣ϣⲉ‧ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧

Amen. Give me your [grace, O] my Father, so that [it] shall endure with me [on the cross], Amen. [I] took [for myself the] diadem of the kingdom [from the wood. The] diadem […] destroys them […] [in] humiliation, without their having […]. I became king from [the wood. O] my Father, you shall make [my enemies] submit to me, [Amen. The] enemy shall be [annihilated through] whom? Through the [cross], Amen. The claw of death [shall be destroyed] through whom? [Through the] Only-Begotten, Amen. Whose is [the] kingdom? It is [of the Son], Amen. From [where is his kingdom? It is from the wood, Amen.]

ϯⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ ϩⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡϫⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲁ ⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉ ⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲧⲙ︦ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ‧ ⲧⲁⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲉⲣⲉ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲉⲣⲟ ϣⲟ̣ⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲧⲱⲛ‧ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡϣ[ⲉ] ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ Open your grace, O my Father, so that I may sing to the cross, Amen! I took for myself the diadem of the kingdom from the wood, Amen! I shall make my enemies submit to me, Amen! The enemy shall be annihilated through the cross, Amen! The claw of death shall be annihilated through the Only-Begotten Son, Amen! Whose is the kingdom? It is of the Son, Amen! From where is his kingdom? It is from the wood, Amen!

58

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

As can be observed in the synopsis above, only the beginning of the recto of Strasbourg Copte 5 differs in textual context. While Strasbourg Copte 5r,5–8 has ⲙⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϭⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕ[ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄] ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ [ⲉⲥⲛⲁϩ]ⲩ̣[ⲡ]ⲟⲙⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̣[ⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲓ̈ [ⲉϫ︤ⲙⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨]ⲟ̄︤ⲥ︥̄ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ (“Give me your [grace, O] my Father, so that [it] shall endure with me [on the cross], Amen”), the other manuscript reads, ⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲓⲉϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ (“Open your grace, O my Father, so that I may sing to the cross, Amen”) (Qasr el-Wizz 30,10–31,1). The remaining differences represent omissions, some of which show that the Qasr el-Wizz version may be secondary. For example, Strasbourg Copte 5r,16–24 feature a series of questions and answers regarding the powers of Christ and the cross. In two instances (31,7–12), the Qasr el-Wizz manuscript condenses the question and the answer into a single assertion: Strasbourg 5 recto ↑ 16–21

Qasr el-Wizz 31,7–12

[ⲡ]ϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲟⲩ[ⲱⲥϥ̄ ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︦ⲥ︦ ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏⲛ ⲡⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ [ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ]ⲃⲟⲗ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ [ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲙ]ⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ϩⲁ[ⲙⲏⲛ‧]

ⲡϫⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ:

[The] enemy shall be [annihilated through] whom? Through the [cross], Amen. The sting of death [shall be destroyed] through whom? [Through the] Only-Begotten, Amen.

The enemy shall be annihilated through the cross, Amen. The sting of death shall be annihilated through the Only-Begotten Son, Amen.

From this point onwards, the rhetorical questions followed by answers are identical in both manuscripts. The Hymn of the Cross breaks off in the Strasbourg fragment on line 24. Probably, the missing part can be recovered, at least partially or approximately, in the Qasr el-Wizz manuscript (32,6–33,9): Who sent him to the cross? It is the Father, Amen! What is the cross? From where is it? It is from the Spirit, Amen! It is from eternity forever, from the foundation of the world, Amen! I am Alpha, Amen, and O(mega), Amen, the beginning and the end, Amen! I am the unspeakable beginning and the unspeakable end and forever perfect, Amen!

The final doxology in the el-Wizz codex (33,10–13) seems an editorial addition, and does not feature in the other two manuscripts: “And when we heard these, we glorified God, the one whose is the glory forever and ever, Amen!” The Relationship between P. Berol. 22220 and the Qasr el-Wizz Manuscript Comparison between Strasbourg Copte 5 recto (↑) and the second text in the el-Wizz manuscript suggests that the final part of the hymn in the latter is an abbreviated version of the hymn in the former. In the following lines, I will

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

59

compare the first part of the hymn, as appears in the Qasr el-Wizz codex, with the beginning of the hymn in P. Berol. 22220. I will show that some of the lacunae in the Berlin manuscript can be recovered on the basis of the parallel text in the el-Wizz codex. For example, P. Berol. 22220 is badly damaged at 108, col. A,20–25, having only a few strings of letters preserved. This portion of the manuscript can be reconstructed now with a high degree of confidence with the help of the Qasr el-Wizz manuscript: P. Berol. 22220 108, col A,20–25 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡ̣[ⲉ ⲧⲉϩⲓ]ⲏ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ[ⲟϣⲉ ⲉⲧ]ⲥⲟⲩ[ⲧⲱⲛ ϩⲁⲙⲏ]ⲛ̣· ⲁ̣[ⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟ]ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ ⲛ̣̄[ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ] ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥[ⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ·

Qasr el-Wizz 27,6–10 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ̣ ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ̄ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓ[ⲏⲩ] ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲛ̄ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ‧ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲓ⳿ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧

I [am the [straight] travelling [way], I am the way of the blessed life, Amen! I [Amen! I am the immortal] bread. Eat and am the immortal bread. Eat and be satiated, Amen! [be satiated], Amen!

Notably, in the Berlin manuscript Christ is not simply depicted as “the way” (ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ), in conformity with John 14:6, but rather as the “straight way,” an expression which appears several times in the Bible (Psalm 107:7; Proverbs 2:13, 16; 2 Peter 2:15).25 It is interesting to remark that, while the ego eimi speeches are soteriological, the BSApo gives a new meaning to the Johannine saying by applying to it a moral dimension proper to sapiential literature. Furthermore, P. Berol. 22220 109, col. A,30, was accurately restored by Emmel as, ϯ[ⲛⲁ]ϯ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲟ[ⲩⲟⲉⲓ] ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩ(ⲛ) [ⲉⲣ]ⲟ̣ⲕ ϩⲁⲙⲏ[ⲛ‧] (“I [shall] approach you, Amen!”).26 This is now confirmed by the reading of Qasr el-Wizz 28,9–12: ϯⲛⲁϯ ⲡⲁⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓ⳿ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ (“I shall approach you, O cross, Amen!”). Emmel has similarly shown that the badly-damaged text of P. Berol. 22220 109, col. A,15–18 can be restored as, [ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲉⲣⲉ̣ϥ̣ϫⲱⲕ [ⲇⲉ] ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ]ⲭⲟ[ⲣⲓⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ̣[ϥ‧ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧] (“When he finished [his dance, we answered] after [him]: ‘Amen!’”), providing a close text in Qasr el-Wizz 27,1–4: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϫⲱⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ⲧⲏⲣⲛ̄ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ (“And when he finished the hymn, we all answered after him: ‘Amen’!”).27

25 See, e. g., Proverbs 2:13, ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛ, in W. H.  Worrell, The Proverbs of Solomon in Sahidic Coptic according to the Chicago Manuscript (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 12; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1931) 7; Psalm 107:7, ϩⲓⲏ ⲉⲥⲥⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛ, in Budge, The Coptic Psalter, 116. 26  Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 69; Idem, “Preliminary,” 50. 27  S. Emmel, “Ein altes Evangelium der Apostel,” 92.

60

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

In P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,17–25, Christ gathers the apostles around him and they start to sing to the cross. This finds a parallel in the Qasr elWizz manuscript 24,9–25,4. Although the two passages do not correspond to the foot of the letter, the lacunae in the Berlin parchment can be more or less safely restored with the help of the el-Wizz codex: P. Berol. 22220 108, col B,17–25

Qasr el-Wizz 24,9–25,4

ⲧ[ⲉ]ⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ [ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ [ⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⲭ̣ⲟ̣[ⲣⲉ]ⲩ̣ [ⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲟ̣[ⲩⲱ] [ϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ̈[‧] ⲁϥ[ ] [ ] . ⲛ̣̄ϭ̣ⲓⲡⲥ̣[ⲱⲧⲏⲣ‧] [ⲁϥⲁϩⲉⲣ]ⲁ̣ⲧ̣ϥ̄ [ⲁⲛⲣ̄] [ⲟ]ⲩ̣[ⲕⲗⲟⲙ] ⲉⲛⲕ̣[ⲱ] [ⲧ]ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ·

        ⲱ̄ ⲛⲁ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲥⲱ ⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱ [ϣⲃ̄] ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲓ̈‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ⳿ ⲁⲛ [ⲣ̄ⲟ]ⲩⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲁⲛⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉ ⲣⲟϥ‧

“But now gather to me, O my holy members, dance and [answer] to me.” The S[avior] […], he [stood] and [we made a circle surrounding] him.

“O my holy members, gather to me and I shall sing to the cross and you answer after me.” We [made] a circle and surrounded him.

Erik Yingling studied this portion of the manuscript, remarking in his turn that it partly parallels the Qasr el-Wizz codex.28 According to Yingling, the text would echo here the Acts of John 94. His reconstruction slightly differs from mine: ⲧ[ⲉ]ⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ | [ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ | [ⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⲭ̣ⲟ̣[ⲣⲉ] ⲩ|[ⲉ] ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲟ̣[ⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ | ⲛⲙ̄]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ̈[:] ⲁ̣ϥ[ϩⲩⲙ|ⲛⲉⲩ]ⲉ̣ ⲛ̣̄ϭ̣ⲓⲡⲥ̣[ⲱⲧ|ⲏⲣ ⲉⲙⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲧϥ[ϣⲉ ⲁⲛ|ⲣ̄ⲟⲩⲕⲗⲟⲙ] ⲉⲛⲕ̣[ⲱ|ⲧ]ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ· (“So now gather unto me O my holy members. Dance (and) respond with me. The Savior sang a hymn before he left, (and) we formed a circle going about him”).29 Yet another example as to how the two manuscripts parallel each other is provided in P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,4–5. Although only a few traces of letters have survived here, they suffice to reconstruct the passage on the basis of Qasr el-Wizz 29,4–5 as, [ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϭⲱ]ⲗ︤ⲡ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲙ̣[ⲁ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ] (“[do not reveal my] body, [Amen!]”). In conclusion, the selected passages quoted above demonstrate that the el-Wizz manuscript proves to be useful for the reconstruction of some damaged passages in P. Berol. 22220.

 E. Yingling, “Singing with the Savior: Reconstructing the Ritual Ring-Dance in the Gospel of the Savior,” Apocrypha 24 (2013) 255–279. 29 Yingling, “Singing with the Savior,” 262–263, the translation is taken from Yingling ad litteram. According to Yingling, “Singing with the Savior,” 255 n. 1, he agrees with my reconstruction. 28

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

61

The Qasr el-Wizz Version of the Hymn of the Cross As I showed in the two preceding sections, some of the lacunae of the Strasbourg and Berlin manuscripts can be reconstructed by comparison with the parallel passages in the Qasr el-Wizz codex. Furthermore, the Qasr el-Wizz version of the Hymn of the Cross is a redacted abbreviation of the longer recension of the hymn in the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts. This can be conveniently demonstrated by comparing the texts side-by-side. The table below omits only the last part of the Qasr el-Wizz codex, as this portion of the text has not survived in the other two manuscripts: Qasr el-Wizz Codex

Strasbourg and Berlin manuscripts

ⲁ̣ⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ⲟ[ⲩ]ϩⲟ̣ⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲥⲏ︦ⲣ︦ ϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ No parallel since this portion of the text in ϩ[ⲓ]ϫⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ϫⲟ̣[ⲉⲓⲧ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧⲟⲩⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲩ the Qasr el-Wizz manuscript is probably ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲛ̄ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ̈ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ redactional. ⲧⲏⲣⲛ̄ ⲁⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁϥ ⲡⲉ‧ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ (24.1–9) It happened one day while our Savior was sitting on the Mount of Olives, before the impious Jews crucified him, (and) we were all gathered with him. He spoke up saying: ⲱ̄ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲱ̣ⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱ[ϣⲃ̄] ⲛ̣̄ⲥⲱⲓ̈‧ (24,9–25,2) “O my holy members, gather to me and I shall sing to the cross and you answer after me.”

ⲧ[ⲉ]ⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ [ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ [ⲉ] ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⲭ̣ⲟ̣[ⲣⲉ]ⲩ̣[ⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲟ̣[ⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ̈[‧] (P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,17–21) But now gather to me, O my holy members, dance and [answer] to me.”

ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲛ[ⲣ̄ⲟ]ⲩⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲁⲛⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ‧ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲓϩⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ̣ ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲉ‧ (25,2–9)

[ⲁⲛⲣ̄ⲟ]ⲩ̣[ⲕⲗⲟⲙ] ⲉⲛⲕ̣[ⲱⲧ]ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ· ⲡⲉϫ̣ⲁ̣[ϥ] ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ⳿ ⲉ[ⲓ̈ϩⲛ̄]ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲛ̣̄[ⲑⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲛⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣ[ⲏⲙ‧] ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏ(ⲛ) ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓ̈ϩⲛ̣̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲙⲏⲧⲉ· (P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,23–31) We [made] a circle and surrounded him. [We made a circle surrounding] him. He said to us: “I am in your midst like a [He] said to us: “I am [in] your midst little child.” He said: “Amen! A little while [like] a child.” He said: “Amen! A little I am with you in your midst. while I am in your midst.” ⲥⲉϫⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ‧ (25,9) They take counsel against me now. ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲕⲁⲧⲉⲭⲉ {ⲙ̄}ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ (25,9–12) Do not restrain me, O cross!

[ⲥⲉ]ϫ̣ⲓ ϣ̣[ⲟ]ϫⲛⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈. (P. Berol. 22220 108, col. A,1) They take counsel against me. missing

62

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Qasr el-Wizz Codex

Strasbourg and Berlin manuscripts

ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲛⲅ̄ϫⲓⲥⲉ ⲙ̄[ⲙⲟⲕ] ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ (25,13–26,3) Rise up, rise, O holy cross, and lift [yourself], O cross.

[ⲧⲱ]ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ [ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ] ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̣̄[⳨ⲟ︦ⲥ︦ ϫⲓⲥⲉ] ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲕ [ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛⲅ̄]ϫⲓⲥⲉ ϩⲛ︥ⲧ[ⲡⲉ (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,19–23) Rise up, [rise], O [cross. Lift] yourself [up and] lift up to the [heaven]

ⲁⲛ[ⲅ̄]ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲟ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (26,3–4) I am rich. Amen!

ⲁⲛⲅ̄ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̄ⲙⲁ̣ⲟ⳿ (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,26–27) I am rich.

ϯⲛⲁⲁⲗⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ (26,4–6) I shall climb upon you, O cross.

[ϯ̣]ⲛⲁⲧ̣ⲁⲗⲉ ⲉ[ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ]ϫⲱⲕ̣ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̣̄⳨ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣︥̄ (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,29–31) [I] shall climb [upon] you, O cross.

ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲁϣⲧ̄ ⲉϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲩⲙ︦ⲛ︦ⲧⲙ︦ⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ‧ (26,6–8)

ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲁϣ[ⲧ̄] ⲉⲣⲟⲕ [ⲉⲩⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲣⲉ [ⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲁⲙⲏ]ⲛ· (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,32–110, col. A,2) They shall hang me upon you as a testimo- They shall hang me upon you [as a testiny against themselves. mony against them, Amen! ϣⲟⲡⲧ︦ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (26,8–10) ϣⲟ[ⲡ︤ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ] ⲱ̣̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄[⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,2–3) Receive me to yourself, O cross. Amen! Receive me to yourself], O [cross]! ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ︦ⲣ︦ⲓⲙⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (26,10–27,1) Do not weep, O cross, but rather rejoice greatly. Amen!

[ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄]ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲱ̄ [ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] ⲁ̣ⲗⲗⲁ ⲣⲁ[ϣⲉ ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲟϥ (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,9–11) [Do not] weep, O [cross], but rather rejoice instead.

ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϫⲱⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ [ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲉⲣⲉ̣ϥ̣ϫⲱⲕ [ⲇⲉ] ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ]ⲭⲟ[ⲣⲓⲁ ⲛⲥⲱϥ ⲧⲏⲣⲛ̄ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (27,1–4) ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ̣[ϥ‧ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧] (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. A,15–18) And when he finished the hymn, we all [And] when he finished [his dance, we answered after him: “Amen!” answered] after [him]: “Amen!” ⲧⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ (27,5–6) [ⲧ]ⲙ̣ⲉϩⲥⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲉ ⲛ̄ⲭⲟⲣⲓ]ⲁ ⲙ̄[ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄‧] (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,16–17) The second hymn of the cross. The second dance of [the cross]. ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ̣ ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ̄ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓ[ⲏⲩ] ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲛ̄ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ‧ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲓ⳿ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (27,6–10) I am the way of the blessed life, Amen! I am the immortal bread. Eat and be satiated, Amen!

ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡ̣[ⲉ ⲧⲉϩⲓ]ⲏ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ[ⲟϣⲉ ⲉⲧ]ⲥⲟⲩ[ⲧⲱⲛ ϩⲁⲙⲏ]ⲛ̣· ⲁ̣[ⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟ]ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ ⲛ̣̄[ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ] ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥[ⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ· (P. Berol. 22220 108, col. A,20–25) I [am the [straight] travelling [road], [Amen! I am the immortal] bread. Eat and [be satiated], Amen!

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

63

Qasr el-Wizz Codex

Strasbourg and Berlin manuscripts

ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲟⲛ̄‧ ϫⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲧⲁⲭⲟⲣⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲉϩϣⲟⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲡ‧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̣̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (27,10– 28,5) We answered after him: “Amen!” He told us again: “Gather to me, O my holy members, and I shall sing to the cross for the third time and you answer after me ‘Amen!’”

missing, but cf. ⲧ[ⲉ]ⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ [ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ [ⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⲭ̣ⲟ̣[ⲣⲉ]ⲩ̣[ⲉ] ⲛ̇ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲟ̣[ⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ̈[‧] … ⲁ̣[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙ̣[ⲏⲛ] (P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,17–21, 31–32) But now gather to me, O my holy members, dance and [answer] to me.” … [We] answered: “Amen!”

ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ‧ ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ ⲟⲛ‧ missing ⲉϥⲛⲁⲫⲟⲣⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (28,5–9) O cross filled with light! He shall carry yet again the light, Amen! ϯⲛⲁϯ ⲡⲁⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓ⳿ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (28,9–12) I shall approach you, O cross, Amen! ϯⲛⲁⲁⲗⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲩⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ‧ (28,12–29,2) I shall climb upon you as a testimony against them. ϣⲟⲡⲧ︦ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ (29,2–3) Receive me to yourself, O cross.

ϯ[ⲛⲁ]ϯ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲟ[ⲩⲟⲉⲓ] ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩ(ⲛ) [ⲉⲣ]ⲟ̣ⲕ ϩⲁⲙⲏ[ⲛ‧] (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. A,30–32) I [shall] approach you, Amen! [ϯ̣]ⲛⲁⲧ̣ⲁⲗⲉ ⲉ[ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ]ϫⲱⲕ̣ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̣̄⳨ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣︥̄ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲁϣ[ⲧ̄] ⲉⲣⲟⲕ [ⲉⲩⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲣⲉ [ⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲁⲙⲏ]ⲛ· (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,29–110, col. A,2) [I] shall climb [upon] you, O cross. They shall hang me upon you [as a testimony against them, Amen! ϣⲟ[ⲡ︤ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ] ⲱ̣̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄[⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,2–3) [Receive me to yourself], O [cross].

ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϭⲱⲗⲡ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲁⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (29,4–5) [ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϭⲱ]ⲗ︤ⲡ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲙ̣[ⲁ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ·] (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,4–5 Do not reveal my body, Amen! [Do not reveal my] body, [Amen!] ⲧⲙⲉϩϥⲧⲟ ⲛ̄ⲭⲟⲣⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ (29,6–7) The fourth dance of the cross

missing

ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲟⲩϩⲏⲕⲉ⳿ ⲁⲛ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϯⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ϯⲛⲁⲡⲗⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲕ ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲣⲙ︦ⲙ︦ⲁⲟ⳿ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (29,7–30,1)

[ⲁⲛ︤ⲅⲟⲩϩⲏⲕⲉ] ⲁ̣ⲛ ⲁⲗ̣ⲗ̣[ⲁ ⲁⲛⲅ̄ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲟ‧ ϯⲛⲁ̣[ⲙⲁϩ︤ⲕ ⲉ]ⲃ̣ⲟ̣ⲗ ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲁ[ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲟ· (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,18–22; cf. also P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,26–29) [I am] not [poor] but rather [I am rich]. I shall [fill you] with my [wealth].

I am not poor, O cross that gives light, Amen! I shall fill you with my wealth, Amen!

64

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Qasr el-Wizz Codex

Strasbourg and Berlin manuscripts

ϯⲛⲁⲁⲗⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲕ‧ (30,1–2)

[ϯ̣]ⲛⲁⲧ̣ⲁⲗⲉ ⲉ[ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ]ϫⲱⲕ̣ (P. Berol. 22220 109, col. B,29–31) [I] shall climb [upon] you.

I shall climb upon you. ϣⲟⲡⲧ̄ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ (30,2–3) Receive me, O cross.

ϣⲟ[ⲡ︤ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ] ⲱ̣̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄[⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] (P. Berol. 22220 110, col. A,2–3) Receive me [to yourself], O [cross].

ⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲡⲉⲕⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϥⲑ︦‧ (30,4–9) Glory to you for you obeyed to your Father, Amen! Glory to you, entire sweetness, Amen! Glory to the divinity, Amen!

[ⲡⲉⲟⲟ]ⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲡ[ϣⲏⲛ] ⲉⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲡⲉϥⲕ̣ⲁⲣ[ⲡⲟⲥ] ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲱ]ⲛ̣︤ϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ (P. Berol. 22220 111,1–3)

ⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲓⲉϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (30,10– 31,1) Open your grace, O my Father, so that I may sing to the cross, Amen!

ⲙⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϭⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕ[ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄] ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ [ⲉⲥⲛⲁϩ]ⲩ̣[ⲡ]ⲟⲙⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̣[ⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲓ̈ [ⲉϫ︤ⲙⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨]ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ (Strasbourg Copte 5r,5–8) Give me your [grace], my Father, so that [it] shall endure with me [on the cross], Amen.

ⲁⲓ̈ϫⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲉⲣⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡ̣ϣⲉ‧ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (31,1–4) I took for myself the diadem of the kingdom from the wood, Amen!

[ⲁⲓ̈]ϫⲓ̈ [ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϭ]ⲣⲏⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ‧ [ϩⲙ︥ⲡϣⲉ‧] (Strasbourg Copte 5r,8–10) [I] took [for myself the] diadem of the kingdom [from the wood].

ϯⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ ϩⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (31,4–6) I shall make my enemies submit to me, Amen!

ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ[ⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ ϩ]ⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈‧ [ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧] (Strasbourg Copte 5r,14–16) You shall make [my enemies] submit to me, [Amen].

ⲡϫⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (31,7–9)

[ⲡ]ϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲟⲩ[ⲱⲥϥ︥ ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏⲛ (Strasbourg Copte 5r,16–18) The] enemy shall be [vanquished through] whom? Through the [cross], Amen.

The enemy shall be annihilated through the cross, Amen!

[Glory] to you, [tree] whose fruit appeared.

ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲡⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ [ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ]ⲃⲟⲗ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲛ︥ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (31,9–12) [ϩⲓⲧⲙ︥ⲡⲙ]ⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ϩⲁ[ⲙⲏⲛ‧] (Strasbourg Copte 5r,18–21) The claw of death shall be annihilated The claw of death [shall be destroyed] through the Only-Begotten Son, Amen! through whom? [Through the] Only-Begotten, Amen. ⲧⲙ︦ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ‧ ⲧⲁⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (31,12–32,2) Whose is the kingdom? It is of the Son, Amen!

[ⲧⲙ]ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ [ⲧⲁⲡϣⲏⲣ]ⲉ ⲧⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (Strasbourg Copte 5r,21–22) Whose is [the] kingdom? It is [of the Son], Amen!

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

Qasr el-Wizz Codex

65

Strasbourg and Berlin manuscripts

ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲉⲣⲟ ϣⲟ̣ⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲧⲱⲛ‧ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡϣ[ⲉ] ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ (32,3–6)

ⲉⲣⲉ[ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ϣⲟ]ⲟⲡ‧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲧⲱⲛ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩ̣ⲙ̣︥[ⲡϣⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ] (Strasbourg Copte 5r,22–25) From where is his kingdom? It is from the From [where is his kingdom? It is from the wood, Amen! wood, Amen].

It is readily evident from the table above that basically each sentence of the hymn in the Qasr el-Wizz codex has a counterpart in the other two manuscripts. Therefore, we may suggest that the el-Wizz hymn represents a redacted version of the long Hymn of the Cross in the BSApo. The beginning of the Qasr el-Wizz text, which does not feature in the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts, appears to be a redactional fragment meant to introduce the text: “It happened one day while our Savior was sitting on the Mount of Olives, before the impious Jews crucified him, (and) we were all gathered with him.” A notable difference between the two versions is the fact that the el-Wizz manuscript mentions a “second hymn,” a “third dance,” and a “fourth dance of the cross.” On the contrary, the longer version in the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts probably contained only two hymns or dances of the cross. The first hymn starts in P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,17 and lasts until 110, col. A,15. The second dance (χορεία) breaks off in the lacuna which follows page 110 of the Berlin parchment, but it continues shortly after, on the recto of Strasbourg Copte 5. However, the synopsis provided above shows that the third and the fourth hymns of the Qasr el-Wizz codex do not contain any significant new material. Thus, the redactor of the el-Wizz hymn possibly composed these new stanzas from the material of the first and second hymns in the long version. Placing P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 9 The fact that the Hymn of the Cross ended on the bottom recto of Strasbourg Copte 5 is demonstrated by the fact that the first lines of the verso read: “[When he] finished the entire [hymn] of the [cross], he turned to us.” Notably, the surviving traces of letters on the still unplaced P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 9H,col. B, 8–10 allow us to restore the text as ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϫ̣[ⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉ]ϩ̣ⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ̣ [ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥ̄]⳨̣ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣︥̄ (“When he [finished to] sing [to the] cross”). This resembles the previously quoted sentence from Strasbourg Copte 5v,1–2: [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ]ϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲛ̄ϩⲩ]ⲙ[ⲛⲟⲥ] ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲥ︤⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄]. However, it is unlikely that the Berlin fragment would belong to this part of the text for the following reasons:

66

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

1) If these lines had immediately followed the Hymn of the Cross, Frag. 9 would have to stand as P. Berol. 22220, pages 111–112, with the hair side as page 111 and the flesh side as page 112, because only in this way is the Gregory rule observed. This would mean that the Hymn of the Cross ended somewhere on the second column (col. B) of the recto (page 111). However, in this case, the words which can still be read on the first column of the page, must find a parallel in the extant portions of Strasbourg Copte 5 recto. Or, alternatively, the vestiges of the two columns of the verso (flesh side) of Frag. 9 should correspond, at least in part, to the verso of Strasbourg Copte 5, which is not the case. 2) P. Berol. 22220 Frags. 9 and 23 (the latter placed by Emmel, cf. supra) would both have to be parts of the folio once paginated 111–112. However, the quality of the parchment varies very much between these two fragments. While the script on the flesh of Frag. 9 has flaked-off almost completely, the text on the flesh side of Frag. 23 is still very well-preserved. I think the surface structure of the parchment prevents us from placing the two fragments in the same sheet. Be that as it may, if the suggested restoration of Frag. 9H, col. B,8–10 is correct, then this fragment inspires some mystery. A few explanations are possible, although none can be certain unless a better copy of the BSApo comes to light: 1) If Frag. 9 belongs to pages 111–112, then the version of the BSApo in the Strasbourg manuscript differs from that of P. Berol. 22220, due either to scribal transmission or later revision of the text. 2) Strasbourg Copte 5–7 and P. Berol. 22220 could be two different texts, which have in common only the longer version of the Hymn of the Cross, something which has already been suggested by Nagel.30 3) The BSApo contained several hymns of the cross, and P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 9 comes from a different hymn than the one preserved in Strasbourg Copte 7, 5 recto (↑) and P. Berol. 22220 107, col. B,17 ff. Placing Strasbourg Copte 6 As discussed in Chapter 2, the only paginated fragment of the Strasbourg papyrus of the BSApo is Copte 6. The page numbers 157–158 are still visible on the upper outer corners of the pages as the manuscript was bound in antiquity. The position in the codex of the other two leaves, i. e. Copte 7 and 5, which lost their original pagination, is difficult to establish. Nevertheless, 30 Nagel,

“‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 222–223.

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

67

Emmel has proposed that they can very approximately be calculated as pages 121–122 and 123–124 of the codex. His tentative conclusion is based on the assumption that the BSApo was the only writing in both codices. Thus, being the case that pages 109–110 of P. Berol. 22220 correspond to Strasbourg Copte 7 recto-verso, and assuming that all previous pages of the Berlin manuscript contained the same text, Emmel has written: Using the same average number of lines of the Berlin manuscript (57.5) per page of the Strasbourg manuscript, and assuming that the work in question began on the first page of each manuscript, FR-SU Copte 7 and 5 can be calculated very approximately to be pp. 121/122 and 123/124 of the papyrus codex. This length of some thirty-two pages accords well with the judgment of the majority of scholars who have considered the problem, that whereas the content of Copte 5 indicates a setting in Gethsemane, Copte 6 seems rather to belong to a post-resurrection appearance of the Savior.31

However, this calculation raises certain problems because Strasbourg Copte 6 describes the investiture of the apostles, an event which already occurred during their vision, presumably on the Mount of Olives, in P. Berol. 22220 100, col. B,1 ff. The fact that the investiture of the apostleship would be mentioned twice in the text, once before the passion of Christ and once after his resurrection, already inspired Nagel to doubt that the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts would represent two witnesses of the same text.32 This conclusion necessitates a caveat. In fact, the aforementioned “stichometric” investigation is unlikely to correspond to reality, because Coptic manuscripts containing a single literary work of such length are unusual. With the exception of a few biblical texts, there are only several writings of similar length preserved in Coptic. For example, the treatise Zostrianos extends from page 1 to page 132 of the Nag Hammadi codex VIII, whereas the four books of Pistis Sophia comprise 355 pages in codex Askew, but these are both earlier manuscripts.33 A more relevant example is the Sahidic version of the Acts of John attributed to Prochorus (BHG 916–917z; CANT 218; clavis coptica 0565). In the Morgan Library & Museum codex M 576 (ninth century), these early Christian apocryphal acts, which comprise many

 Emmel, “Prolegomena,” 367–368.  Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 223. 33 C. Barry – W.-P. Funk – P.-H. Poirier – J. D. Turner, Zostrien (NH VIII,1) (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section ‘Textes’, 24; Québec – Louvain – Paris: Les presses de l’Université Laval – Éditions Peeters, 2000); C. Schmidt – V. MacDermot, Pistis Sophia (Nag Hammadi Studies, 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) xii–xiv. 31 32

68

Chapter 3: The Content of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

different episodes, cover no less than 131 manuscript pages.34 Precisely because of the unusual dimension, the Bohairic version of Ps.-Prochorus, obviously based on the Sahidic, was shortened considerably, ending with an episode which features at page 36 of the Morgan manuscript.35 However, these cases represent exceptions, and, although the BSApo is a text focused on the events surrounding the passion of Christ, which perhaps included also a treatment of the death and resurrection, we do not have any reason to suppose that it covered over 110 pages of the Berlin codex and more than 150 in the Strasbourg manuscript. Consequently, the hypothesis that the page numbers of Strasbourg Copte 7 and 5 can be established on the basis of the Berlin manuscript is tenuous. Given that Strasbourg Copte 6 and P. Berol. 22220 100–101 share many features, including some verbatim parallels, they apparently preserve the same part of the work, with occasional textual deviations deriving from either scribal transmission or later redaction. Furthermore, much of the parallel of the recto of Strasbourg Copte 6 was probably accommodated in the lacuna of P. Berol. 22220 100, col. A. In this case, the opening lines of the recto of the Strasbourg fragment would belong to the same discourse of Christ which begins on P. Berol. 22220 100, col. A,3. The verso of Strasbourg 6 and P. Berol. 22220 101, col. A describe in similar, albeit not identical, terms the investiture of the apostles:

of the manuscript in H. Hyvernat, Bybliothecae Pierpont Morgan codices coptici photographice expressi vol. 17: Codex M 576. Vita et transitus S. Ioh. ev. sahidice (Rome: s.n., 1922). 35  The Bohairic ends with a vision in which John finds out that he will be exiled on the island of Patmos. The Arabic version, which was translated from Bohairic, and the Ethiopic, which derives from the Arabic, also end with the same episode. A fragmentary Bohairic version was published by H. G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wadi ‘n Natrûn part 1: New Coptic Texts from the Monastery of Saint Macarius (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition; New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926) 28–35; complementary leaves of the same manuscript in W. H. P. Hatch, “Three Hitherto Unpublished Leaves from a Manuscript of the Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha in Bohairic,” in Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum (Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute, 2; Boston, MA: Byzantine Institute, 1950) 305–317, at 312–315. The Arabic version is available in A. Smith Lewis, Acta Mythologica Apostolorum (Horae Semiticae, 3; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1904) 31–46; English translation in Idem, Mythological Acts of the Apostles (Horae Semiticae, 4; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1904) 37–53; the Ethiopic (Gǝʿǝz) can be found in E. A. W. Budge, Contendings of the Apostles 2 vols. (London: Henry Frowde, 1899) 1: 189–213 (text), 2: 186–211 (English translation); English translation of another manuscript in S. C. Malan, The Conflicts of the Holy Apostles: An Apocryphal Book of the Early Eastern Church (London: D. Nutt, 1871) 117–137. 34 Facsimile

The Relationship between the Manuscripts

P. Berol. 22220

Strasbourg Copte 6 + 7,7 verso

our [eyes] penetrating [all] the heavens, while the power of our apostleship was upon us. And we saw our Savior when he reached the seventh heaven [. . . 6 lines broken . . .]

(p. 158) our eyes penetrated everywhere and we perceived the glory of his divinity and the entire glory of [his] lordship. He clothed us with the power of our apostleship [. . .] they became like [. . .] light [. . .]

69

Instead of postulating a double investiture of the apostles, as appears in Emmel’s reconstruction of the codex, one may argue that the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts offer at this point different recensions of the same event. Although the possibility that only the Hymn of the Cross overlaps in the two manuscripts cannot be completely ruled out, the similar terms in which they depict the investiture with the apostleship rather suggest they feature the same writing. In this case, Strasbourg Copte 6 is the first surviving leaf of this codex, followed at about three of four folios distance by Copte 7 and 5.

Chapter 4

The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphonin Coptic Literature “We, the Apostles.” The Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon and Other Similar Coptic Stories Attributed to the Apostles The narrative voice of the BSApo recounts the events in the first person plural, “he said to us” (P. Berol. 22220 100, col. A,2), “we too” (P. Berol. 22220 100, col. B,1–2), “we saw” (P. Berol. 22220 100, col. B,17; 101, col. A,13), “we, the apostles” (P. Berol. 22220 101, col. A,2–3), “we said to him” (P. Berol. 22220 107, col. A,4), “he turned to us” (Strasbourg Copte 5v,3) etc. Due to the fragmentary state of the Berlin and Strasbourg manuscripts, it is not clear whether the narrators are the apostles as a group or, rather, an individual apostle who speaks on behalf of his companions. A well-defined, albeit little-known, category of Coptic texts have the peculiar characteristic that they relate in the first person plural stories about Jesus Christ and the apostles. Tito Orlandi has been the first to draw attention to this literary genre, peculiar to Coptic literature, which is formed of alleged memoirs of the twelve apostles or of one of their disciples.1 Joost Hagen, who dedicated several studies to some of these texts, called them the “diaries of the apostles.”2 Numerous memoirs ascribed to the apostle Peter, John, Bartholomew, James the Just, to one of the 72 disciples (Stephen the Protomartyr, Evodius, Gamaliel, Prochorus etc.), or to the apostles as a group have survived. Some of these writings are lost in Coptic, but they can be recovered either in Arabic manuscripts of Egyptian provenance, or in Old 1 Orlandi, “Apocrifi copti,” 71, calls these texts, “the real apocryphal writings transmitted by Coptic literature” (my translation). 2  Hagen, “The Diaries of the Apostles”; Idem, “‘The Great Cherub’ and His Brothers. Adam, Enoch and Michael and the Names, Deeds and Faces of the Creatures in Ps.-Chrysostom, On the Four Creatures,” in N. Bosson – A. Boud’hors (eds.), Actes du huitième Congrès International d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin – 3 juillet 2004 2 vols. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 162–163; Louvain: Peeters, 2007) 2: 467–480; Idem, “Ein anderer Kontext.”

71

“We, the Apostles.”

Nubian and Ethiopic, the two languages used in the churches which were under the direct influence of the Alexandrian patriarchate. The procedure seems to be as follows: the disciples deposit the book, after its completion, in a library from Jerusalem. Most of the memoirs are embedded in a pseudepigraphic patristic sermon, but others are not. In the first category, one of the fathers of the Egyptian church discovers the memoir in a library from Jerusalem, copies the text, and includes the transcription in a sermon delivered with a specific liturgical occasion. Thus, the apostolic memoirs can be separated into two main categories, those framed by a patristic homily and those without a homiletic framework. A. Apostolic memoirs included in a patristic homily No. Author and Title  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13

Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On Mary Magdalene (CANT 73; CC 0118) Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life of the Virgin Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Dormition of the Virgin Ps.-Bachios of Maiuma, On the Three Children in the Fiery ­Furnace Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, On the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, On the Dormition of the Virgin Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Lament of Mary Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, ­Martyrdom of Pilate Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis, On the Archangel Gabriel Ps.-Basil of Caesarea, On the Building of the First Church of the Virgin Ps.-John Chrysostom, On the Four Bodiless Creatures

Clavis Number

Language

CPG 3604; clavis coptica 0113 CANT 73; clavis coptica 0118 clavis coptica 0005

Coptic (Sahidic)

no clavis number

Coptic (Sahidic) Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic Arabic

clavis coptica 0068

Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic

no clavis number

Arabic

CANT 147 & 153

Arabic, Gǝʿǝz

CANT 74

Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, Gǝʿǝz Arabic, Gǝʿǝz

CANT 75 clavis coptica 0045 CPG 2970; clavis coptica 0073 CPG 5150.11; clavis coptica 0177

Ps.-John Chrysostom, On the Arch- no clavis number angel Michael

Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic), Arabic, Gǝʿǝz Coptic (Bohairic), Arabic, Gǝʿǝz Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, Gǝʿǝz, Old Nubian Coptic (Sahidic)3

72

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

A. Apostolic memoirs included in a patristic homily No. Author and Title 14

Ps.-John Chrysostom, On John the Baptist

15

Ps.-John Chrysostom, Revelation on the Mount of Olives, 40 Days after the Resurrection Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On the Archangel Michael Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On Abbaton

16 17 18 19

Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin

Clavis Number

Language

CPG 5150.3; CANT 184; clavis coptica 0170 no clavis number

Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, Gǝʿǝz

no clavis number

Arabic

CPG 2529; clavis coptica 0404 CPG 2530; clavis coptica 0405 CPG 7153; clavis coptica 0385

Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic, Gǝʿǝz Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic (?) Coptic (Bohairic), Arabic

Arabic4

B. Apostolic memoirs without a homiletic framework No. Author and Title

Clavis Number

Language Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic), Arabic

1

History of Joseph the Carpenter

2

Enthronement of Michael

BHO 532–533; CANT 60; clavis coptica 0037 clavis coptica 0488

3

Enthronement of Gabriel

clavis coptica 0378

4

Mysteries of John

clavis coptica 0041

5

Book of Bartholomew

CANT 80; clavis coptica 0027

Coptic (Sahidic, Fayyumic), Gǝʿǝz, Old Nubian, Greek Coptic (Sahidic), Arabic Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic) Coptic (Sahidic)

3  This homily is different from other texts on the archangel Michael attributed in Coptic to the same author: the Sahidic text of the Morgan Library & Museum codex M 592, ff. 1r–7v, published in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1: 47–55 (Sahidic text), 2: 48–56 (English translation), and the Bohairic pseudo-chrysostomic homily published by J. Simon, “Homélie copte inédite sur S. Michel et le Bon Larron, attribuée à S. Jean Chrysostome,” Orientalia n.s. 3 (1954) 217–242. To the best of my knowledge, the homily has survived in a single incomplete parchment codex from the White Monastery. The title is preserved on the fragment Paris, BnF, Copte 1311, f. 41r. A passage from this still unpublished text was translated by W. E. Crum, “Texts Attributed to Peter of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903) 387–397, at 396–397 n. 3. 4 Preserved in a single Arabic manuscript from the Monastery of St. Macarius in the Wadi el-Natrun, described in U. Zanetti, Les manuscrits de Dair Abu Maqar. Inventaire (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 11; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1986) 55 (= no. 380).

73

“We, the Apostles.”

B. Apostolic memoirs without a homiletic framework No. Author and Title 6 7 8 9

Discourse of the Savior (the Stauros-text) Ps.-Evodius, On the Dormition of the Virgin Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 1 Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 2

Clavis Number

Language

no clavis number

Coptic (Sahidic), Old Nubian Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic), Arabic Coptic (Sahidic) Coptic (Sahidic)

CANT 133; clavis coptica 0151 clavis coptica 0149 CANT 81; clavis coptica 0150

Additionally, at least three other fragmentary texts seemingly belong to the cycle of the apostolic memoirs, although their incomplete form precludes identification. One of these texts is the BSApo: No. Text

Clavis Number

Language

1

Sahidic Miaphysite Christological extract

no clavis number

Coptic (Sahidic)5

2 3

Sahidic fragment from Bala’izah Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

clavis coptica 0670 Coptic (Sahidic)6 clavis coptica 0870 Coptic (Sahidic)

The alleged apostolic records are most often found in the library of the house of Mary, mother of John Mark (cf. Acts 12:12), but other locations, like the library of Jerusalem, or the house of Prochorus, the disciple of John, appear as well. The fact that the memoirs claim to be authentic apostolic writings, on the one hand, and that the majority are incorporated in sermons attributed to the grand figures of Coptic Miaphysite orthodoxy, on the other, offers them apostolic and patristic authority at the same time. The attribution of the texts to authors like Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Timothy Aelurus, Theodosius of Alexandria, belongs to a strategy of legitimization, through which Egyptian anti-Chalcedonian Christians tried to demonstrate that they are the real heirs of the orthodox tradition. The memoirs claim to be first-hand testimonies of the apostles concerning the deeds and words of Christ. The fact that these Coptic writings include much gospel-like material and logia of Jesus, corroborated with the fragmentary state in which many manuscripts that transmit them have survived, has led scholars to publish fragments of them as apocryphal gospels or apoca5 C. W. Hedrick, “A Revelation Discourse of Jesus,” Journal of Coptic Studies 7 (2005) 13–15. 6  The fragment was translated for the first time by Walter E. Crum in W. M. Flinders Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh (London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1907) 39; editio princeps of the Sahidic text in P. E. Kahle, Bala’izah. Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt vol. 1 (London: Oxford University Press, 1954) 403–404.

74

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

lypses.7 The first chapter of this book documents that the BSApo has suffered a similar fate. Pierluigi Piovanelli adroitly remarked in this regard that the publication of Coptic manuscript fragments must be done with caution: [B]efore attributing ancient dates to Coptic fragmentary texts copied in medieval manuscripts, one should think of past failures and recall that, in spite of Eugène Revillout’s claims about the antiquity of the so-called Gospel of the Twelve Disciples, the fragments that he published in 1904 are from a variety of different texts, including a late antique or early medieval homily. A better knowledge of the evolution of Coptic culture and literature sometimes can lead to a different appreciation of the documents under examination, and, needless to say, not every Coptic fragment necessarily derives from no longer extant second century and/or “Gnostic” texts.8

The analysis of the fully-preserved memoirs is necessary for a better understanding of the similar texts that have survived only fragmentarily, as is the case with the BSApo. For example, the examination of the well-preserved apostolic books allows us to identify in them echoes of fifth century Christological debates, a feature which should warn against regarding them as early documents. The literary genre of these texts is not easy to discern. While many of them are introduced as “homily,” “exegesis,” or “discourse” of one of the church fathers, the gospel-like material and certain apocryphal traditions which they incorporate have made many scholars to include them among Christian apocrypha. However, their homiletic use has sometimes been noted. The remarks of Paulino Bellet on this issue are still useful: The Coptic homily generally has a composite character; along with the development of the theme which constitutes the parenetic exposition, it includes various other narratives without connection to the subject of the homily, adds traditions inspired by apocryphal writings, if not ancient folk legends … the Coptic homiletics usually 7 Noteworthy is the case of several fragments of the Sahidic apostolic books, published under the misleading title Gospel of the Twelve Apostles by E. Revillout, “L’Évangile des XII Apôtres récemment découvert,” Revue biblique 1 (1904) 167–187, 321–355; Idem, Les apocryphes coptes 1, 131–184. Paulin Ladeuze and Anton Baumstark criticized Revillout’s book and considered that most of the fragments published by him actually come from the Gospel of Gamaliel (= CANT 74), see P. Ladeuze, “Apocryphes évangéliques coptes. Pseudo-Gamaliel; Évangile de Barthélemy,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 7 (1906) 245–268; A. Baumstark, review of Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1, Revue biblique 3 (1906) 245–265. In their turn, Adolf von Harnack and Carl Schmidt edited a Berlin fragment from the Book of Bartholomew as a Moses-Adam apocalypse, see A. von Harnack – C. Schmidt, “Ein koptisches Fragment einer Moses-Adam Apokalypse,” Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Classe 28, 2 (1891) 1045–1049. 8 Piovanelli, “The Reception of Early Christian Texts,” 432.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

75

treats the text with much freedom and includes imaginary stories best suiting the taste of listeners.9

Likewise, Frank H. Hallock wrote: “they (i. e. the Coptic apocryphal writings) were of frequent homiletic use … In many cases they are simple expansions of Biblical narrative, adding what may have been quite possible in much the same way that a modern preacher would reconstruct a scene in imagination.”10 Orlandi characterized in similar terms this category of writings, drawing attention at the same time to the problem of their fragmentary character, which can be often misleading when we try to establish the nature of the entire text on the basis of disparate fragments: “Actually, describing these texts as apocryphal is the result of a misunderstanding, generated partly by the fragmentary state of the surviving Coptic manuscripts, and partly by a lack of knowledge about the Coptic literary activity of the seventh and eighth century.”11 Nevertheless, the memoirs show that the gospel-like material and the revelation dialogue was still used in Egypt at a relatively late period, whether their purpose was to make specific dogmatic points by putting them into the mouth of Christ himself, or simply the edification of the believers.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon The transcription of many memoirs is attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem. Despite the fact that Cyril has been for the Egyptian Christians a prominent father of the church, of his genuine works only a few fragments of the Catechetical Orations (CPG 3585; clavis coptica 0112) have survived in Sahidic.12 Although the documentation concerning the genuine works of Cyril  9 P. Bellet, “Testimonios coptos de la aparición de Cristo resucitado a la Virgen,” Estudios bíblicos 13 (1954) 199–205, at 202 (my translation). 10  F. H. Hallock, “Coptic Apocrypha,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933) 163– 174, at 163. 11  Orlandi, “Apocrifi copti,” 68 (my translation). 12  F. Bilabel, Ein koptisches Fragment über die Begründer des Manichäismus (Veröffentlichungen aus den Badischen Papyrus-Sammlungen, Heft 3; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1922) 8–16. Bilabel published a Sahidic papyrus fragment in Heidelberg (P. Heid. inv. kopt. 450) identified later as a portion from Cyril of Jerusalem’s sixth Catechetical Oration in C. Schmidt, review of Bilabel in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 28 (1925) 378–379. The fragment was reedited in P. Nagel, “Ein koptisches Fragment aus Kyrill von Jerusalem (Cat. VI 22–24) über die Anfänge des Manichäismus (P. Heid. Inv. Kopt. 450),” in Études Coptes IV: Quatrième journée d’études, Strasbourg, 26–27 mai, 1988 (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 8; Paris – Louvain: Peeters, 1995) 40–52. In the Heidelberg papyrological collection, the unpublished fragments P. Heid. inv. kopt. 267 and some of the scraps mounted between glass plates as P. Heid. inv. kopt. 268, all belong to

76

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

of Jerusalem in Coptic is scarce, the spurious writings transmitted under his name are numerous.13 Here I shall refer only to ps.-Cyril’s works connected to the apostolic books. It is likely that the important place which Cyril of Jerusalem plays in this kind of literature is due to the fact that his episcopal see was in Jerusalem. Thus, he allegedly had access to the books written by the apostles and hidden either in the library of Jerusalem or in the house of Mary, mother of John Mark. A homily On the Life and the Passion of Christ attributed to him pretends to transcribe the words, “which we found written in the writings of our fathers, the holy apostles, which they wrote in this holy city of Jerusalem.”14 Ps.-Cyril says that a certain Theodosius the deacon found in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, a little parchment book (ⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲛ̄ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲃⲣⲁⲛⲟⲛ) written by the apostles while they were hiding in that place together with the Virgin because the Jews were trying to kill them. The apostles wrote several books and left them in that house: Listen to me, oh my honored children, and let me tell you something of what we found written in the house of Mary, the mother of John, who is called Mark. … They (i. e. the apostles) deliberated with each other and wrote down all the things that had the sixth Catechetical Oration. Fragments from a different Sahidic papyrus codex, kept in the National Library in Vienna, were published in T. Orlandi, Papiri copti di contenuto teologico/Koptische Papyri theologischen Inhalts (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, 9; Wien: Brüder Hollinek, 1974) 56–76. Supplementary Viennese fragments from Cyril’s homilies, previously unnoticed, were published by Orlandi in the same volume but as appendices to the fragments from the Coptic translation of the Plerophories of John Rufus (clavis coptica 0183), see Orlandi, Papiri copti, 118–120 (= seventh Catechetical Oration). Finally, the White Monastery library also possessed a codex of the Orations of Cyril of Jerusalem, vestiges of which have surfaced recently. Until now, fragments from the fifteenth and sixteenth Catechetical Orations have been identified in Naples, Paris, Oslo, and New York. The fragments of this codex will be introduced in A. Suciu – H. Lundhaug, “The Coptic Parchment Fragments in the Collection of the Oslo University Library: A Checklist,” forthcoming. 13  On the literary heritage of Cyril of Jerusalem in Coptic, see T. Orlandi, “Cirillo di Gerusalemme nella letteratura copta,” Vetera Christianorum 9 (1972) 93–100. On the apocryphal traditions incorporated in the Sahidic sermons attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, see G. Aranda, “Tradiciones marianas apócrifas en las homilías coptas del Pseudo-Cirillo de Jerusalén: I. Origen e infancia de Maria, nacimiento de Jesus,” Scripta de Maria 4 (1981) 101–121. 14  Translation taken from van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 127. This writing is preserved only in Sahidic in a complete manuscript (New York, Morgan Library & Museum M 610), and several palimpsest fragments in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (call number E 16262). See also R. van den Broek, “An Early Chronology of Holy Week in Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem’s On the Passion (Pierpont Morgan Library, M 610),” in Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien 2, 101–108; Orlandi, “Cirillo di Gerusalemme,” 100.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

77

happened and the sufferings which our Savior and our Life had endured until he rose from the dead and redeemed us.15

Cyril was not able to read the ancient manuscript, but he gave it to a certain Bachios, a monk from a monastery near Ascalon, who is an expert in old writings. This character is recurrent in the Coptic cycle of Cyril of Jerusalem.16 To Bachios, introduced as bishop of Maiuma near Gaza in one manuscript, are ascribed a homily on the apostles, which contains apocryphal insertions (clavis coptica 0067),17 and another one on the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace.18 The putative author of the book deciphered by him in the sermon of Ps.-Cyril is the apostle Peter, who narrates the events of the Holy Week in the first person plural. Hagen remarked that a passage in this text, in which Christ ascends to heaven while the apostles are sitting on the Mount of Olives, finds a parallel in the BSApo and the Book of Bartholomew:19 Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon Book of Bartholomew P. Berol. 22220 100, Westerhoff, 152–153 col. B,17–24

Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ van den Broek, 150–151

ⲁⲛϭⲱϣⲧ̄ ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲉⲛⲥⲏ̣ⲣ ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲩ ⲉϫⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲛ‧

ⲁⲛϭⲱϣⲧ‧ ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲛ̇ⲑⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲧⲩⲗⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ̇ⲕⲱϩⲧ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ϩⲓ̈ϫⲙ̄ⲡ̄ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲛ‧ ⲁⲧⲉϥⲁ̄ⲡⲉ ⲡⲱϩ ϣⲁⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲟ ⲛ̄ⲕⲱϩⲧ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ We saw our Savior penetrating We looked and we saw We looked and we saw all the heavens [while his] our Savior with his body the Savior like a column feet [were firmly placed] on going up to heavens while of fire, and while his feet the mountain [with us, his his feet were firmly placed were with us on the mounhead penetrated the seventh on the mountain with us. tain, his head reached to heaven, being entirely of [heaven]. fire. ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲉ(ⲛ)[ⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲧⲏⲣ⳿ ⲉⲁϥ̣ϫⲱⲧⲉ [ⲛ̄]ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ̣ ⲧ̣ⲏⲣⲟⲩ. [ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉϥⲟ]ⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ [ⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲩ ⲉ]ϫ̣ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲧⲟ[ⲟⲩ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲛ] ⲉⲣⲉ[ⲧⲉϥⲁⲡⲉ ϫⲱ]ⲧⲉ [ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲉϩⲥⲁϣ]ϥ̣ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ·

 Van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 127. “Bacheus,” in A. S. Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia vol. 2 (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1991) 324a-b. 17  Edited in F. Morard, “Homélie copte sur les apôtres au Jugement Dernier,” in D. H. Warren et al. (eds.), Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions and Symbols. Essays in Honor of François Bovon (Biblical Interpretation Series, 66; Leiden: Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2003) 417–430. 18 Zanetti, “Le roman de Bakhéos.” 19 Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext,” 362–363. The Sahidic text of the Book of Bartholomew is taken from the edition of Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung. 15

16 T. Orlandi,

78

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Notably, the three texts in the table above show some lexical parallels that involve the same wording, “we saw our Savior,” “while his feet were firmly placed on the mountain with us,” and “his head.” The literary motif of the discovery of an ancient book and Bachios’ knowledge of old scripts are further developed in the sermon attributed to him on the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace. The Sahidic text is fragmentary, but Ugo Zanetti offered a résumé of the Arabic version, which is fortunately complete. The Arabic text mentions that Bachios received from the Babylonian, i. e. Syrian, Christians several ancient books written in their language. As we have already seen in the homily of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ, Bachios was able to read ancient writings, presumably Syriac as well. Thus, he found among the old books the lives of the three saints – Ananias, Azarias and Misael – written by Jechonias, allegedly an eyewitness of the events. Interestingly, Bachios decides to translate this book into Coptic, and, in all likelihood, the Sahidic text is supposed to be his translation from Syriac.20 If this feature does not constitute the ultimate proof of a Coptic original, then we must concede at least that the text was redacted in a specifically Egyptian context. In a Coptic homily of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on Mary Magdalene, the patriarch finds in the library of Jerusalem a book written in Coptic concerning the life of the Magdalene: ϯⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ̄ ⲛⲏⲧⲉ(ⲛ) ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲃⲓ̈ⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲓ̈ⲁⲅⲉⲓ̈ⲁ ⲛ̄ⲅⲉⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁ ⲑⲁⲅⲓ̈ⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲓ̈ⲁ ⲧⲙⲁⲕⲇⲁⲗⲓ̈ⲛⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲃⲓ̈ⲃⲗⲓ̈ⲟⲑⲏⲕⲏ ⲛ̄ⲑⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲏϩ ⲛⲉⲕⲏⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ (“I wish to reveal to you the life of this holy noble, Saint Mary Magdalene, and the way in which I found it in the library of the holy city, written in Egyptian”).21 Unfortunately, the manuscript breaks off at this point and we do not know the circumstances 20 Zanetti,

“Le roman de Bakhéos,” 717–718. “Un encomion copte sur Marie-Madeleine attribué à Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 90 (1990) 169–212, at 176. Coquin edited the text after two fragmentary Sahidic codices. From the first manuscript have survived ten folios, which are kept today in the collection of IFAO, Cairo (inv. no. 186–187; 190–197). From the second three fragments are extant, two in the Morgan Library & Museum, and one which formerly belonged to Sylvestre Chauleur and was later acquired by Gérard Godron. Description of the IFAO leaves in C. Louis, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l’IFAO du Caire. Contribution à la reconstitution de la bibliothèque du Monastère Blanc (Ph.D. dissertation; École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2005) 285–287 (= no. 61); description of the Morgan fragments in Depuydt, Catalogue 1, 213 (= no. 110). The ex-“Chauleur fragment” was published in S. Chauleur, “Deux pages d’un manuscrit sur la Sainte Vierge,” Cahiers Coptes 12 (1956) 3–5. English translation in C. Luckritz Marquis, “An Encomium on Mary Magdalene. A New Translation and Introduction,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 197–216. 21 R.-G. Coquin,

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

79

in which Ps.-Cyril found the book. It is, however, clear that the text was allegedly written by a certain Simon the Eunuch, who is introduced as a disciple of the apostles.22 The book contains extensive extracts from the Syriac Cave of Treasures (CAVT 11),23 introduced as parts of a revelation of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary Magdalene and Theophilus. The latter seems to be the same as the one to whom are dedicated the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.24 In a sermon of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Virgin (clavis coptica 0005), which has survived fragmentarily in four Sahidic manuscripts, the author claims that he is recounting the life of Mary, “as we read it in the writings of our fathers the apostles” (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲉ ⲉ̇ⲧⲉⲛⲱϣ ϩⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲥⲩⲛⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓ̈ⲟⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ).25 The theme of the apostolic memoirs deposited in the library of Jerusalem appears also in writings attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem which are extant only in Arabic, although they are likely to be translated from Coptic. Thus, in an Arabic homily on the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin, Cyril examines the books of the apostles and discovers a letter sent by the apostle John to his disciple, Prochorus: ُ ‫ُلس اني‬ ‫كتاب‬ ‫كنت افتش في كـتبُ اآلبا القدَيسين الَرُسل االطهَار فَوجدت فَي‬ َ َ ‫اق ُول ل َك ُم يا َوالَ ِدي االحبآ انا َ كير‬ ‫ي هُو‬ َ ‫صعود َجس َدهَا الي الفَر ُد َوس في َمتل هَدَا اليو َم الَمبارك الد‬ َ ‫ي الطَاهَ َره َو‬ َ ‫شر َح نيا َحة ال َست ال َسيدَة العدَر‬ ّ ‫ي االَن َجيل مكت ُوب هَكدا‬ ‫ان ال َسيدَه‬ َ ‫س من ق ُول يَ ُو َحنا ابن زب َد‬ َ ‫ي بحط ابروخو َر‬ َ ‫ال َسادَس ع َش َر َمن شَهر َم َس َر‬ ‫ال َعدري الطَاه َره َمرتمريَ َم‬ 22 I am not sure who this Simon is meant to be, but he introduces himself as “a eunuch secretary,” see Coquin, “Encomion sur Marie-Madeleine,” 197, 201. The author of the encomium says that when the father of Mary Magdalene died, he appointed Simon as administrator of his heritage. Simon belonged to the group of disciples which witnessed the miracle of feeding the multitude and refers to the apostles as “my fathers.” 23  P.-H. Poirier, “Fragments d’une version copte de la Caverne des trésors,” Orientalia 52 (1983) 415–423 (edition of the two Morgan Library & Museum fragments). On the relationships between this Coptic text and the Cave of Treasures, see Coquin, “Encomion sur Marie-Madeleine,” 169, 173; A. Su-Min Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne des Trésors. Étude sur l’histoire du texte et de ses sources (CSCO, 581. Subsidia, 103; Louvain: Peeters, 2000) 67–69. 24  P.-H. Poirier, “Note sur le nom du destinataire des chapitres 44 à 54 de la Caverne des Trésors,” in Christianisme d’Égypte. Hommages à René-Georges Coquin (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 9; Louvain – Paris: Peeters, 1995) 115–122. 25  F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels. Translations Together with the Texts of Some of Them (Text and Studies, 4/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896) 4. The text is not identified in Robinson, but see E. Lucchesi, “Les sept Marie dans une homélie copte et l’origine du mälkɘ’ éthiopien,” Analecta Bollandiana 127 (2009) 9–15. Lucchesi indicates that this sermon exists in Arabic as well. See also T. Orlandi, Coptic Texts Relating to the Virgin Mary. An Overview (CMCL. Letteratura copta, serie Studi; Rome: C. I. M., 2008) 66.

80

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

I am telling you, O my beloved sons, I, Cyril, that I was searching through the books of the holy fathers, the pure apostles, and I found in a book the explanation of the Dormition of the Lady, the Pure Virgin, and of the assumption of her body in paradise in such a blessed day, the 16th of the month of Mesore. Prochorus wrote that this is what John the Evangelist, the son of Zebedee relates about the holy lady, the pure Mary.26

The letter of the apostle John is written in the first person plural and narrates the circumstances in which the body of Mary was transferred to heaven after her death. The text features many apparitions of the Savior and revelatory discourses. Prochorus wrote down the story of the Dormition of the Virgin in a book, which Cyril will discover later in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, just like in the homily On the Life and the Passion of Christ: ‫كتاب َواج َعلهَ في خزاين ال َكتُب َحتي يبشر بَه في ال َعالم اجم َع ت َدكَارًا لل َست ال َسيدَه‬ ‫اكتب هَدا الخبر جمي َعهُ في‬ َ َ ‫ي الطَاهَرهَ مرتم ُريَم َح َسب َما امر بَه َسيَدنا يس ُو َع الـم َسيح لهُ المج َد هدَه شَهادَة ابي ي ُو َحنَا ال َعم ُود الن ُور‬ َ ‫ال َعدَر‬ ‫ي َوجدَنا‬ ‫ضي َوما عاينتهَ انا ب َعيني انا اب َروخ ُو‬ َ ‫روس تَلميدَه َوق َد اعَلمت َك ُم بهَ يا ا َحباي َوالنع َمه َمع ُكم ا َمينهدَا الد‬ َ َ ‫الم‬ ‫ُقس َوانا ابَيكم كيرلَلَس تب َعت اتار ت َعلمهَم‬ َ ‫ي َمر‬ َ ‫َوكتب ُوهَ ال ُر َس َل االَطهَار َووضع ُوه في بيت َمريم ا ُم ي ُو َحنا يدَعي ال َد‬ ‫( وجميع الشهادَات الدَي و َج ُدتَها مشر ُوحه قد اعَلمت ُكم بها‬Paris. arab. 150, f. 191r) “Write this whole story in a book and put it in the library to explain to the whole world the commemoration of the Lady, the pure Virgin Mary according to the orders of our Lord Jesus Christ, glory to him. This is the testimony of my father John, the illuminated pillar of light, and what I saw with my eyes. I am Prochorus, his disciple and I am the one who reported it. Grace be with you, Amen!” This is what I found, that which the pure apostles wrote and put in the house of Mary, mother of John, called Mark. I, your father Cyril, I have followed the footsteps of their teachings and all the testimonies which I found I explained and I taught you.

The apostolic library in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, appears also in Ps.-John Chrysostom’s homily On the Four Bodiless Creatures.27 This apocryphal writing contains a dialogue of Christ with the apostles concerning the establishment of the Four Bodiless Creatures on the eighth of the month of Hathor. The text is preserved in Sahidic,28 Old 26  Paris, arabe 150, f. 173r. Description in G. Troupeau, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes 1: Manuscrits chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque Nationale. Département des manuscrits; Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1972) 117. The Arabic text is taken, with modifications, from P. González Casado, Las relaciones lingüísticas entre el siríaco y el árabe en textos religiosos árabes cristianos vol. 1 (Ph.D. dissertation; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2000) 290. This dissertation is available at http://eprints.ucm.es/20438/ (retrieved October 12, 2016). 27  This theme is analyzed in Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 354–359, and again in Idem, “The Great Cherub.” 28 On the Sahidic manuscripts of the homily On the Four Bodiless Creatures by Ps.Chrysostom see E. Lucchesi, “Fausses attributions en hagiographie copte,” Le Muséon 113 (2006) 233–254, at 243–247.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

81

Nubian,29 Arabic,30 and Ethiopic.31 The alleged author travels to Jerusalem and finds an apostolic writing in the house of Mary: It happened to me that, after I had left Athens and before I entered the life of monasticism, that is, the life of philosophy, my heart moved me to go to Jerusalem, the city of the saints, to pray in the shrine of the saints and worship in the tomb of the Savior. I also went to the banks of the Jordan, where our Savior was baptized. I returned to the house of Mary mother of John, who is called Mark, where the apostles had gathered. I spent four months there until I celebrated the feast of the resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ. While studying the holy ancient writings (ⲛⲉⲥⲏⲛⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲁⲓⲟⲥ), a written tome (ⲧⲱⲙⲁⲣⲓⲟⲛ) came into my hands in which the apostles wrote as follows.32

This pseudo-Chrysostomic homily has several points in common with the BSApo. For example, the apostles relate in the first person plural the conversations that they had with the Savior. The text begins with the words, “It happened one day when we, the apostles (ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ), were gathered on the Mount of Olives that, behold, the Savior came mounted on the cherubs.”33 Jesus calls the apostles several times using vocatives such as, ⲱ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ (“O my honored fellow-members”), ⲱ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲙⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ (“O my fellow members”), and ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (“O my holy disciples”). As we shall see later, these appellations are related to the form of address ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (“O my holy members”), which appears three times in P. Berol. 22220. An encomium on John the Baptist attributed to the same author claims to incorporate a book of James, the brother of the Lord. The text has survived in Sahidic,34 Arabic,35 and Gǝʿǝz.36 Unlike in the preceding text, in the enco G. M. Browne, “An Old Nubian Version of Ps.-Chrysostom, In quattuor animalia,” Altorientalische Forschungen 15 (1988) 215–219. 30  G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur vol. 1 (Studi e testi, 118; Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944) 545. 31 G. Lusini, “Appunti sulla patristica greca di tradizione etiopica,” Studi classici e orientali 38 (1988) 469–493, at 487–488. 32  Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1: 31–32 (Sahidic text), 2: 32 (English translation). The translation above is slightly modified. 33  Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1: 32, 2: 32. 34 The complete Sahidic text is extant in the manuscript London, BL Or. 7024, which came from the Monastery of Mercurius at Edfu. Published in Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 128–145 (Sahidic text), 271–302 (English translation). French translation in A. Boud’hors, “Éloge de Jean-Baptiste,” in Bovon – Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1, 1552–1578. New English translation by P. Tite, “An Encomium on John the Baptist. A New Translation and Introduction,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 217–246. A fragmentary White Monastery manuscript of this text also exists, see infra. 35 Zanetti, Abu Maqar, 54 (= no. 379). 36 The Gǝʿǝz version is preserved in at least two manuscripts, EMML 1960, ff. 82v–​ 101v and London, BL Or. 687, see Lusini, “Appunti,” 488. 29

82

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

mium on John the Baptist Ps.-Chrysostom does not find the apostolic writing in the house of Mary, but in the library of Jerusalem. The author says that he narrates for his audience the glory of John the Baptist, [A]ccording to what we found in the ancient books (ϩⲛ̄ⲛ̄ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲁⲓ̈ⲟⲛ) that our fathers, the apostles, wrote and placed in the library of the holy city, Jerusalem. Being myself there in Jerusalem, I resided in a church that an old godly presbyter managed, staying there so that I could celebrate the festival of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ along with the festival of the holy cross. Now I was looking through these books and to my great encouragement I found a small ancient book (ⲉⲩⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲁⲓ̈ⲟⲛ) that the apostles had written. This is what it said: “It happened that when we apostles had gathered together with our Savior after he had been raised from the dead.”37

The book discovered by Ps.-Chrysostom was allegedly written by James the Just. The apostle narrates in the first person plural a tour of heavens during which Christ discloses to his disciples the post-mortem glory bestowed to John the Baptist. As I have already said earlier, the BSApo is not the only apostolic memoir that has been thought to be an apocryphal gospel. Before Budge published the complete text of Ps.-Chrysostom’s encomium on John the Baptist, Eric O. Winstedt edited four leaves from a tenth-century White Monastery codex (MONB.DB) of the same writing. Without the possibility of comparing the fragments he published against the complete text, Winstedt thought that they are “part of an apocryphal Gospel on John attributed to James the brother of the Lord.”38 He further ventured to speculate that it is “not impossible that the fragment may be part of, or at any rate may be based on, the book containing the secret teaching of Christ as transmitted to Mariamne, sister of Philip, by James the brother of our Lord, which, according to Hippolytus, the Naassene Gnostics professed to possess.”39 However, the complete Sahidic text of this writing extant in the British Library codex Or. 7024, which contains also the homiletic framework attributed to Chrysostom, demonstrates how far-fetched his conclusion was, and, at the same time, it warns us to be cautious when we deal with Coptic fragmentary writings. 37 Translation taken from Tite, “Encomium on John the Baptist,” 239. Sahidic text in Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 137. 38  E. O. Winstedt, “A Coptic Fragment attributed to James the Brother of the Lord,” Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907) 240–248, at 240. The fragments published by Winstedt were correctly identified in W. C. Till, “Johannes der Täufer in koptischen Literatur,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16 (1958) 310–332, at 313. 39  Winstedt, “A Coptic Fragment,” 240.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

83

In a sermon on the Archangel Michael attributed to Timothy II, patriarch of Alexandria (d. 477), the pretended author finds a writing of the apostle John transcribed by his disciple, whom the only Sahidic witness presently known calls Proclus:40 Now it came to pass that I, the least of all men, Timothy your father, went up to Jerusalem to worship the cross of our Savior, and [his] life-giving tomb, and the holy places wherein our Savior walked about. Afterwards I went into the house of the mother of Proclus, the disciple of John the Evangelist, and I dwelt therein, and I found a parchment book (ⲟⲩϫⲱⲙⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲃⲣⲁⲛⲟⲛ) which Proclus, the disciple of John, had written; and the people who lived in the house kept it as a phylactery.41

Although this text is attested in a single Sahidic manuscript, many Ethiopic witnesses are extant.42 Moreover, it is likely that the mīmar on Michael attributed to Timothy in several Arabic codices represents the same text.43 Under the title “Vision of Saint John the Evangelist recounted by the patriarch Timothy,” Émile Amélineau published a slightly different Arabic version of the text, but, with his usual carelessness, he omitted specifying which manuscript he used.44 Be that as it may, the Arabic version clarifies that the name of John’s disciple, Proclus in the Sahidic manuscript edited by Budge, is a corrupted form of Prochorus, who features also in the aforementioned sermon of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Assumption of the Virgin.45 The  Although this sermon is attributed to Timothy I, patriarch between 378–384, in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, I think that the alleged author is Timothy II Aelurus (patriarch between 457–460). He is the only one of the three patriarchs named Timothy which left traces in Coptic literature, several writings being attributed to him. His fame was assured by the role he played in the Christological debates of the epoch and in the anti-Chalcedonian resistance of the Egyptian church. 41  E. A. W. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1915) 513 (Coptic text), 1022 (English translation). 42  This homily belongs to the Ethiopic collection Dǝrsanä Mikaʾel, see, e. g., the following manuscripts: W. Wright, Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1847 (London: British Museum, 1877) 146 (= no. 2191); Vat. Eth. 82; EMML 646; EMML 570; EMML 1433; EMML 569 etc. For the content of this collection, see P. Marrassini, “I manoscritti etiopici della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze,” Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 31 (1987) 69–110, at 77–87 (= no. 14). 43 A number of Arabic manuscripts are listed in Graf, GCAL 1, 464, 543. 44 É. Amélineau, Contes et romans d’Égypte chrétienne vol. 1 (Collection de contes et chansons populaires, 13; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1888) 11–19. On the identification of the two texts, see C. G. D. Müller, Die Engellehre der koptischen Kirche. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der christlichen Frömmigkeit in Ägypten (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959) 161 n. 951. Of some use is also the analysis of the same homily in Idem, Die alte koptische Predigt: Versuch eines Überblicks (Berlin: Darmstadt, 1954) 106–112. 45 This identification of the disciple of John was already proposed by M. R. James, “Some New Coptic Apocrypha,” Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) 577–586, at 165; W. Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. 40

84

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Ethiopic version is attributed to Demetrius of Alexandria, and indicates that the book was discovered by the patriarch in “the house of the mother of the disciple of John the Evangelist” (ቤተ፡ እሙ፡ ለረድአ፡ ዮሐንስ፡ ወንጌላዊ፡).46 Alessandro Bausi drew attention to another Ethiopic witness, according to which Demetrius found the book in the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark the Evangelist. The apostolic memoir was allegedly written by the apostle John.47 The same Prochorus transcribed yet another revelation of Christ to the apostles, in a homily on the Dormition of the Virgin attributed to a certain Cyriacus of Behnesa, which has survived in Arabic and Ethiopic.48 This text says: ‫ولما كان في ايام ابينا انتا َسيوس الر َسولي خطر فكر ببال كتيرين من االخوه ال َساكنين بيريتَ شيهات لكي يمضوا‬ ‫الي بيت المقدس ليتباركوا بالقيامة المقد َسه و َسجدوا في االتارات الشريفه وايضا بارادت هللا َسرنا مع كتير من‬ ‫الناس وا َسرعَنا الي المدينه المقد َسه لننظر الي الحدود وجميع االتاراة المقد َسه التي اظهَرتهم الملكه المومنه‬ َ ‫هَيالسر وابنها البار ق َسطَنطين الملك وتباركنا من القيامه والقبر الشريف واقمنا ايا ًما قاليل وكان َحاظرًا من‬ ‫س فتحهَ وبدَا يقرا‬ ‫المقدس اخا ي َسما‬ ‫جملت لمجمع‬ َ ‫ارشالوس معل َم فاضل من االتنا َسيين م َعه كتابًا مقد‬ َ َ ‫صة َسيدنا مريم ال َعدري وبشروا في الخليقه كلها‬ َ ‫ضعوهم الر َسل من اجل ق‬ َ ‫هده الشهادات كلهَا و‬ ‫ابروخورس وضع هده الشهادَات في كتاب االولين تابعًا في دلك ال َعامود المنير ابي يو َحنا االنجيلي‬ ‫وايضا ان‬ َ ‫س اجتم َعوا عندهَا الر َسل وكفنوهَا‬ َ ‫المتكلم بااللهيات قال ان لما ماتت العدري متل َساير النا‬ (Vat. arab. 170, ff. 324r–325r) And it happened in the days of our father Athanasius the apostolic, that many of the brothers who were living in the wilderness of Scetis thought to go to Jerusalem to be blessed by the holy resurrection and to kneel before the venerable relics. By the will of God, we left also with a lot of people and we hastened to the holy city to see the nails and all the venerable relics that had been revealed by Helen and her righteous son, king Constantine. We received blessings from the resurrection and the venerable tomb and we remained for a few days. And there was a brother in the assembly, called Archelaos, an excellent teacher of the people of Athens, who had a holy book. He opened it and began to read (…) Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1/2; Göttingen, 1970) 48 n. 5; and Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 351–352 n. 11. 46  EMML 1433, f. 5v. 47 A. Bausi, “A First Evaluation of the ‘Arabic Version of the Apocalypse of Paul’,” Parole de l’Orient 24 (1999) 131–164, at 154. 48 Summary of the Arabic text in A. van Lantschoot, “L’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes,” Gregorianum 27 (1946) 493–526, at 509–511. The Ethiopic version is available in V. Arras, De transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice 2 vols. (CSCO, 351–352. Scriptores aethiopici, 68–69; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1974) 1: 34–55 (Ethiopic text), 2: 26–42 (Latin translation); republished after a different manuscript by S. Bombeck, Die Geschichte der heiligen Maria in einer alten äthiopischen Handschrift 2 vols. (Dortmund: Praxiswissen, 2004–2010) 1: 322–346 (Ethiopic text), 2: 176–188 (German translation).

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

85

All these testimonies were written by the apostles to tell the story of our Lady, the Virgin Mary, and to preach it to the whole creation. And then Prochorus put all these testimonies in the book of the fathers, following the illuminated pillar, my father John, the Evangelist and Theologian, who said that when the Virgin Mary died like all humans, the apostles gathered around her, and wrapped her.49

The first passage quoted above reveals an interesting detail concerning the alleged date of Cyriacus’ episcopacy. Certain Arabic and Ethiopic manuscripts have transmitted under the name of this author no less than eight homilies and an anaphora of Mary.50 Many scholars who have studied the Arabic and the Ethiopic texts which have survived under Cyriacus’ name believe that he was a late author who wrote in Arabic. For example, Ève Lanchantin placed Cyriacus’ episcopacy sometime between the fourteenth and the fifteenth century.51 This is, however, contradicted by the homily on the Dormition of the Virgin, in which the author states explicitly that he is a contemporary of Athanasius of Alexandria.52 Therefore, it is likely that Cyriacus does not belong to Christian Arabic literature, but rather to Coptic literature. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that a homily on the Lament of Mary, one of the most widespread works attributed to Cyriacus in Arabic (including in Garšūnī manuscripts) and Ethiopic, exists also in Sahidic.53 The Coptic text is extant in two parchment leaves from a White Monastery manuscript (Paris, BnF Copte 12917, ff. 37–38), paginated 53–54 and 59–60, and in a fragment from another parchment codex, retrieved from the binding  Arabic text in Gonzáles Casado, Las relaciones lingüísticas 1, 337–338.  On the list of works transmitted under Cyriacus’ name, see R.-G. Coquin, “Cyriacus,” in A. S. Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1991) 669b–671a, at 670a-b; È. Lanchantin, “Une homélie sur le Martyre de Pilate, attribuée à Cyriaque de Behnessa,” Apocrypha 13 (2002) 135–202, at 145–146. 51  Lanchantin, “Martyre de Pilate,” 142–144. 52  The parallel Ethiopic version of the passage above was quoted as argument against Lanchantin’s hypothesis by Philippe Luisier in his review of Beylot, Le Martyre de Pilate, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 61 (1995) 251. 53 For the Arabic, see A. Mingana, “The Lament of the Virgin,” in Woodbrooke Studies vol. 2 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1928) 163–240. Other Arabic manuscripts are mentioned in Graf, GCAL 1, 248; for the Ethiopic, see M.-A. van den Oudenrijn, Gamaliel. Äthiopische Texte zur Pilatusliteratur (Spicilegium Friburgense, 4; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1959) 2–83 (Ethiopic text and German translation). Other Ethiopic manuscripts of the Lament of Mary are mentioned in A. Bausi, “I manoscritti etiopici di J. M. Wansleben nella Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 33 (1989) 5–33, at 19. On the Ethiopic version, see also S. Weninger, “Laḥa Maryam,” in Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3, 477. 49 50

86

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

of the British Library codex Or. 7027, which belonged to the Monastery of Mercurius at Edfu.54 Given that the studies devoted to Cyriacus of Behnesa until now have placed this character in the Arabic period, and that the name of the author has not been preserved in the few surviving Sahidic fragments of the Lament of Mary, some scholars have speculated that the work must have been transmitted in Coptic under another name. Philippe Luisier, for example, suggested that behind the mysterious figure of Cyriacus of Behnesa lies Judas Cyriacus, the legendary bishop of Jerusalem who was martyred under Julian the Apostate.55 Cyriacus is credited with the discovery of several ancient books. If in the homily on the Dormition of the Virgin he claims to include a book of the apostles written by Prochorus, in a homily attributed to him On the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt, it is said that he found in Jerusalem a book on this topic written by Joseph the Carpenter.56 Likewise, in the Lament of Mary and the Martyrdom of Pilate he transcribes the memoirs of Gamaliel and Nicodemus, which he discovered in Jerusalem. The Lament of Mary is an apocryphal Passion narrative that has literary connections with other similar texts such as the Acts of Pilate (CANT 62), the Book of the Cock (መጽሐፈ፡ ዶርሆ፡),57 the Coptic Book of Bartholomew, the Martyrdom of Pilate, and some of the Sahidic homilies on the Passion  The Paris fragments were published almost concomitantly by P. Lacau, Fragments d’apocryphes coptes (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 9; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1904) 13–22 and Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1, 54–58. The London fragment is studied and published in A. Suciu, “A British Library Fragment from a Homily on the Lament of Mary and the So-Called Gospel of Gamaliel,” Aethiopica. International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 15 (2012) 53–71. 55  P. Luisier, “De Pilate chez les Coptes,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 62 (1996) 411–425, at 411–412. 56 The Arabic text is available in Gerges Henin, ‫( كتاب ميامير وعجائب العدرا‬Cairo: El-Helal, 1902) 73–95; second edition, with the same title, published in Cairo, 1927, 106–139. Summary of the homily in P. Dib, “Deux discours de Cyriaque évêque de Behnésa sur la Fuite en Égypte,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 15 (1910) 157–161. See also Graf, GCAL 1, 232–234. 57 On the Ethiopic version of this text see, e. g., M. Chaîne, “Le Livre du Coq (‘Matzḥafa Dorho’),” Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 13 (1905) 276–281; R. W. Cowley, “The So-Called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock’: Part of an Apocryphal Passion Gospel. ‘The Homily and Teaching of Our Fathers the Holy Apostles’,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1 (1985) 16–22; R. Gounelle, “À propos des volailles cuites qui ont chanté lors de la passion du Christ,” Recherches augustiniennes 33 (2003) 19–63; P. Piovanelli, “Exploring the Ethiopic Book of the Cock: An Apocryphal Passion Gospel from Late Antiquity,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003) 427–454; French translation in Idem, “Livre du coq,” in P. Geoltrain – J.-D. Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 2 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 2005) 54

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

87

attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem. The work narrates the events surrounding the resurrection of Christ, interwoven with large portions in which Virgin Mary is portrayed as stricken by grief, weeping over the death of her son. She occupies a prominent place in the text, the Lament of Mary sharing with other Coptic writings the claim that the first witness of the resurrected Christ was not Mary Magdalene, but rather the Virgin Mary.58 The homily tends to absolve Pilate from the guilt of condemning Jesus Christ, putting the whole responsibility on the Jews.59 Convinced by the miracles that occurred during crucifixion and resurrection, Pilate confesses Jesus’ divine nature and becomes his follower. The Lament of Mary has affinities with the Martyrdom of Pilate, another work which survives in Arabic and Ethiopic under the name of Cyriacus of Behnesa.60 The Martyrdom constitutes the continuation of the Lament of Mary, narrating the circumstances that ultimately lead to the death of Pilate and his family as Christian martyrs. Both stories were allegedly written by Gamaliel the Elder, and later retold by Cyriacus, who found them in books deposited in the library of Jerusalem. They feature extensive revelations of Jesus to his apostles and gospel-like material. Since Gamaliel narrates the Lament of Mary in the first person plural, the Sahidic fragments of this Coptic apostolic memoir have often been misattributed and misinterpreted. Thus, the aforementioned Paris leaves were misidentified successively as an 135–203. An Arabic version is mentioned by E. Lucchesi, “La ‘Vorlage’ arabe du Livre du coq éthiopien,” Orientalia 74 (2005) 91–92. 58 See, e. g., Bellet, “Testimonios coptos”; P. Devos, “L’apparition du Ressuscité à sa Mère. Un nouveau témoin copte,” Analecta Bollandiana 96 (1978) 388; E. Lucchesi, “Identification de P. Vindob. K. 2644,” Orientalia 76 (2007) 174–175; J. D. Breckenridge, “‘Et Prima Vidit’: The Iconography of the Appearance of Christ to His Mother,” The Art Bulletin 39.1 (1957) 9–32. The episode of the encounter of Jesus with his mother near the empty tomb is analyzed in T. Abraha – D. Assefa, “Apocryphal Gospels in the Ethiopic Tradition,” in Frey – Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 611–653, at 643–644. 59 Luisier, “De Pilate chez les Coptes”; see also E. Cerulli, “Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in Ethiopian Tradition and Poetry,” Proceedings of the British Academy 59 (1975) 141–158; R. Beylot, “Bref aperçu des principaux textes éthiopiens dérivés des Acta Pilati,” Langues orientales anciennes, philologie et linguistique 1 (1988) 181–195; Cowley, “Book of the Cock,” 20. 60 Arabic version in E. Galtier, Le martyre de Pilate (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 27; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1912); Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 2, 241–333; Lanchantin, “Martyre de Pilate,” 166–199 (French translation); the Ethiopic version was published in van den Oudenrijn, Gamaliel, 112–180; R. Beylot, Le Martyre de Pilate. Édition critique de la version éthiopienne et traduction française (Patrologia Orientalis, 45/4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993). On the Ethiopic, see also A. Bausi, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunità monastiche dell’Eritrea,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 38 (1994) 13–69, at 26–27.

88

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

unknown apocryphal gospel (Lacau), the Gospel of the Twelve (Revillout), and the Gospel of Gamaliel (Ladeuze, Baumstark, Haase, James, van den Oudenrijn).61 For his part, Bentley Layton attributed the London fragment to an unknown apocryphal work.62 These misattributions show once more how quibbling are the attempts to identify the apostolic memoirs transmitted fragmentarily. Possibly, the two books of Gamaliel incorporated in the homilies of Cyriacus of Behnesa are mentioned in a homily of Ps.-Basil of Caesarea on the building of the first church dedicated to the Virgin, which features a letter purportedly authored by Luke the evangelist. The text has survived in the Bohairic dialect of Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic.63 Basil travels to Jerusalem and discovers in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, “a multitude of ancient books (ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣ ⲛ̄ϫⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲟⲛ), those written by Josephus the writer (συγγραφεύς), Gamaliel the Teacher, Luke the scribe, and Nicodemus the Levite.”64 If the books of Gamaliel found by Ps.-Basil are indeed the Lament of Mary and the Martyrdom of Pilate, then the sermon on the building of the church must postdate them. As we have seen, in the homily of Cyriacus of Behnesa on the Dormition of the Virgin features a certain teacher of Athens named Archelaos. The  Lacau, Fragments; Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1; Ladeuze, “Apocryphes évangéliques coptes”; A. Baumstark, review of Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1; F. Haase, Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur orientalisch-apokryphen Evangelienliteratur (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913) 11–22; M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, 19638) 152. 62 Layton, Catalogue, 111 (= no. 100). 63  The Bohairic text was published by M. Chaîne, “Catéchèse attribuée à Saint Basile de Césarée. Une lettre apocryphe de Saint Luc,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 23 (1922– 1923) 150–159, 271–302, after a Vatican manuscript (Vat. Copt. 67, ff. 69–89). Another witness, part of the Tischendorf collection in Leipzig, is signaled in W. E. Crum, “Hagiographica from Leipzig Manuscripts,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 29 (1907) 289–296, 301–307, at 304. Arabic manuscripts of this text mentioned in Zanetti, Abu Maqar, 54, 63, 72 (= nos. 377, 378, 413, 480); W. F. Macomber, Catalogue of the Christian Arabic Manuscripts of the Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies, Muski, Cairo (Studia Orientalia Christiana; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1984) 45. An Ethiopic version is attested in EMML 2044; EMML 2461; EMML 4355 etc. The Gǝʿǝz version was edited and translated in Bombeck, Geschichte der heiligen Maria, 1: 398–423 (Ethiopic text), 2: 213–223 (German translation). 64  The connection between the books of Gamaliel and the Martyrdom of Pilate attributed to Cyriacus of Behnesa has already been suggested by Luisier, “De Pilate chez les Coptes,” 412–413. In three of the Sahidic homilies attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, references are made to certain books of Irenaeus the Historiographer and Josephus, which the bishop allegedly consulted. This theme is documented in van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 118–119. 61

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

89

text indicates that he possessed a book of John transcribed by Prochorus. Notably, another apostolic memoir is embedded in a homily on the Archangel Gabriel, attributed to the mysterious figure of a certain Archelaos.65 We cannot be certain whether this character and Archelaos from the homily of Cyriacus are one and the same, although this hypothesis is likely. Nevertheless, in the Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the homily on Gabriel, Archelaos is introduced as the bishop of Neapolis, which has to be identified with Nablus, situated near Mount Gerizim.66 On the other hand, in the Ethiopic collection Dǝrsanä Gäbrǝʾel, in which this homily is included, the author is said to be bishop of Dähnä. In the Arabic version, the town of Archelaos’ bishopric is called Irā. Until now, only the Bohairic text of Ps.-Archelaos’ sermon on the Archangel Gabriel has been published,67 although multiple Sahidic,68 Arabic,69 and Ethiopic70 manuscripts are attested as well. During a pilgrimage to the holy land, Ps.-Archelaos discovers in the library of the monastery of St. Romanos a book written by the apostles: ⲁϥⲓ̄ ⲉⲧⲟⲧⲉⲛ ⲛ̄ϫⲉⲟⲩϫⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲟⲛ. ⲉⲣⲉϩⲁⲛⲥⲩⲛⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ϧⲏⲧϥ̄. ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛⲓ̄ⲟϯ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ (“It came to our hand an ancient book, which had in it writings of our holy fathers the apostles”).71 The apostolic memoir begins on the Mount of Olives, where the apostles are sitting. Christ appears and reveals to them “great hidden mysteries” (ϩⲁⲛⲛⲓϣϯ ⲙ̄ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲩϩⲏⲡ). The monastery of Romanos, in which Ps.-Archelaos found the alleged memoir of the apostles, is the Palestinian monastery led for a period by Severus of Antioch, the great champion this homily see Müller, Predigt, 103–104, 156–166; Idem, Engellehre, 218–220.  See, e. g., B. Burrell, Neokoroi. Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Cincinnati Classical Studies, n.s. 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004) 260–265. 67  De Vis, Homélies coptes 2, 246–291. De Vis published the text after Vat. Copt. 59, ff. 30r–49v, and gave the variae lectiones of another fragmentary manuscript witness. 68 Julien Delhez currently edits the Sahidic version of the homily of Ps.-Archelaos on the Archangel Gabriel as part of his PhD dissertation at the University of Göttingen. The Sahidic text is known in a complete copy kept in the Morgan Library & Museum in New York (M 583), a fragmentary codex from the White Monastery (manuscript MONB.CU), and a papyrus fragment in the collection of Leipzig University, identified and prepared for publication by Frederic Kruger (Free University, Berlin). Description of the Morgan codex in Depuydt, Catalogue 1, 325–332 (= no. 164). Matthias Müller (University of Basel) has edited and translated into English the Sahidic text; his edition is forthcoming. 69  Cf. Graf, GCAL 1, 544, where several Arabic manuscripts of this text are listed. 70  The Ethiopic manuscripts of this work are numerous, see, e. g., A. Dillmann, Verzeichniss der abessinischen Handschriften (Die Handschriften-verzeichniss der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Bd. 3; Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1878) 56 (= no. 668); EMML 3142; EMML 3527; EMML 3986; EMML 4545; EMML 4510; EMML 1311; EMML 2107; EMML 4147 etc. 71  De Vis, Homélies coptes 2, 249. 65 On 66

90

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

of Miaphysite orthodoxy.72 The reference to this monastic place suggests a relatively late date for the composition of the apostolic memoir included in the sermon of Ps.-Archelaos, certainly not before the sixth century. In a sermon on the Assumption of the Virgin attributed to Theodosius of Alexandria (d. 567),73 preserved in two Bohairic manuscripts,74 and also in Arabic,75 we find the following passage: Let us turn to the theme which is laid down for us of this great festival, which is spread out for us today; that we may bring into the midst her who is worthy of all honor: beginning from the dispensation of Christ unto the death of this holy Virgin and her assumption: even as I found it in detail (ⲓⲥⲧⲟⲣⲓⲕⲱⲥ) in some ancient writings (ϧⲉⲛϧⲁⲛⲥⲩⲛⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲟⲥ) in Jerusalem, which came into my hand in the library of the holy Mark at Alexandria.76

According to the title of the Bohairic version, the patriarch of Alexandria delivered the sermon in the last year of his life, that is, in 567 CE. Without supplying any serious argument, Chaîne considered the sermon on the Assumption as an authentic work penned by Theodosius.77 However, one can seriously doubt this hypothesis since the sermon belongs to the Coptic genre of apostolic memoirs, having no connection with the genuine writings of Theodosius. As it is clearly stated in the lines quoted above, the author is 72 On the connection between the monastery mentioned in the homily of Ps.-Archelaos and the anti-Chalcedonian monk Romanos, see Crum, “Hagiographica from Leipzig Manuscripts,” 294; Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 352 n. 11. 73  Summary in van Lantschoot, “Assomption,” 504–506. See also Orlandi, Coptic Texts, 72. 74 A Vatican manuscript (Vat. copt. 66) of this sermon was published in M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose patriarche d’Alexandrie sur la dormition et l’assomption de la Vierge,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 29 (1933–1934) 272–314; description in A. Hebbelynck – A. van Lantschoot, Codices coptici Vaticani, Barberiniani, Borgiani, Rossiani vol. 1: Codices coptici Vaticani (Rome: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1937) 421–423. An incomplete transcription and translation was published in Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 90–127. The debris of another Bohairic manuscript of this sermon are scattered among collections in Manchester, Leipzig, and Cairo, see Evelyn White, New Coptic Texts, 60–62. Two Spanish translations are available in P. Bellet, “Theodosio de Alejandría y su homilia copta sobre la Asunción de la Virgen,” Ephemerides Mariologicae 1 (1951) 243–266; G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen. Relatos de la tradición copta (Apócrifos cristianos, 2; Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 1995) 177–228. Italian translation in M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento vol. 1/2 (Turin: Marietti, 1981) 186–205. 75  Vat. arab. 698, ff. 85–102, copied in the year 1371 CE. The Vatican manuscript lacks the beginning of the text, but the Franciscan Center in Cairo possesses a complete Arabic copy described in Macomber, Catalogue, 45. 76 Translation taken from Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, xxvi. For the Bohairic text, see Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose,” 282. 77 Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose,” 273–276.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

91

only a mediator who transcribes an authentic document, allegedly written by the apostles Peter and John. The text employs a common theme of this genre, namely the “ancient writing” (ⲥⲩⲛⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲟⲥ) of the apostles discovered by a major figure of the Miaphysite church. The sermon of Ps.-Theodosius makes pious use of the Coptic literary topoi related to the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin. Stephen Shoemaker has developed Chaîne’s hypothesis, further speculating that, since Theodosius claims to find the book in Jerusalem, his sermon might have been influenced by Marianic traditions that circulated in the Holy City.78 However, as we have seen, the theme of the library from Jerusalem is recurrent in the Coptic apostolic memoirs, being nothing more than a literary feature meant to provide prestige and venerability for these writings. The title of the Encomium on Abbaton, the Angel of Death, attributed to Timothy Aelurus,79 says that, [T]he archbishop wished to know how God made him (scil. Abbaton) frightful and disturbing … While he was going to Jerusalem to worship the cross of our Savior and his life-giving tomb, on the seventeenth of the month Thoout, he examined the books that were in the library of Jerusalem, these that our fathers the apostles instituted and put in it, until he found his Investiture.80

The encomium is preserved in a single Sahidic manuscript in the British Library (BL Or. 7025),81 but it seems that an Arabic version existed as well. Thus, in the Kitāb al-īḍāḥ, a Copto-Arabic catechetical work written perhaps in the eleventh century, and formerly attributed to Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʿ,82 there are some polemical references to an apocryphal homily of Theophilus of Alexandria, which appears to be identical with our Encomium on Abbaton.83 78 S. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford – New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003) 62. For a criticism of Shoemaker’s hypothesis regarding a genuine Theodosian authorship, see M. Sheridan, “A Homily on the Death of the Virgin Mary Attributed to Evodius of Rome,” in Immerzeel – van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies 1, 393–405, at 404–405 n. 39. 79  Editio princeps and English translation in E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1914). I published a new English translation in Saweros – Suciu, “The Investiture of Abbaton,” 359–364. 80 Translation taken from Saweros – Suciu, “Investiture of Abbaton,” 534. 81  This manuscript, which was inscribed in 981 CE, comes from the Monastery of St. Mercurius at Edfu. Description in Layton, Catalogue, 135–136 (= no. 121). 82  See M. Swanson, “Recent Developments in Copto-Arabic Studies, 1996–2000,” in Immerzeel – van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies 1, 239–267, at 245, who would rather ascribe it to an anonymous author, probably from the eleventh century. 83  This section of the text is analyzed in M. Swanson, “The Specifically Egyptian Context of a Coptic Arabic Text: Chapter Nine of the Kitab al-Idah of Sawîrus ibn al-Muqaf-

92

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

The text is introduced as a homily for the feast of Abbaton, the Angel of Death (cf. Revelation 9:11), celebrated on the 13th of Hathor. Christ, named throughout, like in the BSApo, Savior and Lord, explains to the apostles gathered around him how the angel Muriel was established by God as the Angel of Death. His speech often resembles similar formulae in the BSApo: O those that I have chosen out of the entire world, I will not hide anything from you, but I will inform you how my Father enthroned him (i. e. Abbaton) … because I and My Father are one (ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ)84 … Now then, O my holy members (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), those that I have chosen out of the entire world, I will not hide anything from you”.85

After the revelation about Abbaton, he sends the apostles to proclaim him in all parts of the world, a recurrent theme in this kind of literature. The three Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (CPG 2183; clavis coptica 0063; cf. also CAVT 88, 98–99; clavis coptica 0542, 0350) represent a special case. In the Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic literary continuum, these writings have been redacted in order to resemble the apostolic memoirs.86 Although they originally constituted three independent texts, in Bohairic, Arabic, and Gǝʿǝz manuscripts they usually are featured together. The testaments are introduced by a brief report attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, in which the patriarch says that he found them in the library of Alexandria, in “the old writings of our holy fathers, the apostles” (ϧⲉⲛⲛⲓⲥⲩⲛⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛⲓⲟϯ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ).87 In Ethiopic, only the Falasha manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Abb. 107 (ff. 20v–26r) contains fa,” Medieval Encounters 2 (1996) 214–227, at 218–220. See also A. van Lantschoot, “Fragments coptes d’une homélie de Jean de Parallos contre les livres hérétiques,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati vol. 1: Bibbia. Letteratura cristiana antica (Studi e testi, 121; Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1946) 296–326, at 297 n. 7; Graf, GCAL 1, 467. 84 John 10:30; see also P. Berol. 22220 98, col. B,28–30, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱⲧ. Both Ps.-Timothy and P. Berol. 22220 are quoting from the Coptic version of the New Testament, which uses the possessive ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ, whereas the Greek text reads only ὁ πατήρ. On the interpretation of John 10:30 in the BSApo, which may point to the Christological debates of the fourth century and later, see Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever,” 239. 85  Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 231 (Sahidic text); translation taken from Saweros – Suciu, “Investiture of Abbaton,” 537. 86 Extant in Bohairic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. For the Bohairic, see I. Guidi, “Il testo copto del Testamento di Abramo,” “Il Testamento di Isacco e il Testamento di Giacobbe,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei ser. 5, vol. 9 (1900) 157–180, 223–264. Arabic and Ethiopic texts edited with German translation in M. Heide, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs. Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen, 56; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000). New Ethiopic manuscripts signaled in T. Erho, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (2013) 1–23, at 16–21. 87  Guidi, “Testamento di Abramo,” 159.

The Apostolic Memoirs Framed by a Patristic Sermon

93

the Testament of Abraham alone.88 The same text, which is the oldest of the three, appears without the Testament of Isaac and the Testament of Jacob in a Sahidic papyrus manuscript from Köln.89 Similarly, at least one Sahidic manuscript features the Testament of Isaac alone.90 Louis-Théophile Lefort published two fragments of another Sahidic copy of the Testament in Isaac, once kept in the library of the University of Louvain.91 Unfortunately, as the fragments disappeared in the fire which devastated to library of the Louvain University during the World War II bombings, it is not possible anymore to examine them in order to identify other codicologically related fragments which may have survived. Therefore, one cannot be sure whether this Sahidic copy of the Testament of Isaac was copied alone or together with the other two testaments. While the Testament of Abraham is the only one preserved in Greek, the Testament of Isaac and the Testament of Jacob are exclusively transmitted in Coptic, Arabic, and Gǝʿǝz. Furthermore, the last two texts have many 88  The version of the Testament of Abraham in codex Abb. 107 has been published several times, editio princeps by C. Conti Rossini, “Nuovi appunti sui giudei d’Abissinia,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei ser. 5, vol. 31 (1922) 221–240. 89 G. Schenke, Der koptische Kölner Papyruskodex 3221 vol. 1: Das Testament des Iob (Papyrologica Coloniensia, 33; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009) 1. Beside the Testament of Abraham, this codex contains also the Testament of Job (CAVT 207; clavis coptica 0043), the Acts of Peter and Andrew (BHG 1489; CANT 237), and the Testament of Adam (CAVT 3). As the Sahidic text of the Testament of Abraham in the Köln papyrus differs much from the Bohairic version, we may infer that in Coptic existed two separate translations from Greek. 90  This is New York, Morgan Library & Museum, M 577, ff. 12v–25v, transcribed in 894–895 CE. K. H. Kuhn, “The Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 8 (1957) 225–239 (edition of the Sahidic text); Idem, “An English Translation of the Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 18 (1967) 325–336 (English translation). This Sahidic recension is slightly different from the other known versions. For a comparison of the Sahidic and Bohairic text of the Testament of Isaac, see P. Nagel, “Zur sahidischen Version des Testamentes Isaaks,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 12 (1963) 259–263, and especially J. Dochhorn, “Das Testament Isaaks nach den sahidischen Textzeugen und dem bohairischen Paralleltext. Eine synoptische Übersicht mit kritischen Anmerkungen,” in D. Bumazhnov (ed.), Christliches Ägypten in der spätantiken Zeit. Akten der 2. Tübinger Tagung zum Christlichen Orient (7.–8. Dezember 2007) (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 261–329. 91  Lefort, “Coptica Lovaniensia,” 59–60 (= nos. 52–53); republished in Idem, Les manuscrits coptes 1, 139–140 (= nos. 52–53), and again in Idem, “Fragments coptes,” Le Muséon 48 (1945) 97–120, at 114–115 (Coptic text), 120 (French translation). For the identification of these fragments, see A. Suciu, “A Coptic Fragment from the History of Joseph the Carpenter in the Collection of Duke University Library,” Harvard Theological Review 106:1 (2013) 93–104, at 100 n. 29. The Louvain fragments have recently been analyzed by Dochhorn, “Das Testament Isaaks,” 325–329.

94

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

features in common, suggesting that they were written together. Notably, they also have literary parallels with the Coptic apostolic memoirs. For example, God tells Abraham in the Testament of Isaac that those who will worship his son, Isaac, and will make charity in his name, “I will grant them to you as sons in my kingdom.” The theme of the pious Christians to whom is granted the status of sons in the heavenly kingdom is a common hagiographical topos in the memoirs. Ps.-Timothy’s Enthronement of Abbaton, Ps.-Chrysostom’s sermon on John the Baptist, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Enthronement of Michael, and the Enthronement of Gabriel all contain this feature.92 It is, therefore, possible either that the Testament of Isaac and the Testament of Jacob were composed, or that they were at least revised and interpolated in the milieu which produced the apostolic memoirs. As I will show later in this chapter, the Apocalypse of Paul went through a similar process of rewriting, being probably redacted in the same circle of Coptic literati. Finally, I should like to end the account concerning the memoirs framed by a pseudo-patristic sermon with the peculiar case of the two encomia on the martyr Claudius of Antioch attributed to Constantine of Assiut.93 The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria mentions that Constantine was bishop of Assiut under the patriarch Damian (578–607), his literary activity being thus dated with some degree of certitude to the late sixth or early seventh century.94 On the contrary though, in an allegedly autobiographical passage from the first encomium on Claudius, Constantine says that he writes under emperor Anastasius (491–518), raising thus some doubts concerning the authenticity of the two texts.95 92  Ps.-Timothy, On Abbaton (Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 243); Ps.-Chrysostom, On John the Baptist (Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 138–139, 140, 141); History of Joseph the Carpenter (Suciu, “A New Fragment from the History of Joseph the Carpenter,” 100– 101); Enthronement of Michael (Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung, 1: 57, 58); Enthronement of Gabriel (Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 74, 76, 80). 93  Sahidic version edited by G. Godron, Textes relatifs à Saint Claude d’Antioche (Patrologia Orientalis, 35/4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1970) 508–669 [86]-[247] (Sahidic text and French translation on facing pages). 94 B. T. A. Evetts, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria vol. 2: Peter I to Benjamin I (661) (Patrologia Orientalis, 1/4; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907) 477 [213]; G. Garitte, “Constantine, évêque d’Assiout,” in Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum, 287–304. 95  See the discussion on the question of authenticity in T. Orlandi, Constantini episcopi urbis Siout encomia in Athanasium duo 2 vols. (CSCO, 349–350. Scriptores coptici, 37–38; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1974) 2: v–vii; E. Wipszycka, “Saint Claude à Pohe: un exemple de fonctionnement d’un sanctuaire de pèlerinage dans l’Égypte de l’Antiquité tardive,” in A. Łajtar – A. Obłuski – I. Zych (eds.), Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana. The Włodzimierz Godlewski Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

95

In the second encomium on Claudius, Constantine claims that, during a pilgrimage to Jerusalem which he made together with Rufus of Shotep,96 he discovered in the library of Cappadocia a book written by a certain Anastasius, who was an eyewitness of the martyrdom of Claudius:97 ⲉⲓⲥ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲓⲟⲑⲏⲕⲏ ⲉⲧϩⲉⲛⲧⲕⲁⲡⲡⲁⲇⲟⲕⲓⲁ: ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲉⲓⲃⲏⲕ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲁⲡⲁ ϩⲣⲟⲩⲫⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲟ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲧⲁⲕⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ· ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲉⲛⲃⲏⲕ ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ· ⲉⲑⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲑⲓⲗ︦ⲏ︦ⲙ︦· ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ̄ ⲉⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄·98 Behold those that I found in the library of Cappadocia as I was traveling with my brother Rufus, we being hermits (ἀποτακτικός), because that year we were going to the Holy City of Jerusalem to worship the cross.

What follows is merely a transcription of the book written by Anastasius. It is apparent that the reference to Constantine’s source of information is a literary strategy through which the author tries to legitimize his own writing. The similarity of the text quoted above with the passages in which authors such as Cyriacus of Behnesa, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Timothy Aelurus travel to Jerusalem to worship the cross, and discover during their pilgrimage a venerable book, is obvious. The occurrence of this theme in the second encomium of Constantine of Assiut on the martyr Claudius suggests that the Egyptian Christians used it in hagiography even as late as the seventh or eighth centuries.

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework The Coptic apocryphal apostolic writings are not always embedded in pseudo-patristic sermons. We sometimes find apostolic memoirs similar to the BSApo, but without the homiletic framework. This is, for example, the case with the so-called History of Joseph the Carpenter, which is one of (Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw, 2016) 281–305, at 287–290. 96  On Rufus of Shotep, see G. Garitte, “Rufus, évêque de Šotep et ses commentaires des évangiles,” Le Muséon 69 (1956) 11–33. Most of the Sahidic fragments of his homilies have been edited and translated in M. Sheridan, Rufus of Shotep. Homilies on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (CMCL; Rome: C. I. M., 1998); new fragments in E. Lucchesi, “Deux commentaires coptes sur l’Evangile de Matthieu,” Le Muséon 123 (2010) 19–37, at 19–30. 97  See also a similar passage in the first encomium of Ps.-Constantine on Claudius in Godron, Saint Claude, 576 [154]. The Martyrdom of Claudius attributed to his disciple, Anastasius, is preserved in Sahidic as well. Edited in Godron, Saint Claude, 424 [2]–485 [62]. 98  Sahidic text in Godron, Saint Claude, 614 [192].

96

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

the best-known texts introduced here.99 Other related writings include the Stauros-text from the Qasr el-Wizz codex, the Enthronement of Michael, the Enthronement of Gabriel, the Mysteries of John, the Book of Bartholomew etc. Although the apocryphal writings in this group lack the homiletic framework, they are nevertheless related to the category introduced previously. This is ascertained not only by the literary style of the documents, but, what is more, verbatim parallels indicate that the texts in the two groups were produced in the same milieu of post-Chalcedonian Egypt. The History of Joseph the Carpenter has survived in Coptic – both in Sahidic100 and Bohairic101 – and in Arabic.102 This text purports to be a revelation of Christ on the Mount of Olives concerning the death of his earthly father on Epep 26 (July 20) at the age of 111.103 The title of the work indi 99  Translations of the History of Joseph the Carpenter in A. de Santos Otero, Los Evangelios apócrifos (Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 148; Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1956, 19886) 358–378; Erbetta, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento 1/2, 186–205; Geoltrain – Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2, 27–59; Ehrman – Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 157–193 (Coptic text and English translation), translation republished in Ehrman – Pleše, The Other Gospels, 78–95; résumé of the text in James, Apocryphal New Testament, 84–86. 100 The Sahidic fragments belonged to five different codices, from which at least four came from the Monastery of Apa Shenoute. Edited in L.-Th. Lefort, “À propos de ‘L’Histoire de Joseph le Charpentier’,” Le Muséon 66 (1953) 201–223; further fragments in A. Suciu, “New Fragments from the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi Fabri Lignarii,” Le Muséon 122 (2009) 279–289; Idem, “A Coptic Fragment from the History of Joseph the Carpenter.” 101 Bohairic text first published, with many mistakes, in E. Revillout, Apocryphes coptes du Nouveau Testament (Études Égyptologiques 7; Paris: F. Vieweg, 1876) 43–71. Revillout’s transcription was translated into German by L. Stern, “Das Leben Josephs des Zimmermanns aus dem Koptischen übersetzt,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 26 (1883) 267–294 (with corrections to Revillout’s text); P. de Lagarde, Ægyptiaca (Göttingen: D. A. Hoter, 1883; reed. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1972) 1–37. De Lagarde’s edition of the Bohairic text served as basis for virtually all the other translations into modern languages. See also Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 130–147 (translation based on the autoptic examination of the manuscript in the Vatican); G. Klameth, “Über die Herkunft der apokryphen Geschichte Josephs des Zimmermanns,” Angelos 3 (1928) 6–31; S. Morenz, Die Geschichte von Joseph dem Zimmermann (Texte und Untersuchungen, 56/1; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1951). Two fragments of another Bohairic codex were identified in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (Crawford no. 39), by Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, xxviii. 102  Editio princeps of the Arabic in G. Wallin, Qissat Yusuf an-naggar, sive historia Josephi fabri lignarii (Leipzig: Andrea Zeidler, 1722), which was republished, with or without emendations, many times. This old edition was superseded by that of A. Battista – B. Bagatti, Edizione critica del testo arabo della Historia Iosephi fabri lignarii e ricerche sulla sua origine (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Minor, 20; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1975). 103 On this day, the Coptic Church celebrates Joseph the Carpenter, see the record in the Coptic synaxary (Epep 26) in J. Forget, Synaxarium alexandrinum. Pars posterior

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

97

cates that the book was written by the apostles and deposited in the library of Jerusalem: This is the departure from the body of our father Joseph, the carpenter, the father of Christ according to flesh, who lived one hundred and eleven years, and whose entire life our Savior related to the apostles on the Mount of Olives. The apostles, for their part, wrote down these words and deposited them in the Library at Jerusalem.104

The Stauros-text, which opens the Qasr el-Wizz codex, also claims to be an apostolic record.105 The text uses the first person plural throughout to relate a conversation between Christ and the apostles on the Mount of Olives concerning the role of the cross at the final judgment. The disciples are called by Jesus “O my holy members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), just like in the BSApo. The Enthronement of Michael is ascribed to John the Evangelist.106 In addition to the Sahidic107 and Fayyumic108 dialects of Coptic, the text is preserved in Old Nubian,109 Gǝʿǝz,110 and Greek. In the latter language exists a 2 vols. (CSCO, 67, 90. Scriptores arabici, 11, 13; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1926) 1: 246–247 (Arabic text), 2: 241–242 (Latin translation); R. Basset, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite (rédaction copte) vol. 5  : Les mois de baounah, abib, mesoré et jours complémentaires (Patrologia Orientalis, 17/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1923) 1232–1233 [690]-[691]. 104 Translation of the Bohairic version taken from Ehrman – Pleše, The Other Gospels, 80. 105  Text in Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 9–14; Old Nubian version in Griffith, The Nubian Texts, 41–53; Browne, “Griffith’s Stauros-Text.” 106  Summary in Müller, Engellehre, 187–208. 107 One complete manuscript from the Monastery of the Archangel Michael in the Fayyum is kept today in the Morgan Library & Museum as M 593. Edited by Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung. An extract based on Müller’s edition was published in R. G. Hall, “The Installation of the Archangel Michael,” Coptic Church Review 5 (1984) 108–111. A complete quire from a different parchment manuscript in Sahidic is preserved in the collection of IFAO, Cairo. See R.-G. Coquin, “Le fonds copte de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire,” in Écritures et traditions dans la littérature copte. Journée d’études coptes, Strasbourg 28 mai 1982 (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 1; Peeters: Louvain, 1983) 9–18, at 12. Description in Louis, Catalogue IFAO, 211–213 (= no. 41). The IFAO fragment was edited and translated into English by D. Tibet, The Investiture of Michael. A Diplomatic Edition of the Coptic Text of P. IFAO ff. 145–148 (M. A. thesis; Macquarie University, 2009). 108 There is a single Fayyumic manuscript of this text, which belonged to the Monastery of the Archangel Michael near Hamuli. The manuscript is preserved today in the Morgan Library & Museum, New York, as M 614. Sahidic and Fayyumic texts in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung, 1: 2–60 (edition), 2: 1–73 (German translation). 109  A fragmentary parchment leaf from Qasr Ibrim was published by G. M. Browne, “An Old Nubian Version of the Liber Institutionis Michaelis,” in W. Godlewski (ed.), Coptic Studies. Acts of the Third International Congress of Coptic Studies, Warsaw, 20–25 August, 1984 (Warsaw: Éditions scientifiques de Pologne, 1990) 75–79. 110 EMML 4633.

98

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

single damaged parchment fragment discovered at Serra East, in Christian Nubia.111 Remarkably, this is the only fragment of an apostolic memoir extant in Greek. However, the Serra East fragment is written in such a poor Greek idiom, that it emerges plainly that this version must be an imperfect translation made either from Coptic or from Old Nubian. In the Enthronement of Michael, Jesus reveals to the apostles how the angels and the first human couple were created, the circumstances in which Satan fell from heaven because he refused to worship Adam, and the enthronement of the Archangel Michael in Satan’s place on the 12th of Hathor. The Coptic church celebrates the Archangel Michael on the 12th day of each month, but the feast of Hathor 12 is the most important day dedicated to him. The Enthronement of Michael describes a celestial journey of the apostles, which has already been mentioned by Emmel as having features in common with the vision on the mount in P. Berol. 22220 100, col. B,1 ff.112 Furthermore, like in the BSApo, the narrative is in the first person plural, and Christ addresses his apostles with the vocative ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (“O my holy members”).113 Notably, in his treatise Against Apocryphal Books (clavis coptica 0184), datable around 600 CE, John of Parallos rejected this writing as unorthodox.114 This proves that at that time the Enthronement of Michael was already circulating in Coptic monasteries. However, John of Parallos’ denunciation of the text did not deter Coptic scribes to continue to copy it, as attested by the Sahidic and Fayyumic manuscripts datable to the ninth-tenth centuries. The Enthronement of Gabriel is attributed to Stephen the Protomartyr. The Monastery of the Archangel Michael in the Fayyum possessed at least two Sahidic copies of this text, of which only one has survived completely.115 A Sahidic papyrus fragment of the same text is kept in the John Rylands Li111 G. M. Browne, “A Revision of the Old Nubian Version of the Institutio Michaelis,” Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 3 (1988) 17–24; A. Tsakos, “The Liber Institutionis Michaelis in Medieval Nubia,” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 1 (2014) 51–62 (Article 2). 112  Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 54. 113  Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 14, 22, 24, 36 etc. 114 The polemical writing of John of Parallos is preserved in a single fragmentary manuscript from the Monastery of Apa Shenoute (codex MONB.CM); edited in van Lantschoot, “Jean de Parallos.” John was ordained bishop of Parallos during the episcopacy of Damian (578–607 CE). On John’s life and works, see van Lantschoot’s article and Graf, GCAL 1, 466–468. 115  The complete manuscript is New York, Morgan Library & Museum, codex M 593, ff. 31r–50r. Published in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung, 1: 61–82 (Sahidic text), 2: 74–100 (German translation). Fragments of another Sahidic manuscript are described and transcribed in Depuydt, Catalogue 1, 189–190 (= no. 98).

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

99

brary in Manchester.116 An Arabic version also exists.117 In this apocryphal writing, Christ has a colloquium with the apostles concerning the angelic world. One by one, the twelve angels appointed over the hours of the day appear to the apostles, each one revealing his name and function. They are followed by two inferior orders (τάξις) of five angels each. Finally, Gabriel also appears to the apostles. Just like in many other texts presented here, including the BSApo, expressions like “we, the apostles” (ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ) and “O my holy members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ) are recurrent in the Enthronement of Gabriel. The Mysteries of John the Apostle is an apocryphal writing extant completely in Sahidic118 and fragmentarily in Bohairic.119 After the resurrection of Christ, the apostles are brought riding on clouds from all over the world to the Mount of Olives. There they meet Christ, and John asks the Savior to show him the mysteries of heaven. Jesus calls a Cherub, who takes the apostle John on his wings for a tour of the heavens. The angelus interpres shows John the first and the seventh heaven, and explains to him various meteorological phenomena (which appear to be coordinated by heavenly beings), the hierarchy of the angels, the movement of the celestial bodies, and some episodes from the life of Adam and Eve.120 After the revelation, John returns to his brethren on the Mount of Olives, and from there they all depart to preach the teachings of Christ. The Book of Bartholomew is an apocryphal text preserved only in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. This writing has often been wrongly associated with the Gospel of Bartholomew, mentioned by Jerome in his Preface to the 116  Published in W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester – London: Manchester University Press – Bernard Quaritch et al., 1909) 42–43 (= no. 86). The text of this papyrus leaf corresponds to the Sahidic text in Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 61. 117  A.  Khater  – O. H. E.  Khs-Burmester, Catalogue of the Coptic and Christian Arabic MSS preserved in the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo (Publications de la Société d’archéologie copte. Bibliothèque de manuscrits, 1; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1967) 57 (= Theol. 18). 118 Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 59–74 (Sahidic text), 241–257 (English translation). Budge edited a complete manuscript from the Monastery of St. Mercurius at Edfu, which is kept today in the British Library as Or. 7026. The transcription of the manuscript was achieved in the year 1005 CE. Description in Layton, Catalogue, 190–192 (= no. 160). 119  A small Bohairic fragment from the Monastery of St. Macarius in Scetis was identified and published in Evelyn White, New Coptic Texts, 51. The fragment is currently in the collection of the Coptic Museum in Cairo (inv. no. 47). 120 On the possible influence of the “Books of Adam and Eve” upon the Mysteries of John, see O. H. E. Burmester, “Egyptian Mythology in the Coptic Apocrypha,” Orientalia 7 (1938) 355–367, at 356–358.

100

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Gospel of Matthew and in the Decretum Gelasianum.121 The Book of Bartholomew is a patchwork of various canonical and apocryphal stories about Jesus’ passion and resurrection, interspersed with hymns and anaphoras. The text allegedly represents the memoir of the apostle Bartholomew, described as a gardener and greens-seller who has the privilege of being a witness to the resurrection of Christ.122 This apocryphal writing is extant in four Sahidic manuscripts, all incomplete.123 The best preserved is a codex from the Monastery of Mercurius at Edfu, currently housed in the British Library.124 There are fragments of three other manuscripts, from which at least two certainly came from the Monastery of Apa Shenoute in Upper Egypt. The CMCL project has given them the sigla MONB.EZ and MONB.FP respectively.125 Another manuscript, 121  Against the identification of the Book of Bartholomew with the Gospel of Bartholomew, see Kaestli – Cherix, L’évangile de Barthélemy, 20–21. 122 The Book of Bartholomew has been analyzed in comparison to other apostolic memoirs in A. Suciu, “The Book of Bartholomew: A Coptic Apostolic Memoir,” Apocrypha 26 (2015) 211–237. 123  The most complete edition is that of Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung. Many fragments of the Book of Bartholomew have been identified since the publication of this edition, see infra. 124 Translated for the first time into English by W. E. Crum in de Rustafjaell, The Light of Egypt, 110–136. Coptic text edited with an English translation in Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 1–48 (Coptic text), 178–215 (English translation). 125  Different fragments of these two codices were identified and edited in Lacau, Fragments, 23–77; O. von Lemm, “Kleine koptische Studien XXVI–XLV: XLIV. Eine neue Bartholomäus-Apokalypse,” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 21/3 (1904) 151–167 (repr. in Idem, Kleine koptische Studien I–LVIII [Subsidia Byzantina, 10; Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat, 1972] 333–349); Idem, “Kleine koptische Studien XLVI–L: L. Zum Berliner Fragment einer Bartholomäus-Apokalypse,” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 25/5 (1906) 185–193 (repr. in Idem, Studien, 457–465); republished in A. Kropp, Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte vol. 1: Textpublikation (Brussels: Édition de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1931) 79–81 (Coptic text), vol. 2: Übersetzungen und Anmerkungen, 249–251 (German translation); von Harnack – Schmidt, “Moses-Adam Apokalypse”; C. Wessely, Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts vol. 4 (Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, 15; Leipzig: Haessels Verlag, 1914) 139–142 (= no. 244a-d); A. Zikri, “Un fragment copte inédit sur la vie du Christ,” Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 36 (1936) 45–48; E. Lucchesi, “Encore un fragment copte de l’‘Évangile de Barthélemy’,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 31 (2005) 79–81; Idem, “Feuillets coptes non identifiés du prétendu Évangile de Barthélemy,” Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997) 273–275. In the last quoted article, Lucchesi announced the identification of several hitherto unknown fragments, which have now been edited by H. Förster, “Ein bisher unediertes Fragment des Ms B des Liber Bartholomaei. Edition von P. Vindob. K. 9574,” Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004) 55–75; I. Gardner – J. Johnston, “The Passover Litany of the Liber Bartholomaei: Edition of Bibliothèque Nationale Copte 1321 F. 40,” Journal of Coptic Studies 11 (2009) 61–70; Idem, “The Liber Bartholomaei on the Ascension: Edition of

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

101

from which only a single fragment survives, is of unknown provenance.126 Comparison between the manuscripts of the Book of Bartholomew reveals that they do not offer a uniform text, but rather different recensions. Finally, the two British Library fragments announced by Gonnie van den Berg-Onstwedder as part of the Book of Bartholomew127 do not actually belong to this text, but rather to Ps.-Epiphanius of Salamis’ sermon In divini corporis sepulturam (CPG 3768; BHG 808e; cf. clavis coptica 0221).128 The Book of Bartholomew has precise parallels in the BSApo. Emmel remarked that the latter “may have played a role in the complex development of another elaborate gospel, the Gospel of Bartholomew”129 (i. e. the Book of Bartholomew), and revealed several textual parallels between the two apocryphal writings. One passage that describes the ascension of Christ to heaven is so similar, that Emmel was able to restore, with the help of the corresponding text in the Book of Bartholomew, a lacunose section of P. Berol. 22220.130 During Jesus’ ascension, the apostles see how his body stretches and receives cosmic dimensions. As it has already been noted above, Hagen discovered that the apostolic memoir included in the sermon of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ, provides yet another parallel to the same passage.131 Bibliothèque Nationale 1321 F. 37,” Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010) 74–86. New fragment of codex MONB.EZ announced and partly edited in E. Lucchesi, “Regards nouveaux sur la littérature copte,” in P. Buzi – A. Camplani (eds.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 125; Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2011) 369–414, at 389–395; completely edited in A. Suciu, “The Recovery of the Lost Fragment Preserving the Title of the Coptic Book of Bartholomew: Edition and Translation of Cornell University Library, Misc. Bd. Ms. 683,” Apocrypha 26 (2015) 239–259. 126  The fragment formerly belonged to the Egyptian Museum in West Berlin. Identified and published in I. Gardner, “A Codex Leaf from a Short Recension (Rec. D) of the Liber Bartholomaei (LB),” in E. A. J. Hoogendijk – B. P. Muhs (eds.), Sixty-Five Papyrological Texts Presented To Klaas A. Worp on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, 33; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2008) 19–28. 127  G. van den Berg-Onstwedder, “A New Fragment of the Apocryphon of Bartholomew the Apostle,” Göttinger Miszellen 150 (1996) 37–41. The fragments in question are London, British Library Or. 6954(44)-(45). 128  Migne PG 43, coll. 439–464. See the Clavis Patrum Graecorum for the bibliography related to the Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Georgian, Armenian, and Old Slavonic versions of this patristic sermon. The only version properly published is the Slavonic, A. Vaillant, “L’homélie d’Épiphane sur l’ensevelissement du Christ. Texte vieux-slave, texte grec et traduction française,” Radovi staroslavenskog instituta 3 (1958) 6–100. 129  Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 48. 130 Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 48. See also I. Gardner, “The Liber Bartholomaei on the Ascension,” 81–84. 131 Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext,” 362–363.

102

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

The three books of Evodius should also be counted among the memoirs attributed to Christ’s disciples. They do not belong to the “manuscript find” series, but rather to that of memoirs not framed by a pseudo-patristic sermon. According to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (3.22), Evodius was a disciple of the apostle Peter and his immediate successor on the episcopal see of Antioch.132 With the exception of the homily On Riches (CPG 1659; clavis coptica 0311), attributed to Peter of Alexandria, which mentions Evodius as bishop of Antioch (ⲁⲡⲁ ⲉⲩϩⲱⲇⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲧⲁⲛⲧⲓⲟⲭⲓⲁ),133 the Coptic tradition unanimously calls him bishop of Rome, “the second after the apostle Peter” (ⲡⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ).134 In the texts that have survived under his name, Ps.-Evodius depicts himself as an eyewitness of the apostolic times and keeper of certain words of the Savior and of his disciples which are not recorded in the New Testament. In one of the texts, he introduces himself as the brother of Cleopas, one of the disciples who encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13).135 Three homilies of Ps.-Evodius are extant:136 one on the Dormition of the Virgin, and two on the passion of Christ (On the Passion 1137 and On the Pas132  K. Lake, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vol. 1 (Loeb Classical Library, 153; Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press – William Heinemann, 1935) 240–241. On the other hand, a little bit further in the same book (3.36.2), Eusebius says that the first successor of Peter was Ignatius of Antioch. On these two contrasting traditions, see G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to Arab Conquest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961) 284–287. The name of Evodius is mentioned as well in the list of apostles and disciples attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis, see the French translation in F. Dolbeau, “Listes d’apôtres et de disciples,” Geoltrain – Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2, 453–480, at 480. 133 This homily exists in Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic) and Arabic. List of fragments and edition of the Coptic texts in B. Pearson – T. Vivian, Two Coptic Homilies attributed to Peter of Alexandria. On Riches, On the Epiphany (CMCL; Rome: C. I. M., 1993) 9–144. New Sahidic fragments signaled by E. Lucchesi, “Pierre l’Apôtre ou Pierre d’Alexandrie?,” Analecta Bollandiana 117 (1999) 285–288, at 285 n. 5. For the Arabic version, see J.-M. Sauget, “La collection homilético-hagiographique du manuscrit Sinaï arabe 457,” Proche Orient Chrétien 22 (1972) 129–167, at 145 n. 3. 134  S. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome. An Edition from Morgan MSS 596 & 598 with Translation,” Analecta Bollandiana 117 (1999) 241–283, at 252. 135 Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1: 104 (Coptic text), 2: 111 (English translation). 136 T. Orlandi, “Evodius of Rome,” in A. S. Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia vol. 4 (Macmillan: New York, 1991) 1078–1079. 137  A Sahidic papyrus manuscript of this text was published a long time ago by F. Rossi, “Trascrizione con traduzione italiana dal testo copto di un sermone sulla Passione del nostro Signore Gesù Cristo con vari altri frammenti copti del Museo Egizio di Torino,” Memorie della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, 2nd ser., 42 (1892) 111–143; P. Chapman edited and translated into English a better preserved parchment manuscript of this sermon, kept in the Morgan Library & Museum in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1:

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

103

sion 2).138 It is likely that all three texts attributed to Evodius came from the pen of the same author. This is suggested by the numerous thematic parallels, verbatim expressions, and some rare words that they have in common. The two texts on the Passion are exclusively transmitted in Sahidic. As for the sermon on the Dormition, this has been known to survive in many Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts.139 Moreover, to these can now be added at least one Arabic copy, which is preserved in the manuscript 213 of the Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies in Cairo:140 MS 213, f. 82r: ‫ميمر نطق به اآلب المكرم في جميع اعماله انبا اوخيطس بطريرك المدينة العظمى المقدسة رومية وهو الثاني‬ ‫ بالحقيقة يعلمنا باليوم الذى تنيحت‬.‫ قاله من أجل سيدتنا مرتمريم ام االله القديسة‬.‫من بعد بطرس راس التالميذ‬ ‫ انه فى الحادي والعشرون من شهر طوبة‬.‫ وكمل فيه ابتقالها من هذا العالم‬،‫فيه‬ Incipit:  ‫اذا اراد ملك من ملوك هذا العالم ان يصنع عرسا لولده‬ Homily pronounced by the Father honored in all his deeds, Anba Awḫīṭus, patriarch of the great and holy city of Rome, the second after Peter the head of the apostles.

79–106 (Coptic text), 2: 83–114 (English translation). Ps.-Evodius’ homily On the Passion is attested also by at least four fragmentary codices from the Monastery of Shenoute, whose debris are scattered today among various deposits of Coptic manuscripts, see, e. g., Suciu, “Gospel of Gamaliel,” 58. A passage of the sermon of Ps.-Evodius is analyzed in R. van den Broek, “Four Coptic Fragments of a Greek Theosophy,” Vigiliae Christianae 32 (1978) 118–142, at 134–138; rhetorical analysis of the same treatise and Ps.-Evodius’ sermon on the Dormition of the Virgin in M. Sheridan, “Rhetorical Structure in Coptic Sermons,” in J. E. Goehring – J. A. Timbie (eds.), The World of Early Egyptian Christianity: Language, Literature, and Social Context. Essays in Honor of David W. Johnson (CUA Studies in Early Christianity; Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) 25–48, at 39–47. 138  The text is extant in several fragmentary codices, but, unfortunately, the title has not survived in any of them. However, both Tito Orlandi and Enzo Lucchesi have provided good arguments that it was attributed to Evodius, see Orlandi, “Evodius,” 1079; E. Lucchesi, “Un évangile apocryphe imaginaire,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 28 (1997) 167–178, at 174–175. See also Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 397–407. 139  There are at least nine Sahidic and three Bohairic manuscripts of this text. A full inventory list of the extant fragments has not been compiled yet. The manuscripts attest the existence of several different recension of Ps.-Evodius’ sermon on the Virgin. See Evelyn White, New Coptic Texts, 59–60; de Lagarde, Ægyptiaca, 38–63; Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 44–67; W. Spiegelberg, “Eine sahidische Version der Dormitio Mariae,” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 25 (1903) 1–15; Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily” (translation republished as an appendix in Idem, Ancient Traditions, 397–407); analyzed in Sheridan, “Evodius of Rome.” The Sahidic and Bohairic texts are translated into Spanish in Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen, 91–176. 140 MS 213 is a seventeenth century collection of homilies. Described in Macomber, Catalogue, 45.

104

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

He pronounced it for our Lady, saint Mary, the Mother of God. He truly teaches us the day when she died and left this world, which is the 21st of the month of Ṭūbah. Incipit: If a king among the kings of this world wants to make a wedding for his son …

Ps.-Evodius’ second homily on the Passion is an apocryphal narrative recounting the last days of Jesus’ life. Among other things, it mentions the episode of the resurrection of Lazarus, in which the author has inserted a long apocryphal dialogue between Christ and the apostle Thomas. The investiture of Peter as head on the apostles on a mountain, during which the heavens open up and all the heavenly beings participate, resembles to some extent the scene of the consecration of the apostles on the Mount of Olives in the BSApo. Large portions of this New Testament apocryphon were published a long time ago by Eugène Revillout as the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles,141 and by Pierre Lacau as an unknown apocryphal gospel.142 Several collections of New Testament apocrypha included the “gospel” of Ps.-Evodius.143 However, Enzo Lucchesi raised serious doubts concerning the gospel genre of the text and indicated that it is rather a homily with apocryphal insertions: “even if it employs apocryphal traditions which are old and otherwise unknown, the text does not have anything from an apocryphal gospel stricto sensu, but rather belongs to the homiletic genre.”144 Since Ps.-Evodius claims to be an eyewitness of the events that took place in apostolic times, the sermons attributed to him are written in the first person plural, the author speaking in the name of the apostles. For example, in the first homily on the Passion he declares that he witnessed the resurrection of Christ with his own eyes: “we have seen him with the eyes after he rose … Indeed, it is not a stranger who told me this. Rather, I too was there when this was about to happen.”145 We find a similar statement in the homily on the “L’Évangile des XII Apôtres”; Idem, Les apocryphes coptes 1, 131–184. Fragments, 79–108. 143  L. Moraldi, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento vol. 1 (Classici delle religioni, 5; Turin: UTET, 1971) 391–405; Erbetta, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento 1/2, 320–326. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 168–179. There is also a French translation in F. Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus et son amour pour les apôtres,” in Geoltrain – Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2, 101–134. New fragment in E. Lucchesi, “L’homélie copte d’Évode de Rome en l’honneur des Apôtres: un feuillet nouveau,” Orientalia 76 (2007) 379–384; Idem, “Regards nouveaux,” 383–384. 144  Lucchesi, “L’homélie copte d’Évode de Rome,” 379 n. 1 (my translation). See also Idem, “Un évangile apocryphe,” 175. 145 Translation taken from Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica 2, 85. See also Ps.-Evodius’ statement in the homily on the Dormition of the Virgin: “And as for me, Evodius, the disciple of my father Peter, the great Apostle, no one told me these things, but I was there 141 Revillout, 142 Lacau,

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

105

Dormition of the Virgin, where the author says that Evodius witnessed the deeds of Christ: “I saw them with my own eyes, I Evodius, the least, who is speaking now in this exposition (ἐξήγησις): I and my fathers the apostles and the 72 disciples.”146 And again in the same homily: “And all the things that I will say, no one else who saw them has told me about them, but I saw them with my own eyes, and I touched them with my own hands.”147 In the homily on the Dormition of the Virgin the first person plural narrative is maintained. It is equally relevant that in the memoirs of Ps.-Evodius, Jesus Christ addresses the apostles with the vocative “O my holy members” several times. Undoubtedly, other alleged memoirs of the apostles and their disciples, which are similar to the BSApo and to the writings presented above, have escaped my notice. As for these, they may be hidden neither in the library at the house of Mary, mother of John Mark, nor in that of Jerusalem, but rather in the mare magnum of unstudied Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic manuscripts. The sources explored above already prompt some conclusions, which will help us to discern the historical and literary context of the BSApo. Schenke speculated that the “Wir-Bericht” employed in the P. Berol. 22220 suggests that the text may derive from the Gospel of Peter, whose narrative voice alternates the “I”‑ and “We”-Style.148 Similarly, Emmel, Plisch, and Markschies have found the same feature strange enough to ask, albeit cautiously, whether the BSApo has some literary connections with the Gospel of the Twelve.149 If we focus our attention exclusively on Greek sources, then we can indeed observe that, although not completely absent, the use of the first person plural to refer to the apostles in apocryphal writings is rare. However, a survey of Coptic literature provides sufficient material to amply demonstrate that this narrative feature was common in the pseudepigraphic apostolic memoirs. In order to establish their popularity among believers, the memoirs use the first person plural in the mouth of the narrator as a way to demonstrate that they are authentic records of the apostles, and that their authors were first-hand witnesses of the deeds they recount. Sometimes, the first person plural narrative voice belongs to the apostles as a group. This is the case, for example, in the so-called Stauros-text, the encomium of Ps.-Chrysostom on the Four Bodiless Creatures, and the homijust as all these things were happening,” translation taken from Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 279. 146  Translation taken from Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 259. 147  Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 269. 148  Schenke, “‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE),” 205; see also Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 49 n. 20. 149 Plisch, “Einleitungsfragen,” 68; S. Emmel, “Ein altes Evangelium,” 95; Markschies, “Was wissen wir,” 71, 82.

106

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

ly of Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis on the Archangel Gabriel. In other cases, the narrative voice belongs to an apostle or disciple, who speaks in the name of his fellows. The homily on the Dormition of the Virgin attributed to Evodius of Rome falls into this category. Ps.-Evodius recounts the events surrounding the Dormition of Mary in the first person plural: “We, too, the disciples and his mother were following him (i. e. Christ) and we saw the miracle that took place,” “The Savior spoke with us of the mysteries in the height,” “Our teacher Jesus said to us” etc.150 In the first homily on the Passion, Evodius describes the scene when the Virgin, who has the privilege to be the first person to see the resurrected Christ, announces to the apostles that her son has risen: “She returned to us in great joy, proclaiming to us the things which he said to her.”151 In the sermon on the Dormition and Assumption of Mary by Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria, the narrative voice belongs to the apostles Peter and John. The two apostles are likewise narrating the events in the first person plural. Similarly, in the Enthronement of Michael the narrative voice is attributed to John the Evangelist, who often uses the syntagm “we, the apostles.” Because of the fragmentary state of the surviving manuscripts, it is impossible to decide whether the BSApo was attributed to the apostolic group, or rather to an individual apostle. However, as the text explicitly refers to the apostles Andrew and John in the third person singular, it is seems certain that the text was not attributed to them. Nevertheless, although the “Wir-Bericht” is a distinctive mark of the apostolic memoirs, this feature could at least theoretically be borrowed from certain Greek sources which circulated in Egypt and were translated into Coptic. For example, this narrative style is used in the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (CPG 1730),152 which is preserved in Coptic as well (clavis coptica 0088), but in a distinct redaction.153 In this work, we read passages such as, “Being therefore gathered together, we, the twelve apostles  Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” passim.  English translation in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica 2, 111. 152  See, e. g., M. Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques vol. 1 (Sources chrétiennes, 320; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985) 307. See also the remarks on the use of the first person plural in the Constitutions in Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques 1, 53. 153 On the Coptic recension of the apostolic canons, different in some regards from the Greek, see R.-G. Coquin, “Canons, Apostolic,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia vol. 2, 451–453; A. Baumstark, “Die nichtgriechischen Paralleltexte zum achten Buche der Apostolischen Konstitutionen,” Oriens Christianus 1 (1901) 98–137; L.-T. Lefort, “Note sur le texte copte des Constitutions Apostoliques,” Le Muséon 12 (1911) 23–24; F. X. Funk, “Das achte Buch der Apostolischen Konstitutionen in der koptischen Überlieferung,” Theologische Quartalschrift 86 (1904) 429–442. 150 151

The Apostolic Memoirs without a Homiletic Framework

107

of the Lord” (Apost. Const. 8,4,1), which emphasizes the purported apostolic origin of the document.154 The Egyptian Church had its own redaction of the Greek canons. The most important Sahidic manuscript, which is intact, is a parchment codex in the British Library (BL Or. 1320), dated 1005–1006 CE.155 Like the Greek original, the Sahidic version is written in the first person plural.156 Another text attributed to the apostles, certainly known in late antique Egypt, is the Epistula apostolorum (CANT 22; clavis coptica 0034). This writing is fully preserved in Ethiopic,157 and fragmentarily in Latin158 and in the Akhmimic dialect of Coptic.159 The Epistula apostolorum is a revelation dialogue written in the first person plural, the narrators being the apostles. Possibly, the text was directed against certain heretics since Simon Magus and Cerinthos are explicitly mentioned as enemies of the true faith. The Epistula rejected Docetism and advocated the reality of the resurrection of the flesh. 154  My translation of the Greek text in M. Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques vol. 3 (Sources chrétiennes, 336; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987) 140. See the analysis of this topos in B. D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery. The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013) 14–19. 155 Edited in de Lagarde, Ægyptiaca, 209–291; description in W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1905) 52–53 (= no. 162). The text printed in de Lagarde’s edition was translated into English by G. Horner, The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones Ecclesiastici (London: Williams & Norgate, 1904) 295–363. German translation in W. C. Till – J. Leipoldt, Der koptische Text der Kirchenordnung Hippolyts (Texte und Untersuchungen, 58; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954). One may also check U. Bouriant, “Les Canons Apostoliques de Clément de Rome. Traduction en dialecte copte thébain d’après un manuscrit de la bibliothèque du Patriarche jacobite du Caire,” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 5 (1884) 199–216, 6 (1885) 97–115 (translation of a late Sahidic manuscript). 156 See, e. g., Ecclesiastical Canon 63: “These gifts, therefore, that were first given to us, the apostles” (ⲛⲉⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥⲙⲁ ϭⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲣⲡ̄ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ). Translation by Horner, Statutes, 333, slightly modified; Coptic text in de Lagarde, Ægyptiaca, 267. 157 L. Guerrier – S. Grébaut, Le Testament en Galilée de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ (Patrologia Orientalis, 9/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1913); J.-N. Pérès, L’Épître des apôtres et le Testament de notre Sauveur Jésus-Christ (Apocryphes, 5; Turnhout: Brepols, 1994); Idem, “Épître des apôtres,” in Bovon – Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1, 357–392. 158  J. Bick, Wiener Palimpseste vol. 1: Cod. Palat. Vindobonensis 16, olim Bobbiensis (Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 159/7; Vienna: Hölder, 1908) 314. 159 C. Schmidt, Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung (Texte und Untersuchungen, 43; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1919); K. Lake, “The Epistola Apostolorum,” Harvard Theological Review 14 (1921) 15–29.

108

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Some ancient authors describe now lost apocryphal gospels that were attributed to the apostles as a group, the most notorious, but at the same time the most elusive, being the Gospel of the Twelve.160 However, it is fallacious to identify the BSApo with any lost ancient Christian gospel that use the first person plural in narration since the numerous writings reviewed above show that this feature belongs to a well-defined genre of Coptic literature. The following pages will further bolster the place of the BSApo among the genre of Coptic memoirs, by showing a number of parallels, including literary topoi and similar word choices.

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”: Apostles, Martyrs, and Monks Three times in the BSApo the Savior calls his disciples using the vocative “O my holy members”: The Savior said to us: “O my holy members, my blessed seeds” (P. Berol. 22220 100 col. A,2–6); “But now gather to me, O my holy members, dance (χορεύειν) and [answer to me]” (P. Berol. 22220 107 col. B,17–21); He said to us: “O my holy members, [blessed are you]” (P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 9F, col. A,5–6).

The expression “O my holy members” is recurrent in the apostolic memoirs, being one of the most poignant features that relate them. Its occurrence in the BSApo constitutes another argument that this text belongs to the Coptic memoirs of the apostles. In his critical notes to P. Berol. 22220, Mirecki indicated some occurrences of the word μέλος as designation for the members of a religious community in early Christian literature. He adroitly remarked that the expression is reminiscent of the Pauline ecclesiology, which depicts the faithful as members of Christ’s mystical body.161 However, from all the references quoted by Mirecki, the vocative “O my holy members” appears as such only in the Apocalypse of Paul (BHG 1460; CANT 325; clavis coptica 0030). Furthermore, the expression does not occur either in the Greek original, or in the other known versions, but only in the Coptic additum to this early Christian apocalypse, a fact which bolters the hypothesis of a Coptic provenance of the address.  W. Schneemelcher, “Gospels Attributed to the Apostles as a Group,” in Schnee­ melcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 374–382. 161 Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 95–96, where Mirecki quotes 1 Corinthians 6:15, 12:12–31; Romans 12:3–5; Ephesians 4:25, 5:30; Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians 4:2; Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians 11:2; Apocalypse of Paul. 160

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”

109

Emmel remarked that the apostles are addressed by Jesus with the vocative “O my holy members” also in the Book of Bartholomew.162 The publication of the Stauros-text from the Qasr el-Wizz codex has revealed yet another example of the same expression.163 For his part, Hagen listed no less than nine Coptic “apostolic diaries” which employ “O my holy members” as a designation for the apostles.164 Thus, he showed that, besides the BSApo, the Book of Bartholomew, and the Stauros-text, the same formula appears in the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Book of the Enthronement of Michael, the Book of the Enthronement of Gabriel, Ps.-Chrysostom’s sermon on the Four Bodiless Creatures, Ps.-Timothy Aelurus’ on Abbaton, and the homily of Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria on the Dormition of the Virgin. In the next pages, I will further enrich the dossier of texts which contain the address “O my holy members” and I will show that it often coexists in the same writing with other similar vocatives. Finally, I shall suggest a possible Egyptian monastic provenance of this form of address. * The most common form with which Christ addresses the apostles in the Coptic memoirs is the vocative ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (“O my holy members”). As I have already said, this form of address appears no less than three times in P. Berol. 22220. Exactly the same form is used twice in the Book of Bartholomew: “He raised his hand upon them and blessed them saying: ‘O my holy members, take courage, do not be afraid’”; “[he] sealed them […]: ‘O my holy members’.”165 The St. Mercurius manuscript (Westerhoff’s MS C) of the Book of Bartholomew contains yet another similar form of address: “Greetings, my honored fellow-members which I have chosen one by one” (ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϣⲃ︤ⲣⲙ̣ⲉ̣ⲗ̣ⲟ̣[ⲥ] ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲁ̄ ⲟⲩⲁ̄).166 Compare this saying with what we find, for example, in the Encomium on Abbaton, by Ps.-Timothy Aelurus: “O my holy members, which I have chosen out of the entire world” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄),167 or with another expression in the same sermon: “O these which I have chosen out of the entire world” (ⲱ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓ̈ⲥⲟⲡⲧⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄).168 A form of address which 162 Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 54; Idem, “Preliminary,” 35 (an “unusual form of address”). 163  Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 153. 164  Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext.” 165  Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 172–173. 166 Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 170–172. 167 Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 231 (Sahidic text). 168  Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 231 (Sahidic text).

110

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

combines what we find in the Book of Bartholomew and in Ps.-Timothy’s sermon on Abbaton is used in the encomium on the Four Bodiless Creatures by Ps.-Chrysostom: “The Savior said to the apostles: ‘I told you since the beginning that you are my fellows. Now, O my honored fellow-members which I have chosen out of the entire world’” (ⲱ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄).169 Similarly, Christ says in the homily of Ps.-Evodius of Rome on the Dormition of the Virgin: “O my honored fellow-members which I have chosen out of the entire world” (ⲱ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄).170 A parchment fragment discovered at a Coptic monastery near Bala’izah in Upper Egypt seems to contain one of the still unidentified apostolic memoirs. From the little surviving text, we can infer that Christ reveals to the apostles the way in which the Devil was expelled from heaven. The chosen apostles who are called “holy members” appear in this fragment as well: “Behold, then, my holy members, I have chosen you and I have revealed to you all my mysteries” ([ⲉⲓⲥϩ]ⲏⲏⲧⲉ ϭⲉ [ⲛ]ⲁ[ⲙ]ⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧ[ⲟⲩⲁ]ⲁⲃ‧ ⲁⲓ̈ⲥⲉⲧ︤ⲡ[ⲧⲏ] ⲩⲧⲛ̄ ⲁⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲱ[ⲛ︤ϩ] ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ︥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲙ̣ⲩ̣ⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ).171 A text preserved by a single parchment fragment published by Hedrick, which may be an extract from a memoir of the apostles, uses a similar expression: “Greetings, apostles, my honored chosen ones, my holy fellow-members (ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ[ⲁ]ⲃ) which my Father has chosen.”172 The Father appears again as the one who has chosen the apostles in the Bohairic recension of the History of Joseph the Carpenter: “Now it happened one day, when our good Savior was sitting on the Mount of Olives and his disciples were gathered to him, that he spoke to them saying, ‘O my beloved brothers and sons of my good Father, these which He has chosen out of the entire world’.”173 However, the Sahidic version of this apocryphal treatise is closer to what we read in the majority of the aforementioned texts. Thus, the one who has chosen the apostles is, again, Christ: “O my beloved brothers, these which I have chosen out of the entire world” (ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ  Coptic text in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica 1, 32. Later in the same text appears the expression ⲱ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ (Homiletica 1, 33). 170 Sahidic text in Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 272. 171 Crum’s translation in Flinders Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh, 39; Kahle, Bala’izah 1, 403–404. It is interesting to remark that Crum translated the first fragmentary lines, “Lo, then, my (?) holy angels,” a reading which was taken over by Kahle, who restored the text accordingly, [ⲉⲓⲥϩ]ⲏⲏⲧⲉ ϭⲉ [ⲛ̄]ⲁ[ⲅⲅ]ⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧ[ⲟⲩⲁ]ⲁⲃ. However, given the parallels to this expression and the fact that the theme of the angels elected by Christ seems improbable, I think the reading proposed above is more logical. 172 Hedrick, “A Revelation Discourse,” 14. 173  De Lagarde, Ægyptiaca, 1. 169

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”

111

ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄).174 We similarly read in the homily of Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis on Gabriel: “O my brothers which I have chosen out of the entire world” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄).175 The Bohairic version of the History of Joseph uses both “O my honored members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲟⲩⲧ) and “O my holy members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ), demonstrating that these expressions belong to the same repertoire. While it is true that the latter is more widely used in the apostolic memoirs, other similar forms of address appear in these texts. It is interesting to remark the following similarity between one of the Sahidic manuscripts of the History of Joseph the Carpenter and the BSApo: P. Berol. 22220 100, col. A,3–6

History of Joseph176

ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ

ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ

O my holy members

O my holy parts

ⲛⲁⲥⲡⲉⲣⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲥ̣ⲙⲁ̣ⲙⲁⲁⲧ My blessed seeds

ⲛⲁⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ My blessed apostles

The address “O my holy members” features a prominent place in the homilies attributed to Evodius of Rome. Thus, it appears twice in the surviving portions of his second sermon on the Passion: “But when Jesus saw that the heart of the apostles was weak, he told them: ‘My holy members (ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), do not be saddened’”;177 “Have I agreed with you, O my holy members and my brothers (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲩ) to eat with you at the table of the kingdom of this world?”178 In Ps.-Evodius’ homily on the Dormition of the Virgin, this and other similar expressions occur. For example, a fragment from a White Monastery codex (MONB.GA) of this memoir reads:  Suciu, “New Fragments Historia Josephi,” 285.  Sahidic text in the Morgan Library & Museum, M 583, f. 2v, col. B, lines 17–20. The Bohairic text is virtually identical: ⲱ ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ϧⲉⲛⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄, see de Vis, Homélies coptes 2, 250. 176  This reading appears on the Sahidic fragment Vatican, Borg. copt. 109, cass. 25, fasc. 121. Description and editio princeps in G. Zoega, Catalogus codicum Copticorum manu scriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur (Rome, 1810; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1973) 227 (= no. 121); republished in de Lagarde, Ægyptiaca, 26; Lefort, “L’Histoire de Joseph,” 213, who gives a wrong transcription: ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ; Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 158 (English translation). 177  Sahidic text of London, BL Or. 3581B, f. 26. Published by Crum, Catalogue BM, 137 (= no. 309). 178  Sahidic text of Vatican, Borg. copt. 109, cass. 25, fasc. 113. Description in Zoega, Catalogus, 222 (= no. 113). Published in I. Guidi, “Frammenti copti VI,” Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei ser. 4, vol. 3/2 (1887) 368–384, at 381–384; translated in Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 176–178; Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1, 151–155 [35]–[39]. 174 175

112

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

“The Savior said, ‘O my holy members, I was amazed at you because of the word that you have said’” (ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ϫⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲓ̈ⲣ̄ϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ϫⲟⲟϥ).179 In a different codex (MONB.NW) of the same writing, other related expressions are used: ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ, ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ (“O my honored members,” “You, my honored members”).180 These forms are close to the one used in the homily of Ps.-Bachios on the apostles: ⲱ ⲛⲁⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ (“O my holy apostles, my honored fellow-members”).181 As we have seen, Bachios appears sometimes in the sermons of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, being connected with the discovery of apostolic books. In the Martyrdom of Pilate attributed to Cyriacus of Behnesa, which claims to transcribe a memoir of Gamaliel, Jesus Christ comforts the apostles, who are grieving over the death of Virgin Mary: “And the Savior replied saying: ‘O my beloved and my members, do not be sad on account of the passing away of my mother from you.’”182 Similarly, in the Arabic version of the sermon on the Dormition of Mary attributed to Theodosius of Alexandria from Vatic. arab. 698, Christ descends from heaven in a chariot and greets the apostles: ‫“( السالم لكم ياخالي االعضا ِء‬Peace be to you, my beloved members”) (f. 100r).183 As I have already anticipated, in his commentary to the editio princeps of P. Berol. 22220, Mirecki mentioned that the expression “O my holy members” is found in the Greek Apocalypse of Paul. Actually, the address is absent in the Greek text of this apocalypse, but appears instead in the Sahidic the codicological reconstruction of this codex see Orlandi, Coptic Texts, 22. ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ appears in Naples IB.13, f. 60. This fragment belonged to the Borgian collection in the Vatican but it is now in Naples. Description in Zoega, Catalogus, 621 (= no. 273) and, more recently, P. Buzi, Catalogo dei manoscritti copti borgiani conservati presso la Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III” di Napoli (Accademia dei Lincei – Memorie, Ser. IX, 25/1; Rome: Scienze e lettere, 2009) 269–270. Published in Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 66–69 (Sahidic text and English translation). 180  Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 74, 78. On the reconstruction of the White Monastery codex MONB.NW, see A. Suciu, “The Borgian Coptic Manuscripts in Naples: Supplementary Identifications and Notes to a Recently Published Catalogue,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 77 (2011) 299–325, at 311. 181 Morard, “Homélie copte sur les apôtres,” 423. 182 English translation taken from Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 2, 276. The Ethiopic manuscript published by van den Oudenrijn does not contain this portion of the writing. The text edited in Beylot, Martyre de Pilate, 672, offers a different reading: ኦፍቁራንየ፡ ቅዱሳን፡ ወንጹሓን፡ (“O my holy and pure beloved ones”). 183 Similarly, in the Martyrdom of Pilate attributed to Cyriacus of Behnesa we find the vocative, “O my beloved and my members,” see Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 2, 276. The Bohairic version of Ps.-Theodosius’ sermon has a different reading: ⲧϩⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲁϣⲫⲏⲣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ (“Peace be to you, my fellow-members”). 179 For

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”

113

version. Until now, the only known Sahidic manuscript of the Apocalypse of Paul has been a codex in the British Library, dated to the late tenth century.184 Two small parchment fragments from a different manuscript surfaced recently in a private collection in Finland.185 Besides, the National Library in Vienna possesses a leaf from the Apocalypse of Athanasius in Sahidic, which is basically identical with the Apocalypse of Paul, except for the name of the seer.186 The Apocalypse of Paul is longer in Sahidic than in the other languages. In the Sahidic recension, after the last revelation of the angelus interpres, Paul is taken to the Mount of Olives, where the apostles are gathered. He recounts them the visions he saw and then the apostles commission Mark and Timothy to write down the revelation. Christ appears to them on a chariot of Cherubs. The beginning of the discourse of Jesus finds a close parallel in two passages from the Book of Bartholomew: Book of Bartholomew187

Apocalypse of Paul – versio sahidica188

Greetings, Peter, my bishop, the crown of the apostles. Greetings, my honored fellow-members which I have chosen one by one. Greetings, Peter, the great crown of the apostles, and you [all], my fellow-heirs, the peace of my Father be with you.

Greetings, my holy apostles, these which I have chosen out of the world. Greetings, Peter, crown of the apostles … the peace of my good Father be with you.

 London, BL Or. 7023 + Or. 6806A came from the Monastery of St. Mercurius at Edfu. Description in Layton, Catalogue, 186–188 (= no. 158). Edited in Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 534–574 (Sahidic text), 1043–1084 (English translation). A new edition of the text has been prepared by K. B. Copeland, Mapping the Apocalypse of Paul: Geography, Genre and History (Ph.D. dissertation; Princeton University, 2001) 185–313. On the codicology and dating of the manuscript, see L. Roig Lanzillotta, “The Coptic Manuscript Ms. Or 7023 (Partly, Layton 158). An Assessment of its Structure and Value,” Le Muséon 119 (2006) 25–32; Idem, “The Coptic Apocalypse of Paul in Ms Or 7023,” in J. N. Bremmer – I. Czachesz (eds.), The Visio Pauli and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha, 9; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 158–197. Jacques van der Vliet and Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta are preparing a new edition of the London manuscript of the Sahidic Apocalypse of Paul. 185 The new fragments are two strips of parchment which were cut from a leaf and reused in order to strengthen the spine of another manuscript. They offer an interesting recension of the Apocalypse of Paul, written in the third person singular. I identified these fragments together with Antti Marjanen and we are currently preparing them for publication. 186  This is K 9653. Identified and published in E. Lucchesi, “Une (pseudo‑)Apocalypse d’Athanase en copte,” Analecta Bollandiana 115 (1997) 241–248. On the different Copto-Arabic texts designated as the Apocalypse of Athanasius, see Graf, GCAL 1, 276–278. 187 Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 170–172, 190. 188  Sahidic text in Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 573. 184

114

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Book of Bartholomew

Apocalypse of Paul – versio sahidica

ⲭⲁⲓ̄ⲣⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡ[ⲟⲥ] ⲡⲉⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ‧ ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϣⲃ︤ⲣⲙ̣ⲉ̣ⲗ̣ⲟ̣[ⲥ] ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲟⲩⲁ

ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲡⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ‧ ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥ[ⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ] … ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲉⲥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲛ̄

[ⲭ]ⲁⲓ̈ⲣⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟ̣[ⲥ ⲡⲛⲟ]ϭ ⲛ̄ⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗ̣ⲟⲥ‧ ⲁ[ⲩⲱ ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲱⲧ︤ⲛ ⲧ̣[ⲏⲣⲧ]ⲛ̣̄ ⲛⲁ̣[ϣ]ⲃ̣︤ⲣⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟ̣ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ‧ ϯ̣ⲣ̣ⲏ̣ⲛ̣ⲏ̣ ⲙ̣̄ⲡ̣[ⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ] ⲛ︤ⲙⲙⲏⲧ︤ⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲧ︤ⲛ‧

Christ tells the apostles that he revealed to them all the hidden mysteries: “O my holy members (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), behold, I have already taught you about everything. Depart now and go to proclaim the gospel of my kingdom.” However, as no revelation of Jesus appears in the Apocalypse of Paul, it is obvious that this portion of the Sahidic text is an interpolation. Other scholars have already suggested that the final part of the Sahidic version of the Apocalypse of Paul is an addition. For example, Montague Rhodes James wrote that this part of the text is “a pasticcio from other Coptic apocrypha.”189 Actually, the Sahidic additum is constituted of several clichés which we have already encountered in other Coptic memoirs of the apostles. Therefore, it is possible that the Apocalypse of Paul was redacted in the circles which also elaborated the memoirs. During this process, some new elements, including the address “O my holy members,” were attached to the text. A final remark is in order before examining other Coptic sources which use the expression “O my holy members.” The fact that the Coptic apostolic memoirs are closely related, although they treat very different subjects, is obvious when we compare the use of the vocatives in the following five texts:

189 James, Apocryphal New Testament, 555. Same conclusion in James, “Some Coptic Apocrypha,” 166; R. P. Casey, “The Apocalypse of Paul,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933) 1–32, at 24–25; J.-M. Rosenstiehl, “L’itinéraire de Paul dans l’au-delà. Contribution à l’étude de l’Apocalypse apocryphe de Paul,” in P. Nagel (ed.), CarlSchmidt-Kolloquium an der Martin-Luther-Universität 1988 (Wissenschaftliche Beiträge, 1990/23; Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-Universität, 1990) 197–212, at 199 n. 13. See also P. Piovanelli, “Les origines de l’Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 25–64, at 49–50.

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”

115

Ps.-Chrysostom, Ps.-Timothy, Enthronement of Enthronement of Stauros-text On the Four On Abbaton191 Michael192 Gabriel193 Qasr el-Wizz194 Bodiless Creatures190 ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲩ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁⲧⲉ ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄

ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ … ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲥ̄ Now then, o Now then, my beloved O my holy brothers, apostles … proclaim to the proclaim him entire world. (scil. Abbaton) to the entire humanity.

ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓ̈ϣ

ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄

ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲃⲱⲕ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄

Now then, O my disciples, go out to the entire world and proclaim.

Now then, O my blessed disciples, go out in the entire world.

Now then, O my holy members, go and proclaim to the entire world.

Here we find a variety of similar vocatives, including “O my holy members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ). Even more importantly, I think that such striking parallels do not indicate that the texts influenced each other but, rather, that they were produced in the same milieu by applying an identical pattern: ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ (“Now then”) + vocative + invitation addressed to the apostles to proclaim the content of the revelation in the entire world. Beside the apostolic memoirs, in which it is routinely used, the address “O my holy members” appears in a few Coptic texts which do not belong to the literary genre of the BSApo. Thus, we find it in the Martyrdom of St. Shenoufe (clavis coptica 0302), an Egyptian saint martyred under Diocletian, who is not mentioned elsewhere except for Coptic and Copto-Arabic sources.195 (ed.), Homiletica 1, 35. Coptic Martyrdoms, 243. 192  Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 59. 193  Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 81. 194  Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 13. Same in the Nubian version, see Browne, “Griffith’s Stauros-Text,” 89. 195 The complete text was edited by E. A. E. Reymond – J. W. B. Barns, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) 83–127 (Sahidic text), 185–222 (English translation); see also H. Munier, “Fragments des actes du martyre de l’Apa Chnoubé,” Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 17 (1917) 145–159; K. Sethe, “Zu den Märtyrerakten des Apa Schnube,” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache 57 (1922) 139–140; J. Horn, “Der erste Märtyrer. Zu einem Topos der koptischen Märtyrerliteratur (mit zwei Anhängen),” in G. Koch (ed.), Studien zur spätantiken und frühchristlichen Kunst und Kultur des Orients (Göttinger Orientforschungen, 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982) 31–55. 190 Depuydt 191 Budge,

116

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

This martyrdom belongs to the Coptic cycle of Julius of Aqfahs.196 While Shenoufe and his eleven brothers were in the prison waiting for their death, they are visited by Christ in a vision: “And behold, the Lord Jesus came from heaven with a multitude of angels, he went to the saints, and said to them, ‘Be strong, all of you, O my holy parts (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ)! Behold, I established your thrones, and have garlanded your crowns and your robes.’”197 “My parts” (ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ) is probably an error that occurred during the textual transmission of the Martyrdom of Shenoufe, caused by the fact that the Greek words μέλος and μέρος are interchangeable due to their phonetic proximity. The case is not unique. For example, in one of the passages from the Sahidic History of Joseph the Carpenter quoted above, Christ calls the apostles “O my holy parts (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), although the expression “O my holy members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ) is also attested in this text. Moreover, μέλος is used in its turn as a designation for the faithful in the Martyrdom of Shenoufe. When Christ appeared to Shenoufe while the saint was still in his house, before choosing to become a martyr, he greeted him, ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ϣⲛ̄ⲟⲩϥⲉ ⲡⲁϣⲃⲣ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ (“Greetings, Shenoufe, my fellow-member”). As we have seen, in the Book of Bartholomew Jesus greets the apostles in an identical way: ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϣⲃ︤ⲣⲙ̣ⲉ̣ⲗ̣ⲟ̣[ⲥ] (“Greetings, my fellow-members”).198 Remarkably, Shenoufe and his eleven brothers resemble the twelve apostles, which could be the reason why the author applied to them a form of address that we usually find in the apostolic memoirs: “For you shall receive a great inheritance. You and your eleven brothers have yourselves followed the model of my twelve disciples.”199 In a fragment from the Sahidic martyrdom of the two ἀνάργυροι physicians, Cosmas and Damian (clavis coptica 0266), currently housed by the French Institute in Cairo, Christ appears to the martyrs before their trials and encourages them: “Do not be afraid, O my holy members (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ 196  Many Coptic martyrdoms are ascribed to this Egyptian saint, which would later suffer himself the death of the martyrs; see, e. g., É. Amélineau, Les actes des martyrs de l’Église Copte (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1890) 123–161; P. Dib, “Jules d’Aqfahs,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 15 (1910) 301–306; T. Mina, Le martyre d’Apa Epima (Service des antiquités de l’Égypte, 3; Cairo: Imprimerie nationale, 1937) xi–xv; Idem, “Jules d’Aqfahs et ses œuvres. À propos d’une icône conservée dans l’Église d’Abou’s-Seifein,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 3 (1937) 41–47. See also T. Orlandi, “Cycles,” in Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia 3, 666–668, at 668. 197  Translation, with modifications, taken from by Reymond  – Barns, Four Martyrdoms, 212. 198 Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 170. 199 Translation, with modifications, taken from Raymond – Barns, Four Martyrdoms, 190.

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”

117

ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), I am Christ.”200 This recension of the martyrdom of Cosmas and Damian is not attested in any other language except Coptic, being probably a local Egyptian composition. We have seen that the expression “O my holy members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ) and “O my honored members” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ) are the most common forms of address in the memoirs of the apostles, but also in some martyrdoms. Furthermore, I quoted many texts in which the noun ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ appears often joined to ϣⲃⲏⲣ (“fellow”). The numerous aforementioned examples testify that the expressions under scrutiny were common in Coptic literature. Notably, in certain Coptic monastic sources, the monks are in their turn often called ϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ or ϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ (“fellow-member”), just like the apostles are addressed in the memoirs. For example, in a catechesis directed against a spiteful monk, attributed to Pachomius (CPG 2354.1; clavis coptica 0241),201 the same word combination is used: “then in how great danger we are if we hate each other, our fellow-members (ⲛⲉⲛϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ) that are united to us, the sons of God, the branches of the true vine, the sheep of the spiritual flock.”202 A sermon on love and temperance by Ps.-Athanasius of Alexandria (CPG 2151; clavis coptica 0447) interpolates a part of the catechesis attributed to Pachomius.203 In this work, the parallel to the texts  Cairo, IFAO inv. no. 77v, lines 31–33. Description, edition, and French translation in Louis, Catalogue IFAO, 215–219. 201  This text is preserved in Sahidic and Arabic, but only the former has been published until now. In Sahidic it survived in a single codex, which belonged to the Monastery of St. Mercurius at Edfu. Editio princeps and English translation in Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 144–176 (Sahidic text), 352–382 (English translation). Reedition and French translation in L.-T. Lefort, Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples (CSCO, 159–160. Scriptores coptici, 23–24; Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1956) 1: 1–26 (Sahidic text), 2: 1–26. Spanish translation in E. Contreras – D. Menapace, “Catequesis de San Pacomio a propósito de un monje rencoroso,” Cuadermos Monasticos 103 (1992) 503–536; German translation in C. Joest, “Übersetzung von Pachoms Kathechese ‘An einen grollenden Mönch’,” Le Muséon 120 (2007) 91–129. A Garšūnī manuscript in the National Library in Paris was signaled in Lefort, Œuvres Pachôme, 1: vi–vii, further manuscripts in K. Samir, “Témoins arabes de la catéchèse de Pachôme ‘À propos d’un moine rancunier’ (CPG 2354.1),” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 42 (1976) 494–508. See also A. de Vogüé, “Deux réminiscences du livre de Josué dans la première catéchèse de saint Pachôme,” Studia monastica 36 (1994) 7–11; P. Tamburrino, “Les Saints de l’Ancien Testament dans la 1re catéchèse de Saint Pachôme,” Melto 4 (1968) 33–44. 202  My translation of the text edited in Lefort, Œuvres de Pachôme 1, 15. 203  This work is transmitted in a single Sahidic palimpsest manuscript in the British Library (BL Or. 8802, ff. 1–4); description in Layton, Catalogue, 216–218 (= no. 175). Edition by A. van Lantschoot, “Lettre de Saint Athanase au sujet de l’amour et de la tempérance,” Le Muséon 40 (1927) 265–292. Republished in L.-T. Lefort, S. Athanase. Lettres festales et pastorales en copte (CSCO 150–151. Scriptores coptici 19–20; Lou200

118

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

quoted above is even more striking: “then in how great danger we are if we hate our brothers, who are also our holy members and our fellow-heirs” (ⲛⲉⲛⲕⲉⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲛϣⲃⲏⲣⲕⲗⲩⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ). The designation of the monks as “members” and “fellow-heirs” (cf. συγκληρονόμοι in Romans 8:17) is particularly relevant given that in the Enthronement of Michael Christ calls his apostles precisely “O my holy members and my fellow-heirs” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲛ̄ⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ). Similarly, in the Book of Bartholomew, the Stauros-text, and in the Martyrdom of Shenoufe, in which we have seen the use of the appellation “O my holy members/parts” (ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ/ⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ), Jesus calls the disciples also ⲛⲁϣⲃ︤ⲣⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ (“my fellow-heirs”).204 The Life of Phib (clavis coptica 0256),205 attributed to Papohe, recounts the deeds of Phib the Anchorite, the friend of Apa Apollo, the renowned founder of the Monastery of Bawit. This ascetic vita says that, while Papohe and Apa Apollo were heading to the Monastery of Pamin, Christ appeared to Apollo and greeted him with an expression which we have already encountered many times in the apostolic memoirs: “Peace be to you, O my honored fellow-member (ⲱ ⲡⲁϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ), the beloved of my Father.”206 vain: L. Durbecq, 1955) 1: 110–120 (Sahidic text), 2: 88–98 (French translation). Lefort suggested that this homily is an authentic Athanasian piece, but his hypothesis did not gain support, see L.-Th. Lefort, “S. Athanase écrivain copte,” Le Muséon 46 (1933) 1–33. Evaluation of the possible Athanasian authorship in D. Brakke, “The Authenticity of the Ascetic Athanasiana,” Orientalia 63 (1994) 17–56, at 34–36. 204 Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 190; Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, 10; Reymond – Barns, Four Martyrdoms, 122. 205 Sahidic text edited and translated into Italian in T. Orlandi – A. Campagnano, Vite dei monaci Phif e Longino (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità, 51; Milano: Cisalpino – Goliardica, 1975) 11–37. This edition follows the manuscript New York, Morgan Library & Museum, M 633, a codex which came from the Monastery of St. Mercurius at Edfu. The translation was revised and republished in T. Orlandi, Vite di monaci copti (Collana di testi patristici, 41; Rome: Città Nouva Editrice, 1984) 41–50. There is also an English translation made after the edition of Orlandi by T. Vivian, “Monks, Middle Egypt, and Metanoia: The Life of Phib by Papohe the Steward (Translation and Introduction),” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 547–571; reprinted in Idem, Words to Live By. Journeys in Ancient and Modern Egyptian Monasticism (Cistercian Studies Series, 207; Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2005) 203–255. 15 unpublished fragments of a papyrus codex containing the Life of Phib are today in the British Library, described in Layton, Catalogue, 157–158 (= no. 137). An Arabic version was signaled in R.-G. Coquin, “Apollon de Titkooḥ ou/et Apollon de Bawiṭ,” Orientalia 46 (1977) 435–446, at 435. 206 Orlandi – Campagnano, Vite dei monaci, 28. This syntagm is considered a “curieuse expression” by Coquin, “Apollon de Titkooḥ,” 440, n. 31, who pointed out several other occurrences.

“O My Holy Members,” “O My Honored Members”

119

During the same vision, Christ calls him, “holy fellow-member Apa Phib” (ϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲡⲁ ⲫⲓϥ).207 The address “fellow-member” (ϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ) appears to be fairly common in Coptic monastic sources.208 While it is not so surprising to find it used by the members of a coenobitic community, it is nevertheless interesting to note that this formula, which perhaps was first used in Egyptian monastic circles, crept into another kind of literature and it came to be applied also to the apostles and martyrs. I think the parallels between the BSApo and its related texts on the one hand, and the monastic literary works on the other are not fortuitous. Probably, the source of this expression, which used (ϣⲃⲏⲣ)ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (“holy [fellow‑]member”) and (ϣⲃⲏⲣ)ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ (“honored [fellow‑]member”) as forms of address, is to be found in the late antique monasteries of Egypt. In this regard, it is worth noting the similarity to monastic vocabulary of the syntagm “brother-members,” with which Christ greets the apostles in the Vatican manuscripts of the Bohairic version of Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria’s sermon on the Dormition of the Virgin, “Greetings, my brother-members” (ⲭⲉⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ).209 The Arabic version of the text in Vatic. arab. 698 has a different lection at this point: ‫السالم‬ ‫“( الخوتي واخاليي االعضآ َء الكريمه‬Peace be to my brothers, my beloved honored members,” f. 98v). If we look at the problem from this angle, it is not surprising to find some such forms of address in writings that were presumably composed in Egyptian monasteries. Thus, one may suggest that the most likely origin of the BSApo and of the related memoirs is the Coptic monastic milieu. Moreover, a monastic origin would explain the presence of some ascetic features in the BSApo and the other apostolic memoirs. For example, in the BSApo Jesus discusses the problem of free will and mastering the bodily passions (P. Berol. 22220 98, col. A,24–col. B,14). Mirecki remarked that the tone of the text is ascetic, even gnostic, at this point.210 Although gnostic elements are unlikely to be present in our text, the passage has indeed a distinctive ascetic bent. Thus, Christ commands to the apostles not to let matter rule over them while they are still in the body. Other similar passages show an ascetic, anti-mundane attitude, like the following diatribe of Christ against the world: “I have overcome the world, you, too, do not let the world  Orlandi – Campagnano, Vite dei monaci, 30.  ϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ appears often in the works of Shenoute as a designation for the monks, see the index in H. Behlmer, “Index der Lehnwörter und Namen in Amélineau, Œuvres de Schenoudi,” Enchoria 24 (1997–1998) 1–33, at 18 s. v. μέλος. 209 Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose,” 296; Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 120. 210  Hedrick – Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior, 92. 207 208

120

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

overcome you, Amen! I became free from the world. You, too, [be] free of [it], Amen!” (P. Berol. 22220 108 col. B,13–20). The memoirs often attribute an ascetic behavior to Jesus and his disciples. For example, the second homily of Ps.-Evodius on the Passion states that Christ, “did not promise them (i. e. the apostles) at all the things of the world.”211 In another passage in the same text, Jesus advises the apostles: “Do not put the gladness of your heart in the kingdom of this world, o my brothers the apostles, because it is only temporary.”212 In the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the earthly father of Jesus leaves behind at his death, “This world full of all sorts of sufferings and vain desires.”213 In the Enthronement of Gabriel, Christ urges the apostles: “So then, fight while you are in the world” (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲙⲓ̈ϣⲉ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲥⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ).214 This last quotation is relevant because in the BSApo Jesus similarly says to the apostles, “You have [fought] well in [the] world” (ⲁ̣ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲛ̣̄[ⲙⲓ̈ϣⲉ] ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ̣ ϩ̣ⲙ̣̄[ⲡⲕⲟⲥ]ⲙⲟⲥ, P. Berol. 22220 108, col. A,10–12). Moreover, the saying in the Enthronement of Gabriel resembles the B ­ SApo: “So then, “while you [are] in the body, do not let matter rule over you” (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ̣ [ⲛ̄ϩⲟ]ⲥ̣ⲟⲛ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥[ϣⲟⲟ]ⲡ̣ ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲥⲱⲙ[ⲁ] ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲧⲣⲉⲑⲩⲗⲏ ⲣ̄ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲣⲱⲧ︤ⲛ) (P. Berol. 22220 98, col. B,10–14). The Enthronement of Michael contains a similar command of the Savior: “When you go to the world tell the sons of men: ‘Fight!’” (ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ϣⲁⲛⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲁϫⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϫⲉ ⲙⲓ̈ϣⲉ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ̄).215 The theme of the fight against the world and matter in the memoirs of the apostles finds a counterpart in ascetic literature, which often describes the monk as an athlete involved in the good fight (cf. 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7) against demons and bodily passions.216 Thus, one may argue not only that monks copied and disseminated the apostolic memoirs, as the manuscripts of monastic provenance demonstrate, but also that their origin must be placed in all likelihood within the monastic milieus of Egypt. As I will argue further, the memoirs are texts meant to support various religious festivals of the anti-Chalcedonian Egyptian church, and cannot be dated before the fifth century, a period when the vast majority of the Christian literature was written by monastic literati.

 Coptic text in Lucchesi, “Un évangile apocryphe,” 172.  Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus,” 129–130. 213  De Lagarde, Ægyptiaca, 29–30. 214 Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 74. 215 Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 40. 216  See, e. g., D. Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk. Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 2006). 211

212

The Literary and Liturgical Function of the Coptic Memoirs of the Apostles

121

The Literary and Liturgical Function of the Coptic Memoirs of the Apostles Hagen aptly remarked that, instead of offering a complete account of Jesus’ life, the Coptic memoirs of the apostles are dedicated to some precise topics: These writings are therefore in no way “complete gospels,” but rather episodic literature (Episodenliteratur): no matter how long or short the text is, the core or the framework is always a dialogue of Jesus with the apostles, before or after the resurrection, but not about his “entire” life story, as in the canonical gospels. Are these “apocryphal gospels”?217

What is more, if we look at the Coptic apostolic memoirs as a literary corpus, it appears rather clearly that they are interrelated and that each of them develops a certain theme that happens to coincide with a feast in the liturgical calendar of the Egyptian church. Thus, the impression one gets when studying them together is that they were written in order to offer apostolic authority to certain liturgical celebrations. Seen against this background, the numerous hymns and anaphoras they contain, including the Hymn of the Cross in the BSApo, with its formulaic repetitions, also seem suitable for reading during liturgy. The liturgical usage of the apostolic memoirs must clearly be emphasized: the homily of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on Mary Magdalene was composed for the feast of this saint;218 the homily on the Virgin attributed to the same author in the manuscript Paris. arab. 150 was meant for Mesore 16, the date of the Assumption of Mary; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa’s and Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria’s homilies are also dedicated to the same Marianic celebration; the sermon of Ps.-Chrysostom on the Four Bodiless Creatures was read on Hathor 8, the day when the Coptic Church celebrates these angelic figures; the sermons of Ps.-Timothy Aelurus and Ps.-Chrysostom on Michael are for the memorial of the archangel; Ps.-Timothy’s encomium on Abbaton is praising the Angel of Death, who had a feast day in some parts of Egypt; in the homily of Ps.-Archelaos of Neapolis, Jesus tells the apostles that the archangel Gabriel must be celebrated on Choiak 22; in the letter of Luke which is inserted in the sermon of Ps.-Basil of Caesarea, the disciples are gathered together by Christ in order to build and consecrate the first church  Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext,” 341 (my translation). title of the encomium mentions that the commemoration of the Magdalene is on Paone 23, but the Arabic synaxary published by Basset gives Epep 28 as the day of her commemoration. See R. Basset, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite 5, 693–694. This difference is due to the changes which were made in the Coptic calendar. 217

218 The

122

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

in the world dedicated to the Virgin. In fact, the building of this church is mentioned in the Coptic calendar on Paone 21. Similarly, the History of Joseph the Carpenter treats a specific topic: the death of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus, commemorated on Epep 26. As for the BSApo, Ps.-Evodius’ sermons on the Passion, the Book of Bartholomew, Ps.-Cyriacus’ Lament of Mary and other Passion narratives included in apostolic memoirs, their most likely liturgical context is the Holy Week celebration. It is legitimate to ask at this point whether the apostolic memoirs are not more ancient apocryphal writings to which a liturgical function was given only later. However, this is not the impression that can be gleaned from the texts themselves. In many of them, Christ promises rewards to those who will venerate the saints on the days of their commemoration. This shows a tendency of the memoirs to institute feast days for the saints. For example, in the Bohairic version of the History of Joseph the Carpenter, Jesus says: “Those who will provide an offering and deposit it in your shrine on your memorial day, which is the 26th of the month of Epiphi, I will also bless in the celestial offering … Those who copy the book of your departure from the body and all the words that have come from my mouth today … I will grant them to you in this world.”219 The poor persons who cannot afford to make offerings, should at least give the name of the saint to one of their sons: “[a]nd if there is a poor person who has no means to do what I have said, when he begets a son and names him Joseph, glorifying your name, no famine or pestilence will happen in that house.”220 Likewise, in the Encomium on Abbaton by Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, Christ recounts to the apostles what God said to Abbaton after his investiture as Angel of Death: My Father said, “I tell you, O angel Abbaton, that all those who fear you, who give charities and alms in your name, repent and copy the book of your investiture, this being on the 13th of Hathor, the day when I invested you over Adam because of his disobedience, I will write their names in the book of life and I will grant them to you in my kingdom and they will not experience any torture.”221

Ps.-Evodius also claims that the feast of Mary’s Dormition was instituted by Christ: And as for me, Evodius, the disciple of my father Peter, the great apostle, no one else told me these things, but I was there just as these things were happening. And the day of the departure of the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Mary, is the 21st

taken from Ehrman – Pleše, The Other Gospels, 92. taken from Ehrman – Pleše, The Other Gospels, 92. 221 Saweros – Suciu, “Investiture of Abbaton,” 542. 219 Translation 220 Translation

The Literary and Liturgical Function of the Coptic Memoirs of the Apostles

123

of the month of Tobe. Our Lord has commanded us to celebrate a feast every month in the name of the Virgin Mary, and especially on the 21st of the month of Tobe.222

We may thus infer that one of the immediate purposes of this pseudepigraphic genre is to draw the origins of some liturgical feasts of the Egyptian church back to apostolic times, by putting into Jesus’ mouth catechetical instructions concerning Abbaton, the archangels Michael and Gabriel, the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin, the death of Joseph the Carpenter, the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt, etc. Furthermore, the insertion of the apostolic books into homilies attributed to church fathers also gives patristic authority to the feasts in question. But what reason could lie behind such a puzzling literary genre? One of the memoirs offers a possible answer. In the first sermon on the Passion, allegedly written by Evodius, the author justifies why he has chosen to insert apocryphal features in his text. According to Ps.-Evodius, the pseudepigraphic traditions are meant to fill in the spaces between the lines of those stories that are incomplete in the Bible. The relevant passage is worth quoting in its entirety: But surely someone who is thorough among the brothers will tell me, “You have added to the words of the holy gospel.” I, on my part, will try to persuade him by means of an example. The wool provided for the purple cloth of the king, before its mixtures, with which it is dyed, are applied to it, can be made useful by being fabricated into clothing and being worn as one pleases. Yet when it is worked upon and dyed in colorful mixtures, it becomes exceedingly brilliant and becomes radiant clothing, so that the king wears it. Thus the holy gospels, when he who will be ordained a shepherd acts according to their words and reveals them, become illuminated exceedingly. And they are very brilliant in the heart of those who listen. Indeed, the king will not find fault if beautifully crafted plaits are added to his garments, but he will commend those who have added them exceedingly, so that everyone might praise the garment because of the plaits which are on it. Thus, the Lord Jesus will not find fault with us if we add a few embellishments to the holy gospels, but he will commend us all the more and bless those who will bear fruit through them. For there are many matters which the holy gospels have passed by. The customs of the church have established them. Just as we have not been told the day on which he was born, habit determines that these two catholic festivals be celebrated. Justly the loved one of Christ, John, said in the holy gospel, “There are many other signs which Jesus did before his disciples. As for these, they are not written in this book. These things,” he said, “when they are written down, the world will not be able to hold the books which will be written.” 222 Translation

taken from Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 279.

124

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

It is like gold: if you mix it with topaz, it shines all the more, so that no darkness occurs at all in the place in which it will be put. Thus, when the embellishment of the words of the Holy Spirit, through the teachers, is added to the holy gospels, they shine forth exceedingly and cast forth lightning.223

As we can observe, Ps.-Evodius laments that the Bible does not provide sufficient information for the festivals celebrated in the church. Therefore, it is tempting to speculate that the apostolic memoirs are attempts to lay an apostolic foundation for the liturgical festivals of the nascent Coptic church. As the liturgical year became increasingly elaborate, Egyptian Christians felt the need to claim apostolic authority for their religious celebrations by forging stories in which Christ and the apostles establish paradigms for these festivals. The fact that the memoirs try to add more to the stories from the Bible is suggested also by a passage in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s On the Life and the Passion of Christ, in which the homilist says, “But let us not speak amply about the things we found written in the holy gospels.”224 Mentioning that Luke says that the Jews were angry with Christ (Luke 11:53), the author gives instead an apocryphal account of the reasons for which the chiefs of the Jews were against Jesus. Thus, according to this Coptic text, some of the Jews stopped to give gifts to the temple of Jerusalem and joined instead the followers of Jesus, which infuriated the chief priests. Some sources suggest that not all members of the Egyptian clergy agreed with the use of such pseudepigraphic texts in the church. As we have seen, in his Against Apocryphal Books, John of Parallos refers explicitly to the Enthronement of Michael and its central myth, according to which Satan was expelled from heaven and Michael was enthroned in his place on Hathor 12. John is angered that the Enthronement and other similar “blaspheming books” (ⲛ̄ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲛ̄︦ⲧ︥̄ⲣⲉϥϫⲓⲟⲩⲁ), which he excoriates as heretical, are being used in Coptic orthodox churches.225 The same apocryphal story regarding the fall of Satan (Mastema), and the enthronement of Michael in his place, is rejected as unorthodox in a Sahidic homily On the Devil and the Archangel Michael (CPG 3110; clavis coptica 0193) attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus.226 As this story features prominently in apostolic memoirs such as the Enthronement of Michael, Ps.-John Chrysostom’s On the Four  Translation by P. Chapman in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica 2, 95–96.  Van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 132–133. 225  Van Lantschoot, “Jean de Parallos,” 302. 226 G. Lafontaine, “Une homélie copte sur le Diable et sur Michel, attribuée à Grégoire le Théologien,” Le Muséon 92 (1979) 37–60. This theme is analysed in J.-M. Rosenstiehl, “La chute de l’Ange: Origines et développement d’une légende. Ses attestations dans la littérature copte,” in Écritures et traditions, 37–60. 223 224

The Local Egyptian Character of the Apostolic Memoirs

125

Bodiless Creatures, Ps.-Timothy Aelurus’ Encomium on Abbaton, and the unidentified Bala’izah fragment, perhaps Ps.-Gregory’s criticism envisaged precisely one or more of these texts. Likewise, the author of the Kitāb al-īḍāḥ, written in Egypt during the eleventh century, rejects as heretical Ps.-Timothy’s Encomium on Abbaton, which he apparently knew under the name of Theophilus of Alexandria: “people arranged a feast for that angel and wrote a maimar for his sake, and attributed it to Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria. They mentioned in it that Apa Theophilus found an ancient book of the holy apostles.”227 Although these sources show the engagement in a long polemical debate concerning the use of the apostolic memoirs in the churches and monasteries of Egypt, it is apparent that the BSApo and the related apocryphal writings continued to be used by the Egyptian Christians, as attested by the numerous late Coptic and Arabic manuscripts of monastic provenance which transmit them. Finally, it is also likely that some church authority must have coordinated the composition of the memoirs, because otherwise it would be difficult to explain the existence of such a large literary corpus which was destined to serve liturgical purposes.

The Local Egyptian Character of the Apostolic Memoirs It can be vigorously affirmed that the apostolic memoirs belong to the cultural landscape of Egypt. In this regard, Nagel argued that the BSApo follows the Sahidic version of the Bible.228 The sort of information that can be gleaned from the other memoirs similarly suggest that their authors were familiar with the Bible in Sahidic. Thus, the encomium on the Four Bodiless Creatures, attributed to John Chrysostom, gives the name “Nineve” to the rich man from the parable in Luke 16:19–31: “Take Nineve, who hated Lazarus. He asked for a drop of water to cool his tongue, but it was not given to him.”229 As already pointed out a long time ago by Lefort, “Nineve” is the name of the rich man from the parable of Lazarus in the Sahidic version of the Gospel of Luke,230 ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲣ̄ⲣⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲟ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲣⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲓⲛⲉⲩⲏ (“a rich man 227  Translation, with modifications, taken from Saweros – Suciu, “Investiture of Abbaton,” 546. 228 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 234–238. 229 Translated by Craig S. Wansink in Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica 2, 46. 230 L.-T. Lefort, “Le nom du mauvais riche (Lc. 16.19) et la tradition copte,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 37 (1939) 65–72.

126

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

whose name is Nineve”).231 In Greek, only the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (P75), which is equally of Egyptian provenance, reads something similar, ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος ὀνόματι Νευης.232 Although Neves has been connected by some scholars233 with Nineve of the Sahidic version, the latter form of the name had an illustrious tradition only in Coptic literature.234 It should likewise be emphasized that the reference to some of the saints and angels featuring in the apostolic memoirs can also be explained only in the context of Coptic hagiography. For example, Abbaton, the king of the angels of the Abyss from Revelation 9:11 (τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἀβαδδών, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ ὄνομα ἔχει Ἀπολλύων), holds pride of place only in Coptic sources. A cult dedicated to this frightful angel existed in some parts of Egypt, as the author of the Kitāb al-īḍāḥ reports. Most likely, Abbaton was celebrated on Hathor 13, mentioned by Ps.-Timothy’s Encomium on Abbaton as the day of his investiture as the Angel of Death. The fact that Abbaton was venerated in Egypt is likewise suggested by his depiction in a fresco discovered at a Coptic monastery in Tebtunis, 231 H. Quecke, Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 6; Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1977) 220. 232  V. Martin  – R. Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV. Évangile de Luc chap. 3–24 (Cologne – Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961) 119. See also 26, where it is stated that, “the difference between the two proper names (i. e. Neves and Nineve) can be based on haplography or dittography” (my translation). 233  See, e. g., H. J. Cadbury, “A Proper Name for Dives,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 399–404; Idem, “The Name for Dives,” Journal for Biblical Literature 84 (1965) 73; J. A. Fitzmyer, “Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962) 170–179; K. Grobel, “… Whose Name was Neves,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963–1964) 373–382; J. R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools. Studies and Documents, 36; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2008) 687–690. 234  To the list found in Lefort, “Mauvais riche,” 68, one should add the passage quoted above from Ps.-Chrysostom’s On the Four Bodiless Creatures, and Ps.-Shenoute, On Christian Behavior (K. H.  Kuhn, Pseudo-Shenoute, On Christian Behavior [CSCO, 206–207. Scriptores coptici, 29–30; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1960] 1: 54, 2: 50). On the occurrence of the name of the rich man in this sermon, see also E. Lucchesi, “Un nouveau témoin copte du Sermon sur la conduite chrétienne du Pseudo-Chenouté,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 66 (2000) 419–422, at 421. Two acephalous manuscripts, mentioned by Lefort as containing Nineve’s name, can be now attributed to Shenoute. Thus, Paris, BnF, Copte 1314, f. 154 belongs to codex MONB.ZM, whereas Vienna K 9295 was part of codex MONB.DU. The text of the Vienna leaf is paralleled in another codex, kept in the French Institute, in Cairo. The Coptic text of the Cairo manuscript was published by É. Chassinat, Le quatrième livre des entretiens et épîtres de Shenouti (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 23; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1911) 153–209, at 158; translated into English by D. Brakke, “Shenute: On Cleaving to Profitable Things,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 20 (1989) 115–141, at 121–122 (and n. 16).

The Local Egyptian Character of the Apostolic Memoirs

127

in the Fayyum oasis.235 An inscription identifies him as, “Lord Abbaton, the unbribed Angel of Death.” Similarly, the Sahidic commentary on the Apocalypse attributed to Cyril of Alexandria (clavis coptica 0107) says concerning the martyrs that, “the one who pastures them is the king Death, the one who is called in Hebrew, Abbaton” (ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲟⲟⲛⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϩⲉⲃⲣⲁⲉⲓⲥⲧⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲁⲃⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ).236 Notably, Abbaton features in no less than four apostolic memoirs. Thus, beside the encomium which Ps.-Timothy Aelurus dedicated to him, the Book of Bartholomew records a long colloquium of Christ with Abbaton during the descent into the Underworld.237 In one of the Sahidic manuscripts of the History of Joseph the Carpenter, Abbaton is a psychopomp angel who comes with a host of angels to accompany the soul of Christ’s earthly father to heaven.238 Abbaton is mentioned as well in the homily on the Dormition of the Virgin attributed to Cyriacus of Behnesa. In the Arabic version of Vaticanus arabicus 170, his name appears as ‫( افالطون‬Aflāṭon, f. 331v). The Ethiopic text, which is based on the Arabic, simply transcribes this name, አፍላጦን፡.239 Similarly, the Four Bodiless Creatures are very prominent angelic figures in Coptic and Ethiopic churches. In the memoir included in Ps.-Chrysostom’s homily On the Four Bodiless Creatures, it is Christ himself who establishes a festival for them: The Savior turned and said to the creatures, “I am the Savior Jesus. I say to you in the truth of my Father: I will let every one who will give an offering in your name attend mass in the church of the first-born children, the Jerusalem of heaven, I will write their name in the book of life … every person who will manifest the remembrance of these holy four creatures while glorifying me, my Father, and the Holy Spirit. I promise you – it is I, the Savior, Christ – that I will write their name in the book of life.”240

Such a festival dedicated to the Four Creatures is unknown in Byzantine sources, but appears in the Coptic calendar on Hathor 8.241 235  C. C. Walters, “Christian Paintings from Tebtunis,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 191–208, at 200–204; R. W. Boutros, “The Christian Monuments of Tebtunis,” in G. Gabra (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum Oasis (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2005) 119–131, at 126–127. 236 Morgan Library & Museum M 591, f. 20v. Italian translation in T. Orlandi, Omelie copte (Corona Patrum, 7; Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1981) 133. 237  Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 60–61, 74–75, 88–89. 238  Lefort, “L’Histoire de Joseph,” 211. 239  Arras, De Transitu Mariae 1, 47. More details about Abbaton in this text can be found in Saweros – Suciu, “Investiture of Abbaton,” 532. 240 Translation from Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica 2, 37. 241 R. Basset, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite (rédaction copte) vol. 2 : Les mois de hatour et de kihak (Patrologia Orientalis, 3/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907) 263–264 [187]-[188].

128

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

Another original Egyptian trait is the positive light in which the apostolic memoirs portray Pilate. It is noteworthy that originally only the Egyptian church venerated Pilate as a saint. Under its influence, the figure of the Roman prefect was later integrated into the Ethiopic hagiography as well.242 Pilate is portrayed as a saint in the memoirs of Gamaliel, inserted in two homilies of Cyriacus of Behnesa (the Lament of Mary and the Martyrdom of Pilate), in the second sermon on the Passion by Ps.-Evodius, and in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ. Similarly, in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s On Mary Magdalene, Pilate refuses to take the money offered by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus in exchange for Christ’s body.243 Remarkably, in Ps.-Evodius’ sermon and in the Martyrdom of Pilate, the governor is even said to be an Egyptian who spoke Coptic.244 In conclusion, these and other similar features point to a typically Egyptian, and more specifically, a Coptic-speaking, setting in which the apostolic memoirs were elaborated.

Dating the Apostolic Memoirs Unfortunately, as the study of the history of Coptic literature is still in its beginning, it is not an easy task to date this mass of pseudonymous texts. Nevertheless, although precise dating is hard to reach, it can be argued with good evidence that the apostolic memoirs belong to the post-Chalcedonian period of Coptic literature. This is particularly transparent if we consider the fact that the majority of the memoirs are framed by patristic sermons attributed to the major figures of the Egyptian Miaphysite church. If authors like Timothy Aelurus (d. 477) and Theodosius of Alexandria (d. 567) belonged to the local Egyptian resistance to the Chalcedonian party, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Basil of Caesarea, who feature as discoverers of apostolic memoirs, are also part of the patristic tradition  Luisier, “Pilate chez les Coptes”; Beylot, “Bref aperçu”; E. Cerulli, “Un hymne éthiopien à Pilate sanctifié,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 49 (1975–1976) 591–594; Idem, “Tiberius and Pontius Pilate”; E. Nestle, “Pilatus als Heiliger,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 53 (1899) 540; J.-N. Pérès, “Les traditions éthiopiennes relatives à Pilate,” Apocrypha 21 (2010) 83–92; O. Volkoff, “Un saint oublié: Pilate,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 20 (1969) 167–195. 243  Luckritz Marquis, “Encomium on Mary Magdalene,” 207. 244 Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus,” 130; Lanchantin, “Martyre de Pilate,” 173. On Pilate the Egyptian, see W. E. Crum, “Some Further Meletian Documents,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13 (1927) 19–26, at 23; Luisier, “Pilate chez les Coptes,” 420; Lucchesi, “L’homélie copte d’Évode,” 379 n. 2. 242

Dating the Apostolic Memoirs

129

of the anti-Chalcedonian Egyptian church. The numerous pseudepigraphic texts composed in Coptic under the names of the church fathers who lived before the schism of Chalcedon are attempts of the emerging Coptic church to mold an identity for itself, by proving that the Egyptian Christians are the real heirs of the orthodox tradition. Furthermore, imaginary authors of sermons that include memoirs, such as Archelaos of Neapolis and Bachios of Maiuma, also have ties to illustrious figures of the anti-Chalcedonian faction. Thus, Ps.-Archelaos discovers the book of the apostles about the archangel Gabriel in the famous Monastery of Romanos, a stronghold of the anti-Chalcedonian resistance in Palestine. Similarly, although Bachios is introduced as a disciple of Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 313–386), his sermon on the Three Children mentions an Egyptian μαρτύριον keeping the relics of James Intercissus.245 This holy place was built by the anti-Chalcedonian saint Peter the Iberian during his flight to Egypt in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon. The circumstances of the building of James’ μαρτύριον are narrated in the Bohairic version of the Martyrdom of James Intercissus (BHO 397; clavis coptica 0278).246 It should also be noted that the numerous apostolic memoirs which treat the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin testify to the existence of a cult of Mary. Moreover, as they routinely call her Theotokos, a term imposed by the Council of Ephesus from 431 CE, they are likely datable to the fifth century at the earliest. The memoirs focusing on the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin are: Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life of the Virgin (clavis coptica 0005); Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Dormition of the Virgin; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, On the Dormition of the Virgin; Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin; Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin; Ps.-Evodius, On the Dormition of the Virgin. Additionally, the following texts show an intense veneration of the Virgin: Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On Mary Magdalene; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Lament of Mary; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Martyrdom of Pilate; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, On the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt; Ps.-Basil of Caesarea, On the Building of the First Church of the Virgin; the Book 245 Zanetti, “Le roman de Bakhéos,” 728–729 (Sahidic text), 739 (French translation). On the dating of the homily on the basis of this passage, see Morard, “Homélie copte sur les apôtres,” 418. 246  Bohairic text in G. Balestri – H. Hyvernat, Acta Martyrum vol. 2 (CSCO, 86. Scriptores coptici, 6; repr. Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1953) 24–61. See T. Orlandi, “James Intercisus,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia 4, 1321; P. Devos, “Le dossier hagiographique de S. Jacques l’Intercis I: La passion grecque inédite (BHG. 772),” Analecta Bollandiana 71 (1953) 157–210, at 163.

130

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

of Bartholomew. Consequently, none of these memoirs can possibly be dated before the fifth century. Furthermore, the apostolic memoirs embedded in the sermon of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem On the Dormition of the Virgin extant only in Arabic, that of Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa on the same topic, and the sermon of Ps.-Timothy On the Archangel Michael, feature the figure of Prochorus, John’s disciple. Here we find a clear influence of the Acts of John attributed to Prochorus (CANT 218; BHG 916–917z), which, except for the aforementioned memoirs, is the only text which associates Prochorus, one of the seven deacons from Acts 6:5, with the apostle John. The peregrinations of John and Prochorus, usually known as the Acts of John by Ps.-Prochorus, was originally composed in Greek, and subsequently translated into Latin and virtually all languages of the Christian East, Coptic included.247 As Ps.-Prochorus’ Acts of John is usually dated to the fifth century, the memoirs of the apostles influenced by it must logically be dated later. The Christology of the memoirs sometimes bears the imprint of a distinctive Miaphysitism, indicating that they were written after the Council of Chalcedon. For example, the parchment fragment published by Hedrick, probably containing an extract from an apostolic memoir, features a Miaphysite Christological credo pronounced by Jesus himself: Peace, my apostles, my chosen ones, [who] are honored, my holy fellow-members (ⲛⲁϣⲃⲏⲣⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ) whom my Father has chosen. I am Jesus the Son of the Almighty. I have come to this world to save [it]. My corporeal divinity was not parted from my humanity by a blink of an eye (ⲧⲁⲙ̄︦ⲛ̄︦ⲧ̄︥ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ ⲥⲱⲙⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥ̄ⲡⲱⲣϫ̄ ⲉⲧⲁⲙ̄︦ⲛ̄︦ⲧ̄︦ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲣⲓⲕⲉ ⲛ̄ⲃⲁⲗ) … My divinity is within me corporeally, it was not divided from my humanity by a blink of an eye (ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲣⲓⲕⲉ ⲛ̄ⲃⲁⲗ). It was constant in me, until the Jews lifted me up on the cross. When my [humanity] tastes death [within] me, my divinity [remains] within my [inner] part.248

Hedrick remarked that the sentence, “my corporeal divinity was not parted from my humanity by a blink of an eye” is an approximate quotation from the liturgy of Basil, “Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor by a blink of an eye.”249 Actually, the expression does not appear only in the liturgy of Basil, but also in the pro Edition of the Greek text in Zahn, Acta Joannis. Analysis of the text in R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden vol. 1 (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetscheke, 1883) 355–408; E. Junod – J.-D. Kaestli, Acta Iohannis. Praefatio, Textus alii, Commentarius, Indices vol. 2 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, 2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983) 718–749. 248  Hedrick, “Revelation Discourse,” 14–15. 249  Hedrick, “Revelation Discourse,” 13. 247

Dating the Apostolic Memoirs

131

fessions of faith (homologia) from the liturgies of Gregory and Mark/Cyril. Thus, the formula, Ἀληθῶς πιστεύω ὅτι θεότης αὐτοῦ οὐδ᾽ οὐ μηδέποτε χωρισθεῖσα ἐξ ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἀτόμῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφταλμοῦ, is included in the anaphoras used in the Alexandrian rite of the Coptic church in the homologia pronounced before the communion.250 The expression reflects the Miaphysite Christology, according to which the humanity and the divinity of Christ were not separated, not even by a blink of an eye, but they rather formed a single, inseparable nature. The text edited by Hedrick is not the only memoir that puts into Jesus’ mouth this Miaphysite dogmatic statement. The same credo features in the still unpublished Revelation on the Mount of Olives 40 Days after the Resurrection, preserved in a single incomplete Arabic manuscript from the Monastery of St. Macarius, but which probably goes back to a Coptic model.251 Although the title attributes it to John Chrysostom, the text is framed as a dialogue between Peter and Jesus Christ. After a revelation concerning the arrival of the Saracens, i. e. Muslims, Christ announces the future appearance of a heresy which will divide his person, obviously a reference to the Chalcedonian Christians, usually associated in Coptic sources with the Nestorians. Just like in the short text edited by Hedrick, the Savior warns several times that his divinity was not parted from his humanity “by a blink of an eye” (‫)غمضه عَين‬. The same confession appears in the homily of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Dormition of Mary (Parisinus arabicus 150, ff. 171r–192v), which incorporates a memoir of John the Evangelist transcribed by his disciple, Prochorus: “We believe and we confess that his divinity was not parted from his humanity by a blink of an eye, but his divinity was united with the humanity while he was in the womb of Saint Mary, the pure ّ َ‫َون ُومن ونَعـتَرف‬ Virgin” (‫ان الهَوتهَ لم يفَا َرق نا َس ُوتَهَ طَرفَة ال َعين بل الالَه ُوت مت َحدًا بالنس ُوت‬ ‫( ) َحين َحل في ا َحشا مرتَمريُم الطَاه َره البَتُول‬Par. arab. 150, f. 171v).252 250 E. Renaudot, Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio vol. 1 (Frankfurt-am-Main – Paris: Joseph Baer – J. A. Toulouse, 18472) 80, 113. 251  Described in Zanetti, Abu Maqar, 55 (= no. 380). 252  The humanity which has not been separated from Jesus’ divinity not even by a blink of an eye is a cliché in Coptic texts. See, e. g., Ps.-Celestinus of Rome, Encomium on the Archangel Gabriel: “His divinity not being separated from his humanity by the blink of an eye” (W. H.  Worrell, The Coptic Manuscripts in the Freer Collection [University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series, 10; New York, NY – London: MacMillan, 1923] 329); anonymous Bohairic panegyric on the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace: “we confess that the divinity of Monogenes was not separated from his humanity by the blink of an eye” (de Vis, Homélie coptes 2, 110); Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Cross: “his divinity did not change his humanity a single moment or a blink of an eye (Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 228); Copto-Arabic text on Stephen the Protomartyr: “his divinity was not separated from his humanity by the blink of an eye (Y. ‘Abd al-Masîḥ – A. Khater, “An

132

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

A similar Christological position is expressed by Ps.-Evodius in his sermon on the Virgin: “he was a human being whose humanity has joined with his divinity.”253 In the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the human and divine aspects of Christ are confessed by Joseph, his earthly father: “I will offer to you a sacrifice of praise, which is the confession of the glory of your Godhead, that you are Jesus Christ, truly the Son of God and the son of man at once.”254 If we now turn our attention to the BSApo, traces of a fifth-century Christology can be detected in the Gethsemane scene, where Christ is portrayed fearful in front of his imminent death. It is the divine aspect of the Savior, who chooses to die voluntarily, that vanquishes the fear of death. Similarly, in P. Berol. 22220 108, col. A,17–20, Jesus says, “I am the king, Amen, I [am] the [son] of the king, [Amen].” As the following pages will argue, this Christological statement is also congruent with the beliefs of the fifth-century Egyptian church.

The Christology of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon: Christ as King and Son of the King. The Dating of the Work Nagel pointed out that the aforementioned passage from P. Berol. 22220 finds a close parallel in the sermon And We Will Also Reveal Something Else by Shenoute of Atripe (clavis coptica 0821):255 P. Berol. 22220 108, col.A,17–19

Shenoute

I am the king, Amen I [am] the [son] of the king, [Amen]

The Lord, the king Christ and the son of the king

In his view, both passages pertain to the theological debates concerning the relationship between the Son and the Father, which were stirred up by the Arian controversy. First of all, it should be remarked that the texts are alluding to Psalm 71:1, “give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the son of the king” (τὸ κρίμα σου τῷ βασιλεῖ δὸς καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ βασιλέως), which is used in a Christological fashion. In the following pages, we shall descend into the dossier of texts which are ChristoArabic Apocryphon of Saint Stephen the Archdeacon,” Studia Orientalia Christiana. Collectanea 13 [1968/1969] 161–198, at 188–189). 253 Translation taken from Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 267. 254 Translation taken from Ehrman – Pleše, The Other Gospels, 87. 255 Nagel, “‘Gespräche Jesu’,” 240–243. For all the necessary bibliography on this sermon, see Emmel, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus 2, 657.

The Christology of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

133

logically interpreting this Psalm in order to emerge at the end with a glimpse of its meaning in the BSApo. Thus, one can observe that in late-antique Christianity, Psalm 71:1 was usually considered to refer to the human and divine aspects of Christ. Although this exegesis probably stems from Origen, it became common only during the late fourth and fifth centuries, especially during the Nestorian crisis and the Christological debates concerning the person of Christ. As we will see, in anti-Chalcedonian Coptic literature, including the apostolic memoirs connected to the BSApo, the depiction of Christ as king and the son of the king is a literary cliché. The kingship of Jesus is explicitly linked with Psalm 71:1 in another sermon attributed to Shenoute, conventionally called De iudicio supremo (clavis coptica 0367):256 (143, 14–28) Jesus is our king from eternity, as the saint testifies about this from the beginning: “God, give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the son of the king” (Psalm 71:1). But as the Lord reigns from the wood (Psalm 95:10), according to that which is written … (147, 51–148, 4) We have learned that the Lord has reigned from the tree. He himself is the king and the son of the king, the God who is and will be forever, Amen.257

Shenoute undoubtedly interprets here Psalm 71:1, as he explicitly refers to it. Thus, he maintains that the psalm announces Jesus Christ, who is, at the same time, king and son of the king. The first author to propose a Christological interpretation to Psalm 71:1 was probably Origen, who saw in it a reference to the natures of Christ. In his Commentary on John (CPG 1453), the Alexandrian theologian says that Psalm 71 announces Christ (περὶ Χριστοῦ προφητεύεται). Further on, he in256  This text was published after a papyrus manuscript in Turin, see F. Rossi, “Trascrizione con traduzione italiana dal copto di un sermone sulla necessita della morte e sul giudizio finale,” Memorie della Reale accademia delle scienze di Torino 2nd ser., 41 (1891) 1–121; the Turin papyrus was reedited by H. Behlmer, Schenute von Atripe: De iudicio (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino. Serie prima – Monumenti e testi, 8; Turin: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali – Soprintendenza al Museo delle Antichità Egizie, 1996). Six leaves from a parchment codex containing the same piece were published by A. Shisha-Halevy, “Unpublished Shenoutiana in the British Library,” Enchoria 5 (1975) 53–108. Enzo Lucchesi identified several bilingual (Greco-Coptic) fragments of the same text in the British Library and the Bodleian Library in Oxford, see E. Lucchesi, “Chénouté a-t-il écrit en grec?,” in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont. Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 20; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1988) 201–210. The fragments came from a White Monastery parchment codex. To them should be added two new fragments which have recently surfaced in the collection of the Oslo University Library, see Suciu – Lundhaug, “Coptic Parchment Fragments.” 257 My own translation of the Coptic text published by Behlmer, De iudicio, 119, 123–124.

134

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

terprets the term “king” as a reference to Christ’s divine element, while “son of the king” would designate his human aspect. However, this distinction does not split Christ in two: I think therefore that “king” refers to the preeminent nature of the firstborn of all creation, in as much as judgment is given to him on account of his superiority, and “son of the king,” to the man whom that nature assumed, formed in accordance with justice and modeled by that nature. And I am led to admit that this is so because the two are united in a single utterance and the remainder of the passage not longer proclaims two such figures, but one (I, 195).258

In his Expositions of the Psalms (CPG 2140; clavis coptica 0061), which is also preserved in Sahidic,259 Athanasius of Alexandria comments the same psalm, saying that, “he is Christ, the king and the son of the king” (αὐτὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ βασιλέως).260 Apollinaris of Laodicea also gives a similar interpretation to the same passage, saying that Christ is king, but he is at the same time son of the king because he belongs to the kingly seed of David (καὶ βασιλεύς ἐστι καὶ υἱὸς βασιλέως τοῦ Δαυὶδ ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα).261 This reiterates Origen’s reference to the divine and human aspects of Christ, who is seen as God, but at the same time also as human by virtue of his belonging to the Davidic line of kings. The fact that Psalm 71:1 pertains to Christ’s divinity and humanity is confirmed by Theodoret of Cyrus, who writes that, “the Lord Christ is king and son of the king (καὶ βασιλεύς ἐστι, καὶ υἱος βασιλέως ὁ Δεσπότης Χριστός) … For he is not only king, but also son of the king. For as God, he was generated by God, the king of the universe, and as man, he has the king David as progenitor.”262 John Chrysostom was, in his turn, familiar with this typological interpretation of the same psalm. In his 26th homily on the Gospel of John, he writes: οὗτος δὲ Δεσπότης, καὶ βασιλεὺς υἱὸς ὢν … συνὼν ἀεὶ τῷ πατρὶ, καὶ ὁρῶν αὐτὸν διηνεκῶς (“But he, the Lord, the king, and the son of the king … who lives

 Translation, with modifications, taken from J. W. Trigg, Origen (The Early Church Fathers; New York, NY: Routledge, 1998) 135. Greek text in Blanc, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, 156–157. See also the similar interpretations of Psalm 71:1 in Origen’s Selecta in Psalmos (Migne PG 12, coll. 1069, 1524). 259  Fragments of a White Monastery codex (MONB.DE) are known, see J. David, “Les éclaircissements de Saint Athanase sur les Psaumes: Fragments d’une traduction en copte sahidique,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 24 (1924) 3–37. 260 Migne PG 27, col. 324. 261 Apollinaris of Laodicea, Fragmenta in Psalmos, frag. 101a, in Mühlenberg, Psalmenkommentare 1, 38–39. 262  Theodoret, Interpretatio in Psalmos, in Migne PG 80, col. 1429. 258

The Christology of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

135

forever with his Father and sees him perpetually”).263 Macarius-Symeon employs the pair king-son of the king in several of his Spiritual Homilies: Hom. 26 Αὐτὸς ὁ κύριός, ὅς ἐστιν ὁδὸς καὶ θεός, ἐλθὼν οὐ δι᾽ ἑαυτόν, ἀλλὰ διὰ σέ, ἵνα σοι τύπος γένηται παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ, βλέπε εἰς ποίαν ταπείνωσιν ἦλθε, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, θεὸς υἱὸς θεοῦ, βασιλεὺς υἱὸς βασιλέως, διδοὺς μὲν αὐτὸς ἰαματικὰ φάρμακα καὶ θεραπεύων τοὺς τετραυματισμένους ἔξωθεν δὲ ὡς εἷς τῶν τετραυματισμένων φαινόμενος.264 The Lord himself, who is the Way and is God, after he came not on his own behalf but for you so that he might be an example for you in everything good, see, he came in such humility, taking the form of a slave, he, who is God, the Son of God, king, the son of the king. He himself gave healing medicines and he healed all the wounded when he appeared externally as one among the wounded.

Although other texts which concomitantly depict Jesus as king and son of the king can be cited, the passages above suffice to show that the typological interpretation of Psalm 71:1, stemming from Origen, was fairly common in the patristic tradition. The Christian theologians who interpreted this passage conferred to it a Christological meaning: Jesus Christ is God and man at the same time. Returning now to Coptic literature, in addition to Shenoute, we can find a fairly good number of other texts that designate Christ as king and son of the king, including some apostolic memoirs. Thus, in the Book of Bartholomew, in the first hymn of the angels heard by the apostle Bartholomew, the celestial beings are singing to Christ: Holy, Holy, Holy is the king, the Son of God, the son of the king. ϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ‧ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ265

Remarkably, both in the Book of Bartholomew and in the BSApo Christ is called “king” and “son of the king” in a hymnic section. In another apostolic memoir, the Enthronement of Michael, while Christ and the apostles are visiting the places where the souls are judged, the Devil appears on the Mount of Olives to the group of the lesser-disciples (ⲛⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ) in the form of one of the apostles. He tries to tempt them to 263 Migne

PG 59, col. 97. translation taken from G. A. Maloney, Pseudo-Macarius: The Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter (The Classics of Western Spirituality, 75; New York, NY – Mawhaw, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992) 173. Greek text in H. Dörries – E. Klostermann – M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarios (Patristische Texte und Studien, 4; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964) 218. 265 Coptic text in Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 124. The parallel between the form of the saying in P. Berol. 22220 and the Book of Bartholomew was already pointed out by Emmel, “Righting the Order,” 58. 264 English

136

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

abjure Christ, but Bibros, the disciple of John, realizes the trickery. The disciples hold an olive tree which Jesus previously carried with him to heaven and Bibros says, “We praise you, olive tree that was worthy of this great honor, that the king, the son of the king lifted up.”266 As to the identity of Bibros, we recognize in this name the deacon Verus (Βῆρος), which features in the Acts of John (chaps. 30, 61, 110). In the Sahidic version of the Dormition of John (BHG 910–913d; CANT 215.2; clavis coptica 0572), the disciple of John is called Birros (ⲃⲓⲣⲣⲟⲥ).267 In the Sahidic text of a homily on the Virgin attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem (CPG 3603; clavis coptica 0117), Bibros is said to be the disciple of Peter.268 The Christological interpretation of Psalm 71:1 occurs again in a hymn to Jesus from the Martyrdom of Shenoufe, a text which I already quoted among the writings which contain the address, “O my holy members.” The night before the martyrdom of Shenoufe and his brothers, the saint sings a hymn to Jesus, in which each verse begins with the sequence ϯⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ (“I praise you”). Here we encounter again a reference to Psalm 71:1 as a typological allusion to the kingship of Jesus: I praise you, king and son of the king. ϯⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ269

The juxtaposition of the Christological titles “king” and “son of the king” in Coptic anaphoras and hymns might indicate that the authors of these texts could have found them in certain liturgical sources. The Sahidic White Monastery Euchologion furnishes an important argument in this sense.270 Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 34.  Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 54. 268  His name is variously written as ⲃⲓⲃⲣⲟⲥ, ⲃⲓϥⲣⲟⲥ in London, British Library Or. 6784, see Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 69; ⲃⲓⲃⲣⲟⲥ in New York, Morgan Library & Museum, M 597, see S. Bombeck, “Pseudo-Kyrillos In Mariam virginem. Text und Übersetzung von Pierpont Morgan M 597 fols. 46–74,” Orientalia 70 (2001) 40–88, at 62; ⲃⲓⲣⲣⲟⲥ in the Vatican fragments of the White Monastery codex MONB.FD, see Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 36. See also A. Campagnano, Ps. Cirillo di Gerusalemme. Omelie copte sulla Passione, sulla Croce e sulla Vergine (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antiquità, 66; Milano: Cisalpino – Goliardica, 1980) 186–187. A more recent assessment of this text attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, and of the manuscripts in which it is preserved, can be found in C. Nakano, “Fragments d’une homélie copte sur la Vierge Marie attribuée à Cyrille de Jérusalem [CPG 3603] (Le Caire, Ifao Copte 159–160, 302–304),” Journal of Coptic Studies 14 (2012) 1–26. 269  Coptic text in Reymond – Barns, Four Martyrdoms, 121. 270  E. Lanne, Le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc (Patrologia Orientalis, 28/8; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1958); see also H. Hyvernat, “Fragmente der altcoptischen (sic!) Liturgie,” Römische Quartalschrift 1 (1887) 330–345; H. Lietzmann, “Sahidische Bruchstücke der Gregorios‑ und Kyrillos-Liturgie,” Oriens Christianus 16 (1920) 1–19; H. Eng266 Müller, 267

The Christology of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

137

The Christological interpretation of the two key-terms in Psalm 71:1 occurs here at the end of an acephalous prayer. This prayer contains an anaphora of Christ which was used during the Eucharistic liturgy, each verse being introduced by ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ (“You are”): You are the lamb … You are the physician … You are the pilot … You are the lion … You are the king and the son of the king. ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ271

Although there is no decisive argument that the authors of the texts quoted above – including the BSApo – were directly influenced by the Sahidic Euchologion, the occurrence of formulas concerning Jesus’ kingship in hymnic sections might point to a similar liturgical source. The examples quoted hereby demonstrate that the BSApo belongs to a widespread Christian tradition which interpreted Psalm 71:1 in a Christological context. Although this interpretation goes back as far as Origen, its use in Coptic literature can be best explained in the context of the Christological polemics of the fifth century, when it became relevant for Egyptian authors to underline the divinity and the humanity of Christ. This aligns well with the Christology of the other memoirs, which also bears the marks of Miaphysitism. Therefore, the earliest date that can be assigned to the BSApo may be around mid-fifth century. This dating places the BSApo in the same era with the other apostolic memoirs, which, in light of the arguments I have tried to advance above, cannot be dated before the Council of Chalcedon. Perhaps one may argue that the BSApo is earlier than all the other related memoirs and possibly represents their model. But is this a reasonable assumption? While it is true that, because of its fragmentary state of preservation, the BSApo is one of the three still unidentified memoirs, there is nothing that makes it stand out from the others. Just like the BSApo, all the Coptic apostolic memoirs are focused on specific topics, they feature logia of Jesus and apocryphal stories, and they use a first-person plural narrative berding, “Untersuchungen zu den jüngst veröffentlichten Bruchstücken sa‘idischer Liturgie,” Oriens Christianus 43 (1959) 59–75; K. Zentgraf, “Eucharistische Textfragmente einer koptisch-saidischen Handschrift,” Oriens Christianus 41 (1957) 67–75; 42 (1958) 44–54; 43 (1959) 76–102. As we have another manuscript copied by the same scribe and dated 990 CE, the Euchologion codex can be dated toward the end of the tenth or early eleventh century, see A. Suciu, “À propos de la datation du manuscrit contenant le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc,” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 189–198. 271  Lanne, Grand Euchologe, 376 [112].

138

Chapter 4: The Place of the Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon

and specific forms of address for the apostles. These literary devices indicate that, for a better understanding of the BSApo, we must remove it from the early Christian gospel genre and integrate it in its proper setting, that is, the post-Chalcedonian Coptic literature.

Text and Translation I provide here semi-diplomatic editions of the three manuscripts, accompanied by translations into English. As P. Berol. 22220 is badly damaged, it is impossible to know how many lines comprised each column of text. However, pages 107–108 and, very likely, 101–102, which are better preserved than the others, feature 32 lines of text on each column. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the present edition establishes the same number of lines per column throughout the manuscript. The scribe of the Qasr el-Wizz codex did not number the pages. However, as the manuscript was discovered in a very good condition, with the folios still bound together, the order of the pages does not pose problem. Thus, in the edition I supplied page numbers written in Coptic numerals followed by an asterisk (*), while in the translation I used Arabic numerals between parentheses. Abbreviations used in the critical apparatus Charles W. Hedrick – Paul A. Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel (California Classical Library; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1999). Schenke Hans-Martin Schenke, “Das sogenannte ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE),” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 2 (1998) 199–213. Em Stephen Emmel, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior (“Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium”): Righting the Order of Pages and Events,” Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002) 45–72. Stephen Emmel, “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium = The Strasbourg CopEm1 tic Gospel: Prolegomena to a New Edition of the Strasbourg Fragments,” in H. G. Bethge et al. (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 54; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002) 353–374. Stephen Emmel, “Preliminary Reedition and Translation of the Gospel of the Em2 Savior: New Light on the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel and the Stauros-Text from Nubia,” Apocrypha 14 (2003) 9–53. Stephen Emmel, “Ein altes Evangelium der Apostel taucht in Fragmenten aus Em3 Ägypten und Nubien auf,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 85–99. Stephen Emmel, private communication (December 12, 2012). Em4 HM

140 Funk

Text and Translation

Wolf-Peter Funk, Unpublished transcription of P. Berol. 22220 based on HM, Em, and Em2, with some improvements. Uwe-Karsten Plisch, “Zu einigen Einleitungsfragen des Unbekannten Berliner Plisch Evangeliums (UBE),” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 64–84. Jac Adolf Jacoby, Ein neues Evangelienfragment (Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner, 1900). Sch Carl Schmidt, review of Jacoby, Evangelienfragment, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 162 (1900) 481–506. Daniel A. Bertrand, “Papyrus Strasbourg copte 5–6,” in F. Bovon – P. GeolBer train (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1997) 425–428. Rev Eugène Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes I: Les Évangiles des douze apôtres et de Saint Barthélemy (Patrologia Orientalis, 2/2; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904). Walter Ewing Crum, “Notes on the Strassburg Gospel Fragments,” ProceedCrum ings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 22 (1900) 72–76. Hubai Péter Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen aus Nubien. Der Kasr el-Wizz Kodex (Texte und Untersuchungen, 163; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009). Hughes George R. Hughes, unpublished translation of the Qasr el-Wizz codex (dated July 1, 1966). Yingling Erik Yingling, “Singing with the Savior: Reconstructing the Ritual Ring-Dance in the Gospel of the Savior,” 24 (2013) 255–279.

141

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Edition of P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 3 (flesh side) [ⲍ̄]



[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ . . ]ⲑ̣[ [ . . ]ϩ̣ⲉ̣[ [ⲉ]ϩⲟⲩ̣[ⲛ [  ]ⲟⲛ ⲁ[   ⲧⲙ̄] ̄ ̄ⲉⲣⲟ ⲅ̣ⲁ̣[ⲣ ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏ] ⲛ︤̄ⲧ︥ ⲟⲩⲉ‧ ⲛ̄ϣⲁ[ ϩ̣ⲓⲧ︤ⲙⲡⲉⲟ[ⲟⲩ  ⲉ] ⲣⲉⲧⲙ︤̄︥ⲛ︦ⲧ̄︥ⲉⲣⲟ ⲛ̄[ⲙ̄] ⲡ̣ⲏ̣ⲩⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣ⲱⲧ︤ⲛ· ⲛⲁⲓ̈ⲁⲧϥ̄ ⲙ̣̄ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲧⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̣ⲙ̣̄ⲙⲁⲓ̈ ϩⲛ︥ⲧⲙ̄︤ⲛ︤︤̄︥ⲧ̄︥ ⲉⲣⲟ̣ ⲛ̣̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ· ⲛ̄ ⲧ̣ⲱ̣ⲧ̣︤ⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉϩⲙⲟⲩ ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱ ⲧ̣ⲛ̣︥ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲗⲁⲙⲡⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲣ̄ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲡⲕⲟ̣ ⲥⲙⲟⲥ· ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲣ̄ϩⲓⲛⲏ[ⲃ] ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϫⲓ ⲣⲉ̣[ⲕ] ⲣ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ̣ⲉ ϣ[ⲁⲛⲧ]ⲉ̣ⲧ[ⲛ̄] ϯ ϩ̣ⲓⲱ̣ⲧ[ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲩⲧ̣ⲛ̄ ⲙ̄ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛⲇ̣ⲩⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲙ︤̄ⲛ︥︥̄ ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓ̈ ϣ̣ⲟⲡ︤ϥ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲉⲗ̣ⲟ̣ⲟⲗⲉ: ⲁϥ ⲟ̣ⲩⲱ̣ϣ︤ⲃ [ⲛ̄]ϭⲓⲁⲛⲇ̣ⲣⲉ [ⲁ]ⲥ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ̣ ϫ̣ⲉ ⲡⲁϫⲟ

[ⲉⲓⲥ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ]ⲛⲁ ⲉⲩ[ ] ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲡⲕⲟ̣ⲥ̣ⲙ̣[ⲟⲥ] ⲁⲓ̈ⲑⲉⲣⲁⲡⲉⲩⲉ̣ [ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ] ⲟⲩ. ϣϣⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲉⲥ̣ⲏⲧ̣ ⲉ ⲁⲙⲛⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛ̣̄ⲕ̣ⲟ̣ ⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲙⲏ̣ⲣ ϩⲙ̄ⲡ̣ ⲙⲁ ⲉⲧ̣ⲙ̣̄ⲙⲁⲩ̣ ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲉϣϣⲉ

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ϥ︦ⲍ︦]

col. A: 6 ]ⲑ̣[ : ]ⲉ̣ . [ HM  ǁ 9 ]ⲟⲛ ⲁ[ : ]ⲟ̣ⲛⲁ̣ⲁ̣[ HM  ǁ 12 ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲟ[ⲟⲩ] : ⲙ̣ⲓⲧ ⲙⲡⲉⲉ̣ . [ HM  ǁ 24–25 ⲣⲉ[ⲕ]|ⲣ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ̣ⲉ Em2 : ⲣⲕ̣|ⲣ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ̣ⲉ̣ HM ǁ 25–26 ϣ[ⲁⲛⲧ]ⲉ̣ⲧ[ⲛ̄]|ϯ ϩ̣ⲓⲱ̣ⲧ[ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲩⲧ̣ⲛ̄ Em Em2 : ϣ[. . .] ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲁ̣|ⲉ . . . ⲧ . . . . ⲛ HM ǁ 29 ϣ̣ⲟⲡ︤ϥ is certain, but Schenke emended ϣ̣ⲟⲙ︤ϥ ǁ col. B: 24 ]ⲛⲁ ⲉⲩ[ : ] . ⲛⲛⲉ . . [ HM ǁ 29–30 [ⲛ̄ⲕⲟ]|ⲟⲩⲉ Em Em2 : ⲛ̣̄ⲯ̣[ⲩⲭⲟ]|ⲟⲩⲉ HM ǁ

142

Text and Translation

Frag. 3 (hair side) [ϥ︦ⲏ︦] [ⲡⲉ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [   ] . . . [ ] [ϩ]ⲱ̣ⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩ︤ⲛⲟⲩ̣[ⲱ] ⲣ̣︤ϫ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ϯⲛⲁ ϭⲱⲗ︤ⲡ ⲛⲏⲧ︤ⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︥ⲟⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ· ϯⲥⲟ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛϣ̄ ϭⲟⲙ ⲙ̄ⲙⲱⲧ︤ⲛ ⲉⲣ̄ ϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩ︤ⲛⲟⲩⲣⲁ ϣⲉ‧ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲟⲩⲁⲩⲧⲟⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲥ

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ⲡⲉ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]ⲱ̣[ . ] [ . . . . ⲁⲩⲧⲟ]ⲝⲟ̣[ⲩ] [ⲥⲓⲟⲥ . . . ]ⲁ̣ ϣⲁⲣ̣[ [     ]ⲩ ⲉⲣϫⲟ[ⲉⲓ] [ⲥ ⲉⲣⲱⲧ︤ⲛ·] ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ̣ [ⲛ̄ϩⲟ]ⲥ̣ⲟⲛ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ [ϣⲟⲟ]ⲡ̣ ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲥⲱⲙ[ⲁ] ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲧⲣⲉⲑⲩⲗⲏ ⲣ̄ ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲣⲱⲧ︤ⲛ: ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲉ ⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲙⲁ· ⲁϥ ϩⲱⲛ ⲅⲁⲣ⳿ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛ̄ ϭⲓⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡⲁ̣ⲣⲁⲇⲓ ⲇⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︥ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲧⲏⲣⲧⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲕⲁⲛⲇⲁⲗⲓⲍⲉ ⲛ̇ϩⲏⲧ· ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁ ⲡ̣ⲱⲧ ⲧⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲧⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ [ⲧ]ⲛ̄ⲕ̣[ⲁⲁⲧ] ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ ⲁⲗⲗ̣ⲁ ⲛ̣ϯ̣ϭⲉⲉⲧ̣ ⲙⲁⲩ̣ ⲁⲁⲧ ⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛ︤ⲙⲙⲁⲓ̈‧ ⲁ̣ ⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲛ︥ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ⲁ ⲛⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲛ̣̄ⲟⲩⲱⲧ· ϥⲥⲏϩ ⲅⲁⲣ̣ ϫ̣ⲉ̣ ϯⲛ ⲣⲱϩ︤ⲧ ⲙ̣̄ⲡ̣ϣⲱⲥ ⲛ̄

col. A: 1 [ⲡⲉ Funk ǁ 23 ] . . ϣ̣[ HM ǁ col. B: 9–10 ⲉⲣϫⲟ[ⲉⲓ]|[ⲥ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ̄] : ⲉⲣϫⲟ[ⲉⲓ]|[ⲥ ⲉⲣⲟ⸗] Funk : ⲉⲣ̄ϫⲟ̣[ . ]|[ . . . . ] HM ǁ

143

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frag. 2A (hair side) ⲥ̣ⲉϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲛⲉⲥⲟ̣ⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟ ϩⲉ· ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϭⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ ϯⲛⲁⲕⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲯⲩⲭⲏ ϩⲁⲣⲱⲧⲛ︥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︥ ϩⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︥ ⲕⲱ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲙ︥ⲯ̣ⲩⲭ̣ⲏ ϩⲁ ⲛⲉⲧⲛ̣︥ϣⲃⲉ̣[ⲉ]ⲣ̣. ϫⲉ ⲕⲁⲥ [ⲉ]ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉⲣ̄ⲁ ⲛⲁϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ· ϫⲉ ⲙ︤ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉⲛ[ⲁ] ⲁⲁϥ ⲉⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲣⲁ ⲕ̣ⲱ ⲛ̣̄ⲧ̣ⲁⲯⲩⲭ[ⲏ ϩⲁⲛ̄] ⲣⲱ[ⲙ]ⲉ̣‧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ̣ [ⲡⲁⲓ̈] ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ⲙⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̣̈ ϫⲉ̣ ⲁⲓ̈ϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ̣[ϥ] ⲟⲩⲱϣ· ϫⲉ ⲁⲛ[ⲅ̄ⲟⲩ] ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣‧ ⲁ̣ⲓ̈ⲣ̣̄ⲣ̣ⲱ[ⲙⲉ] ⲉⲧⲃⲉ . [ ⲟⲩⲁⲧ[ ⲧⲉⲛ̣[      ⲉ] ⲣⲟⲓ̣̈ [ ⲧⲉⲛ[ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ .[ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

ϥ︦ⲑ︦

ⲙ︤ⲛⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲛ̄ⲟ[ⲩ] ⲟⲉⲓϣ· ⲏ̄ ⲙ̇ⲙⲟⲛ ⲛ︤ⲅ̣ ⲣ̄ⲡⲉⲛⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ︤ⲅ̣[ⲧⲛ̄] ⲛⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲛ, ⲛ︤ⲅⲛ ⲧ︤ⲛ ⲉⲃⲟ̣ⲗ̣ ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲕⲟ ⲥⲙⲟ[ⲥ‧] ⲛ̣̄ⲧ︤ⲛⲉ̣ⲓ̣ ϣⲁ ⲣⲟⲕ̣ [ . . .]ϥ . [ . . ] . ⲧⲛ̣̄[ .[ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

col. A: 9 ⲛⲉⲧⲛ̣̄ϣⲃⲉ̣[ⲉ]ⲣ̣ Em2 : ⲛⲉⲧⲛ̣̄ϣⲃⲉ̣[ⲉ]ⲣ̣ⲉ HM ǁ 16 ⲡⲁ‑ written in ekthesis ǁ 22–23 [ⲉ]|ⲣⲟⲓ̣̈ : [ ]|ⲉⲣⲟ ⲛ̣̄[ HM ǁ 24 ⲧⲉⲛ[ⲟⲩ ϭⲉ Funk ǁ 25 ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ⲣⲉⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ] Em2 : ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ[ⲧⲛ̄ Funk ǁ

144

Text and Translation

Frag. 2A (flesh side) ⲣ̄ ⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϭ̣ⲓ̣ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ[‧] ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ‧ ϫⲉ ⲱ̣ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧ ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ⳿ ⲛⲁⲥⲡⲉⲣ ⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲥ̣ⲙ̣ⲁⲙⲁ ⲁⲧ. ⲧⲱⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ [ⲧ]ⲛ̣[ . . . ]ⲛ̣ⲉ̣[ . . . ]ⲛ̣ ϫⲉ [ . . . . . . . ]ϣ̣ⲗⲏⲗ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

ⲉϫⲙ̣︥ⲡⲧⲟ̣ⲟⲩ̣ ⲁⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲛ] ϩⲱⲱⲛ̣ ⲁⲛⲣ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ︦ⲁ︦‧ ⲁⲛⲉⲛⲃⲁⲗ ⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲁⲥⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ⲁⲡⲙⲁ ⲧⲏⲣϥ︥ ϭ̣ⲱⲗⲡ︥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲛⲙ̄ⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ· ⲁⲛⲛ̣[ⲁ]ⲩ ⲉⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲱⲛ ⲉ[ϩ]ⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲁⲛⲉ̣ⲩⲉⲣ[ⲏ]ⲩ̣ ⲛⲉⲧ ⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲙⲡ̣ⲩⲗⲏ ⲁⲩ ϣ̣ⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︥· ⲁⲛⲁⲅ ⲅ̣ⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲣ̄ϩ̣ⲟⲧⲉ ⲁⲩ [ⲡ]ⲱ̣ⲧ⳿ ⲉⲡⲓ[ⲥ]ⲁ̣ ⲙ̄ⲛ̣[ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲓ̈ [ⲉⲩ]ⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ̣ ϫ̣ⲉ̣ ⲉⲩ̣ ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲗ⳿ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲧⲏ ⲣ̣ⲟⲩ· ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲉ(ⲛ) [ⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲧⲏⲣ⳿ ⲉⲁϥ̣ϫⲱⲧⲉ [ⲛ̄]ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ̣ ⲧ̣ⲏⲣⲟⲩ. [ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉϥⲟ]ⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ [ⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲩ ⲉ]ϫ̣ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲧⲟ [ⲟⲩ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲛ] ⲉⲣⲉ [ⲧⲉϥⲁⲡⲉ ϫⲱ]ⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ [ⲧⲙⲉϩⲥⲁϣ]ϥ̣ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ [ ]ⲙ̣ⲁ ⲣ̄ [ ].ⲉ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

col. A: 1 ⲟⲩ ⲛϭ̣ⲓ̣ : ⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ̣ Em Em2 : ⲟⲩⲛ⟦ⲟ⟧`ⲁ´ⲩ HM; ⲛϭ̣ⲓ̣ uncertain; Em’s and HM’s second ⲟ seems to be a ϭ, with traces of the upper stroke still visible. There are traces of ink on the upper margin between ⲛ and ϭ̣ ǁ 6–7 ⲧⲱⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ|[ⲧ]ⲛ̄ Em Em2, but no traces of a supralinear stroke lie above ⲛ on line 7; ⲧ on line 7 written in ekthesis : ⲧϣ̣ . [ . ] . ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ|ϥ[ . . ] HM ǁ col. B: 1 ⲉ smaller and perhaps added later ǁ 8–10 ⲁⲛⲛ̣[ⲁ]ⲩ ⲉⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ | ⲁⲩⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲱⲛ ⲉ[ϩ]ⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄|ⲥⲁⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣ[ⲏ] ⲩ Em Em2 : “während sie sich gegenseitig öffneten” Schenke : ⲁⲛϩ̣[ⲱ]ⲛ̣ ⲉⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲧ̣[ⲱ]ⲱⲛ ⲉ[ϩ]ⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛⲥⲁⲛⲉ̣ⲩⲉⲣ̣[ⲏ]ⲩ HM ǁ 14 ⲉⲡⲓ[ⲥ]ⲁ̣ ⲙ̄ⲛ̣[ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲓ̈ Em2 ǁ 15 [ⲉⲩ]‑ Em2 : [ⲁⲩ]‑ HM ǁ 19 [ⲛ̄]ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ̣ Em2 : [ϩⲛ̄]ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ̣ HM ǁ 20–24 [ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉϥⲟ]ⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ usque ad ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ Em Em2 ǁ 25 ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲣ̄ : ]ⲛ̣ⲁⲣ̄ Funk ǁ

145

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frag. 1A (flesh side) ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︥ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ: ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲁ ⲛⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ϣⲱ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲕⲁⲕⲉ ⲛ̣̄[ⲛ]ⲁϩⲣⲁⲛ‧ ⲁⲛⲣ̄ⲑⲉ [ⲛ̄ⲛ]ⲉⲧϩ︤ⲛⲛⲁⲓⲱⲛ [ⲛ̄ⲁⲧ]ⲙ̣ⲟⲩ· ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉ(ⲛ) ⲃ̣[ⲁⲗ ϫ]ⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲏ ⲟ̣[ⲩⲉ ⲧ]ⲏ̣[ⲣ]ⲟⲩ̣[‧] ⲉⲣⲉ ⲧ[ϭⲟ]ⲙ̣ [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ]ⲛⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ ⲁ̣[ⲡ]ⲟ̣ⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱ [ⲱ]ⲛ· ⲁⲩ̣ⲱ ⲁⲛⲛⲁ̣ⲩ [ⲉ]ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲱ̣ⲧⲏⲣ ⲛ̄ [ⲧ]ⲉⲣⲉϥⲡⲱϩ ⲉⲧⲙⲉ[ϩ] [ⲥⲁ]ϣ̣ϥ̣ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲉ. ⲁ[ [    ] . ⲉϥ̣ . [  ] [ ] [..].[ [..].ⲛ.[ [ . . ]ⲉ̣ . [ [ . . ]ⲛ̣[ ϫⲉ̣ ⲁⲙ[ⲡⲏⲩ]ⲉ̣ ϣⲧ̣[ⲟⲣ] ⲧ︤ⲣ· ⲁ[ⲛⲁⲅ]ⲅ̣ⲉ̣ⲗ̣ⲟⲥ ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲁⲣ̣ⲭⲏⲁⲅⲅⲉ ⲗⲟ̣ⲥ ⲡⲁ̣ϩ̣ⲧⲟ̣ⲩ ⲉϫⲙ̄ ⲡ[ⲉ]ⲩ̣ϩ̣[ⲟ ⲁⲛ]ⲉⲭⲉ ⲣⲟ[ⲩ]ⲃⲓ̣[ⲙ ⲡⲁϩⲧⲟⲩ] ϩⲁⲡⲉϥ̣[ . . . . . . ] ⲙⲉ· ⲁ[ⲛⲥⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲙ] ⲕⲁ ⲛⲉⲩⲧ̣[ⲛ︤ϩ ⲉⲡⲉ] ⲥⲏⲧ· ⲁⲛⲁ̣ⲅ̣ⲅ̣[ⲉⲗⲟⲥ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ⲣ︤ⲁ ︥]̄

ⲉⲧⲙ̄[ⲡⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲁ] ⲧⲁⲡⲉ[ⲧⲁⲥⲙⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲡⲉ] ϩⲩⲙⲛ̣[ⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲛⲉⲡⲣⲉ] ⲥⲃⲩ̣ⲧ̣ⲉⲣ̣[ⲟⲥ ⲉⲧϩⲙⲟ] ⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲛⲉⲩ̣[ⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ] ⲁⲩⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ ⲛ̣̄[ⲛⲉⲩ] ⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲉⲡⲉ̣[ⲥⲏⲧ] ϩⲓⲑⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲁ[ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩ] ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣ[ⲟⲩ ϫⲓ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩ] ⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ [ⲁⲩⲱ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ̣[ⲩϭⲟⲟⲗⲉϥ ⲁⲡ] ϣⲏⲣ̣[ⲉ ⲡⲁϩⲧϥ︥] ⲉϫ̣[ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉϥ] ⲓ̈[ⲱⲧ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] . . ‧ ⲉⲧ̣ⲃⲉ̣ [ⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲉ] ⲕⲣⲓⲙⲉ. ⲁⲩ[ⲱ ⲉⲕⲙⲟ] ⲕ︤ϩ ⲛ̇ϩⲏⲧ ⲛ̄ⲧ̣[ⲟⲕ] ϩⲱⲥⲧⲉ ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲉ̣[ⲧⲁⲅ] ⲅⲉⲗ̣ⲓ̣ⲕⲏ ⲧ[ⲏ]ⲣ︤ⲥ [ϣⲧⲟⲣ] ⲧ︤ⲣ· ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱ[ϣ︤ⲃ] [ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲓ̈]ϩ̣ⲉ. ϫⲉ [ ] [    ] . . ⲉ . [ ] [     ]ⲛⲁ[ ]ⲉ [ ] [    ] . . . [ ] [    ] . ⲁ[ ] [    ] . . [ ]

col. A: 8 [ⲛ̄ⲁⲧ]ⲙⲟⲩ Em Em2 : [ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ]ⲟⲟⲩ HM ǁ 9 [ⲃⲁⲗ ϫ]ⲱⲧⲉ Em Em2 ǁ 11 ⲧ[ϭⲟ]ⲙ̣ [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ]ⲛⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦‑ Em Em2 ǁ 16 [ⲥⲁ]ϣ̣ϥ̣ⲉ Em Em2 : [ϩ]ϥ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲉ HM ǁ 22 ]ⲛ̄[ HM ǁ 23 ϫⲉ̣ Funk; ⲁⲙ[ⲡⲏⲩ]ⲉ̣ Em Em2: “die Unterwelt” (ⲁⲙ[ⲛⲧ]ⲉ̣) Schenke ǁ 26 ⲡⲁ̣ϩ̣ⲧⲟ̣ⲩ Em Em2 : ⲡ̣ⲱ̣ⲧ ⲉ̣ⲩ̣‑ HM ǁ 27 ⲡ[ⲉ]ⲩ̣ϩ̣[ⲟ Em Em2 ǁ 31 ⲕⲁ ⲛⲉⲩⲧ[ⲛ︤ϩ Em Em2 : ⲕⲁⲛ ⲉⲩⲧ[ⲙ̄ⲉⲓ HM ǁ 32 ⲁⲛⲁ̣ⲅ̣ⲅ̣[ⲉⲗⲟⲥ] Em2 ǁ col. B 1–15 ⲉⲧⲙ̄[ⲡⲃⲟⲗ usque ad ⲙ̄ⲡⲉϥ]|ⲓ̈[ⲱⲧ Em2, partly reconstructed already in Em ǁ 1–2 ⲡⲕⲁ]ⲧⲁⲡⲉ[ⲧⲁⲥⲙⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣⲡⲉ] : ⲡⲕⲁ]ⲧⲁⲡⲉ[ⲧⲁⲥⲙⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓ̈ⲱⲧ] Em  ǁ 21 ⲉⲧ̣ⲃⲉ̣ [ⲟⲩ ⲉ?‑] Plisch Funk; post ⲟⲩ add ϭⲉ Plisch  ǁ 26 ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱ[ϣ︤ⲃ] Em Em2 : ⲛ̣̄[ⲧ]ⲁϥ̣ⲟ̣ⲩⲱ[ϣⲃ̄] HM ǁ 27 [ⲇⲉ] Em Em2 ǁ

146

Text and Translation

Frag. 1A (hair side) [ⲣ︦ⲃ︦] [    ]ⲟ̣ⲥ ⲉⲡⲉⲓ̈ [    ]ⲁ ⲉⲓ̈ⲙⲟ [ⲕ︤ϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ ⲉ]ⲙⲁⲧⲉ [    ]ⲙⲟ̣ⲩⲟⲩⲧ [   ] ϩⲓⲧⲙ︥ⲡⲗⲁ [ⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲓⲏ︦ⲗ︦· ⲱ ⲡⲁ [ⲓ̈ⲱⲧ] ⲉ̣ϣϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛ [ϣϭⲟⲙ] ⲙ̣ⲁⲣⲉⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲁ [ⲡⲟⲧ ⲥ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲧ. ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩ [    ] . ϩⲓⲧ︤ⲛⲕⲉ [     ] . ⲛ̄ⲣⲉϥⲣ̄ [     ] . ⲉⲩϣⲁ(ⲛ) [ ]ⲡ̣ⲓⲏ︦ⲗ︦ [ ]ⲁ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [   ⲉⲣ]ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲟ̣ⲩϫⲁⲓ̈ [ⲛⲁϣ]ⲱⲡⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟ [ⲥⲙ]ⲟ̣ⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄:– [ⲧⲟ]ⲧ̣ⲉ ⲟ̣ⲛ ⲁⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ [ⲡ]ⲁ̣ϩⲧ̣ϥ︥ ⲉϫⲛ̣̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧ̣ [ⲙ̄]ⲡ̣ⲉϥⲓ̣̈ⲱⲧ [ⲉ]ϥϫ̣ⲱ̣ [ⲙ̄]ⲙⲟⲥ‧ ϫ̣[ⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁⲓ̈] [ⲱ]ⲧ‧ ⲙⲏ[ ] [  ]ⲧ . ⲙ . [ ] [  ] . ⲡⲟ[ ] [  ]ⲡ̣ⲙ[ ] [  ]ⲧ ϯⲟ̣[ⲩⲱϣ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

ⲉⲙⲟⲩ ϩⲛ︥ⲟⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁⲡⲱϩⲧ︥ ⲉ ⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲉ̣ ϫⲙ︥ⲡⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ· ⲁⲗⲗⲁ̣ [ⲉ]ⲓ̈ ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲧ[ⲉ ⲉ]ⲧ ⲃⲉ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁ[ⲧⲉ] ⲉ̣ ⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ [ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁ]ⲙ̣ ⲙⲛ̣̄ⲓ̈ⲥⲁⲁⲕ̣ [ⲙⲛ̄ⲓ̈]ⲁ̣ ⲕⲱⲃ̣‧ ϫ̣ⲉ̣ ⲥ̣[ⲉⲛⲁ] ⲁϩⲉⲣⲁ[ⲧⲟ]ⲩ̣ [ϩⲙ︥ⲡ]ⲉ ϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡϩⲁⲡ̣ [ⲉ]ⲓ̈ ⲛⲁϩⲙⲟⲟ̣ⲥ ϩⲓⲡ̣[ⲁ] ⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ̣ ⲧⲁϯϩ[ⲁⲡ] ⲉⲡⲕⲟ̣ⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲥ̣[ⲉⲛⲁ] [ϫ]ⲟⲟⲥ ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ̈ ϫⲉ̣ ⲉ [  ]ⲁⲑ . . [ ] [ ] [    ] . . [ ] [    ]ⲁϫ[ ] [    ]ⲁ̣ⲓ̈[ ] [    ]ⲁ̣ . [ ] ⲕ̣ . [  ] . ⲧ . [ ] . . ⲁ ⲥⲱ . . [ⲉⲧ]ⲃ̣ⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ̣ⲩⲧⲁⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϩⲓ̣ϫ̣ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲕⲁϩ̣· ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁ̣[ⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ⲉ]ϣ̣[ϫ]ⲉ [ⲟⲩⲛ̄ϣϭⲟ]ⲙ [ⲙⲁ]ⲣⲉ [ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲁⲡⲟⲧ] ⲥ̣ⲁⲁⲧ: [ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲡⲓ̈ⲱⲧ] ⲛⲁϥ ⲙ̄ [ⲡⲙⲉϩⲥ]ⲉⲡ̣ⲥⲛⲁⲩ [ϫⲉ ⲱ̄] ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ︤ⲅ︦

col. A: 4–5 [ϫⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ]ⲙ̣ⲟ̣ⲩⲟⲩⲧ | [ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈] ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄‑ Plisch ǁ 10–12 [ϩⲟⲧⲃ]ⲧ̣̄ ϩⲓⲧ︤ⲛⲕⲉ|[ⲗⲁⲟⲥ or: ⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ] ⲛ̄ⲣⲉϥⲣ̄|[ⲛⲟⲃⲉ] Plisch ǁ 11–12 ⲛ̄ⲣⲉϥⲣ̄|[ⲛⲟⲃⲉ? Funk ǁ 12 ]ⲉ HM ǁ 20–21 ϫⲉ]|[ⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲣ]ⲉ̣‑ Em Em2 ǁ 22 [ⲛⲁϣ]ⲱⲡⲉ : [ϣ]ⲱⲡⲉ Plisch ǁ 24 [ⲧⲟ]ⲧ̣ⲉ ⲟ̣ⲛ Em Em2: “Wahrlich, … wiederum” Schenke : [ⲉ]ⲓ̣ⲉ ⲟ̣ⲛ HM ǁ 26 [ⲙ̄]‑ Em2 : [ⲉ]‑ HM ǁ 27–28 ϫ̣[ⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ]|[ⲱ]ⲧ HM Em2 ǁ 32 ]ⲧ ϯⲟ̣[ⲩⲱϣ?] Funk : ]ⲧ ϯⲥ̣[ⲃⲧⲱⲧ] HM : [ⲉⲓ̈] Plisch ǁ col. B: 8 ⲛⲁⲓ without trema : 10 ⲥ̣[ⲉⲛⲁ]‑ Em Em2 : ⲉ̣[ⲩⲛⲁ]ϣ‑ HM : ⲉ̣[ⲩⲛⲁ]‑ Plisch : “Denn wenn sie” Schenke ǁ 11 [ϩⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲉ‑ Em2 : [ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲉ‑ HM ǁ 15 ⲥ̣[ⲉⲛⲁ]‑ HM : ⲉ̣[ⲩⲛⲁ]‑ Em Em2 ǁ 24 [ⲉⲧ]ⲃ̣ⲉ HM ǁ 27 ⲉ]ϣ̣[ϫ]ⲉ Em Em2 : ⲉ]ϣ̣[ⲱⲡ]ⲉ HM ǁ 30 [ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ] Funk : [ⲁⲡⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] Em Em2 ǁ 32 [ϫⲉ ⲱ̄] ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ϣⲏⲣⲉ Em2 ǁ

147

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frag. 4B (hair side) [ⲛⲁ       ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] . [ ] ⲣ[ ] ⲉ[ ] . [ ] ⲟ[ ] ⲛⲁ[ ] ⲛ . [ ] ⲁⲡϣⲏ̣ⲣⲉ ⲟ[ⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲉϩϣⲟ̣[ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ] ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲡ. ϫⲉ ⲱ̄ [ⲡⲁⲓ̈] ⲱⲧ⳿ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲡ[  ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ⲣ̄︤ⲅ︦]

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

col. A: 1 [ⲛⲁ?] Funk ǁ 29 ⲁⲡϣⲏ̣ⲣⲉ in ekthesis; ⲟ[ⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] Em Em2 ǁ

148

Text and Translation

Frag. 4B (flesh side) [ⲣ̄︤ⲇ︦] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]. [ ]ⲉ [ ]ⲙ̣ [ ]ⲧ‧ [ ]ⲥ [ ]ⲙ̄︤ⲛ︥̄ [ ].ⲥ [   ]ⲱⲗ̣ . ϥ̣‧ ⲁϥ [ⲧⲣⲁ]ϫ̣ⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ [ⲧⲗⲉ]ⲓⲧⲟⲩⲣⲅⲓⲁ ϣⲁ(ⲛ) [ⲧϥ︥ⲃ]ⲱⲕ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩ·

col. B: 29–30 ⲁϥ|[ⲧⲣⲁ]ϫ̣ⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Funk : ⲁϥ|[ⲉⲓ ⲉ]ϫ̣ⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Em2 ǁ 31–32 ϣⲁ(ⲛ)|[ⲧϥ̄ⲃ]ⲱⲕ Em2 : ϣⲁ(ⲛ)|[ϯⲃ]ⲱⲕ Funk ǁ

149

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frags. 8 + 4B (flesh side) [     ] . ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [     ] ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ [ ]ϩ̣︤ⲙⲡⲧ [ ]ϥ̄ ⲁ [ ] . ⲛ: [ ]. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] . [ ] ⲉ[ ] ⲉ[ ] . [ ] . [ ] . [ ] . [ ] ⲟⲩ̣[ ] ] ⲧⲣ[  ] . [ ⲡⲣⲟ̣ⲫⲏⲧ̣ⲏ̣[ⲥ‧ ⲡⲉ] ϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛ̄ϭ̣[ⲓⲡⲥⲱⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ ϫⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ⲕⲗⲏⲣ[ⲟⲥ ⲟ]ⲩ ⲟⲧⲃ︥ ⲉⲡⲱⲧⲛ︥. ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲇⲉ] ⲙⲛ︥ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲟⲥ̣[ⲉ]

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ⲣ̄︤ⲉ︦]

ⲉⲡⲱ̣[ⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲛ̄[ ⲁⲩⲛ[ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟ[ ⲛ̄ⲁ . [ .[ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ⲡ]ϣ̣ⲉ ⲙ̣̄[ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̣̄[ ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̄[ ⲡϣⲉ . [

col. A: 5 ]ⲁ̣ⲛ: Em : ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏ̣ⲛ: HM ǁ 27–28 ⲡⲉ]|ⲡⲣⲟ̣ⲫⲏⲧ̣ⲏ̣[ⲥ‧ Funk ǁ 29 ⲛ̇ϭ̣[ⲓⲡⲥⲱⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ Em Em2 ǁ col. B: 30 ⲡϣⲉ ⲙ̣[ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ . . ] Funk ǁ 32 ⲡϣⲉⲣ̣[ HM ǁ

150

Text and Translation

Frags. 8 + 4A (hair side) [ⲣ︤ⲋ︦] [ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲙⲛ]ⲧϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ‧ [ⲡϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲕⲁ ⲛⲟ]ⲃⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ‧ [ ]ⲧ̣ ⲉⲣⲟ [     ⲉⲓⲙ]ⲏ̣ⲧⲓ ⲙ̄ [ ]ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ [ ]ⲩ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [    ]ⲁⲙ . [  ] [    ]ⲁⲏ . . ⲉ [   ϩ]ⲁⲓ̈ⲃⲉⲥ [    ]ⲣⲱ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲧⲏ

5

10

15

20

25

30

ⲣϥ︥ ⲛ̄ⲛ . [ ⲛ̄ⲁⲅ̣ⲁⲑ[ⲟⲛ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉ̣[ ⲱ[ ⲧ.[ ..[ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ].ⲁ [ ]ⲁⲓ̈ [      ⲡⲉ]ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ̄︤ⲥ︥̄ [ ]. [ ]. [ ].. [ ]. [ ] . ⲏⲩ [     ]ϩ[  ] . ⲁ [   ⲛ̄ϣ]ⲟⲙ︤ⲛ︦ⲧ̣ ⲛ̄ϩⲟ ⲟ̣[ⲩ ϯⲛⲁ]ϫⲓⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︥ ⲉ[ⲧⲡ]ⲉ ⲛ︤ⲙⲙⲁⲓ̈‧ ⲧⲁ [ⲧ]ⲥ̣ⲁⲃⲉⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︥ ⲉ [ⲛ]ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩ

col. A: 1 [ . . ⲧⲙ︦ⲛ︦]ⲧϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ HM ǁ 4 ⲉⲓ?ⲙ]ⲏ̣ⲧⲓ Funk ǁ 5 ]ⲧ̣ⲣⲟ HM ǁ 31 ϩ]ⲁⲓ̈ⲃⲉⲥ “very uncertain” Em ǁ col. B: 1 ⲛ̄ⲛⲁ̣[ HM Em2 ǁ 3 ⲡⲉ̣[ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ HM ǁ 26–27 ]ⲧ̣ⲏⲩ|[ⲧⲛ︥ Funk ǁ 27–28 ϩ̣ⲁ|[ⲑⲏ? ⲛ̄ϣ] ⲟ̣ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ Funk; ⲛ̄‑ not necessary Em ǁ 29 ϯⲛⲁ]ϫⲓ Em Em2 : ⲧⲁ]ϫⲓ HM ǁ 30 ⲉ[ⲧⲡ]ⲉ HM ǁ 31–32 ⲉ|[ⲛ]ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥‑ Em Em2 : ⲉ|[ⲣ]ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥‑ HM ǁ

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

151

Frag. 1B (hair side)               ⲣ︤ⲍ̣︦ [ⲙⲉⲓ ⲉ]ⲛ̣ⲁⲩ̣ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ· ⲙ̣̄[ⲡⲣ̄ϣⲧⲟ]ⲣⲧⲣ︥ ϭⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ[ⲧⲛ︥]ϣⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̣̈[‧] ⲡⲉϫⲁⲛ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ̣ ⲡϫ[ⲟ]ⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲕⲛⲁ ⲟⲩⲟ̣ⲛ̣[ϩ]︤ⲕ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ [ⲁ]ϣ ⲛ̄ⲥⲙⲟⲧ ⲏ̄ ⲉⲕ [ⲛ]ⲁⲉⲓ ϩⲛ︥ⲁϣ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ [ⲙ]ⲁ ⲙⲁⲧⲁⲙⲟⲛ: [ⲁ]ϥ̣ⲟⲩⲟϣⲃ︥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲓ̈ⲱ ϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ‧ ϫⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ⳿ ⲉⲕϣⲁ(ⲛ) ⲉⲓ̈ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲟⲩⲟⲛϩⲕ︥ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ. ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲟⲩⲟ ⲛϩⲕ︥ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲉⲕ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣϥ︥· ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲉⲕ⳿ⲉ ⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲕ̣ⲉ̣ⲉⲟ̣ⲟⲩ. ϫ̣ⲉ ⲕⲁⲥ⳿ ⲉⲛ̣ⲁ̣ⲉϣ̣ϥ̣ⲓ ϩⲁ ⲣⲟϥ· ⲙⲏ̣[ⲡⲟ]ⲧ̣ⲉ ⲛ̄ ⲧⲛ︥ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ̣[ⲣⲟⲕ ⲛ̄]ⲧⲛ︥ ⲕⲁ ⲧⲟ[ⲟⲧⲛ︥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩⲁⲑⲟⲧ̣[ⲉ‧] ⲁϥⲟⲩ[ⲱϣⲃ︥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲡⲥⲱ] ⲧⲏⲣ. ϫⲉ̣ ϯ̣[ⲛⲁϥ]ⲓ ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟ]ⲗ ⲙ̄ⲙⲱⲧⲛ︥ [ⲛ̄ⲑⲟ]ⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲉ̣[ⲧⲛ̄]ⲟ ⲛ̄ϩⲟ ⲧⲉ ϩⲏⲧ̣[ⲥ︥] ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̣︥ⲛⲁⲩ. ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲧ︤ⲛⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ· ⲁⲗ ⲗⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϫⲱϩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ϣⲁⲛϯⲃⲱⲕ⳿ ⲉ

5

10

15

20

25

30

ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ϣⲁ[ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲓ̈ⲱ[ⲧ ⲉ] ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧ̣[ⲛ̄ⲓ̈]ⲱ̣ⲧ̣ [ⲡⲉ·] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡ[ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉ] ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︥ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲉ· ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲣϣ[ⲁ](ⲛ) ⲟⲩⲁ⳿ ϩⲱ̇[ⲛ] ⲉϩⲟ[ⲩⲛ] ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̄, ϥⲛⲁ[ⲣ]ⲱ̣[ⲕϩ︥]‧ [ⲁ]ⲛ̣ⲟⲕ̣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲕ̣[ⲱϩⲧ︥] [ⲉ]ⲧ̣ϫ̣ⲉ̣ⲣⲟ· ⲡ[ⲉⲧϩⲏⲛ] ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟ̣[ⲓ̈ ⲉϥ] ϩⲏⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ ⲉ[ⲡⲕ]ⲱ̣ ϩⲧ︥· ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏⲩ ⲉ ⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈, ⲉϥⲟⲩ ⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ︥: ⲧ[ⲉ]ⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ [ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ [ⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⲭ̣ⲟ̣[ⲣⲉ]ⲩ̣ [ⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲟ̣[ⲩⲱ] [ϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ̈[‧] ⲁϥ[  ] [ . . ] . ⲛ̣̄ϭ̣ⲓⲡⲥ̣[ⲱⲧⲏⲣ‧] [ⲁϥⲁϩⲉⲣ]ⲁ̣ⲧ̣ϥ︥ [ⲁⲛⲣ̄] [ⲟ]ⲩ̣[ⲕⲗⲟⲙ] ⲉⲛⲕ̣[ⲱ] [ⲧ]ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ· ⲡⲉϫ̣ⲁ̣[ϥ] ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ⳿ ⲉ[ⲓ̈ϩⲛ︥] ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲛ̣̄[ⲑⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲛⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣ[ⲏⲙ‧] ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏ(ⲛ) ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓ̈ϩⲛ̣︥ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲙⲏⲧⲉ· ⲁ̣[ⲛ] ⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙ̣[ⲏⲛ]

col. A: 5 ϫⲉ̣ in ekthesis ǁ 19 ⲉⲛ̣ⲁ̣ⲉϣ̣ϥ̣ⲓ Em Em2 : ⲉⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϣ̣ϥ̣ⲓ HM ǁ 25 ϯ̣[ⲛⲁϥ]ⲓ Em2 : ϥ̣[ⲱⲧⲉ] Em ǁ 26 [ⲛ̄ⲑⲟ]ⲧⲉ Em2 ǁ col. B: 17 ⲧ[ⲉ]ⲛⲟⲩ in ekthesis ǁ 19–21 ⲭ̣ⲟ̣[ⲣⲉ]ⲩ̣|[ⲉ] ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟ̣[ⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] | [ⲛⲙ̄]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ̈[‧] cf. also Yingling ǁ 20–21 ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ϩ̣[ⲩⲙⲛⲉ]|[ⲟⲩⲉ?] ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ̈? Funk ǁ 21–25 ⲁ̣ϥ[ϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩ]ⲉ̣ ⲛ̣̄ϭ̣ⲓ̣ⲡⲥ̣[ⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲉⲙⲡ]ⲁⲧϥ[ϣⲉ ⲁⲛⲣ̄ⲟⲩⲕⲗⲟⲙ] ⲉⲛⲕ[ⲱⲧ]ⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ Yingling  ǁ 31 ⲁ̣[ⲛ]‑ Em2 : “[Wir] antworteten” Schenke : ⲁ̣[ϥ]‑ HM ǁ

152

Text and Translation

Frag. 1B (flesh side) ⲣ̣︤ⲏ̣︦ [ⲥⲉ]ϫ̣ⲓ ϣ̣[ⲟ]ϫⲛⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈. [ⲛ̄ϭⲓ]ⲛ̣[ⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲱϣ [ⲉⲕⲁ ⲡⲕⲟ]ⲥ̣ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ ⲥ̣ⲱⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛ︤ⲅⲟⲩϣ︤ⲙ ⲙⲟ ⲉⲣⲟϥ· ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏ ⲏⲧⲉ ϭⲉ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϯ [ⲗ]ⲩ̣ⲡⲏ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟ [ⲃⲉ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲕ̣ⲟ̣ⲥⲙⲟⲥ. [ⲁⲗⲗ]ⲁ̣ ϯ̣[ⲣ]ⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ [ⲧⲏⲩⲧ]ⲛ̄ ϫⲉ ⲁ̣ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲛ̣̄ [ⲙⲓϣⲉ] ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ̣ ϩ̣ⲙ̣︥ [ⲡⲕⲟⲥ]ⲙⲟⲥ· ⲥⲟⲩ̣(ⲛ) ⲧ̣[ⲏⲩ]ⲧ̣︤ⲛ ϭⲉ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲧ̣ⲉⲧⲛⲉϯϩⲏⲩ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲟⲓ̈. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁⲣⲁ ϣⲉ ⲉϫⲙ︥ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︥ϩ̣ⲱⲃ: ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ̣ [ϩ]ⲁ ⲙⲏⲛ· ⲁⲛⲟⲕ [ⲡ]ⲉ̣ ⲡ[ϣⲏ]ⲣ̣ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲟ [ϩ]ⲁ̣ [ⲙⲏⲛ‧] ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡ̣[ⲉ] [ⲧⲉϩⲓ]ⲏ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ[ⲟϣⲉ] [ⲉⲧ]ⲥⲟⲩ[ⲧⲱⲛ ϩⲁ] [ⲙⲏ]ⲛ̣· ⲁ̣[ⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ] [ⲡⲟ]ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ ⲛ̣̄[ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ·] ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︥[ⲥⲉⲓ] [ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ· ϯⲙⲓϣⲉ [ⲉϫ]ⲛ̣︥ⲧⲏⲩⲧ︤ⲛ. ⲛ̄ⲧⲱ [ⲧⲛ︥ ϩ]ⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︥ ⲁ̣ⲣⲓⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲁ ⲙ̣ⲏⲛ· ⲥⲉϫⲟⲟⲩ [ⲙ̄]ⲙ̣ⲟⲓ̣̈ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ϯ [ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲱϣ ⲉϫⲉⲩⲧⲏⲩ

5

10

15

20

25

30

ⲧⲛ︥ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ[· ⲉⲧⲃⲉ] ⲟⲩ ⲱ̄ ⲣⲱ[ⲙⲉ  ] ⲙ̣̄ ⲙⲱⲧ︤ⲛ . [  ] . . · ϯ̣ ⲟⲩⲱϣ̣ ⲉ̣ϫ̣[ⲡ]ⲟ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ [ⲉ]ϫⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲕⲟ ⲥⲙⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲗ̣ⲗ̣ⲁ̣ ⲗⲩ ⲡⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲉ̣ⲧⲃⲉ̣ [ⲡⲕⲟ] ⲥⲙⲟⲥ̣ ϩⲱⲥ ⲣⲱ ⲉ̣[ⲙ] ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟ̣[ⲩⲛ] ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ̣[‧ ⲙ̄] ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ϫⲓⲛⲧ̣ⲉⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ· ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ· ⲁⲓ̈ϫⲣⲟ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ‧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱ ⲧⲛ︥ ⲇⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲧⲣⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲣⲟ ⲉ ⲣⲱⲧⲛ̣̄ ϩ̣ⲁⲙⲏⲛ· ⲁⲓ̈ ⲣ̄ⲣ̣ⲙ︥ϩ[ⲉ] ϩ̣ⲙ̣︥ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲱ]ⲧ̣ⲛ̣︥ ϩ̣ⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩ ⲧⲛ︥ [ⲁⲣⲓⲣ]ⲙ︥ϩⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ‧ ⲙ̣̄[ⲙⲟϥ ϩ]ⲁⲙⲏⲛ:– [ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲥⲉ]ⲛⲁ̣ⲧⲥⲟⲓ̣̈ ⲛ̄ [ⲟⲩϩⲙ︤ϫ ⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲟⲩⲭ̣ⲟ [ⲗⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧ]ⲛ̣̄ ⲇⲉ ϫⲓ [ⲛ]ⲏ̣[ⲧⲛ︥ ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲱⲛϩ︥ ⲙ︤ⲛ ⲡ̣ⲉⲙ̣[ⲧⲟ]ⲛ ϩⲁⲙⲏ(ⲛ)‧ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕ[ⲟⲛ]ⲥ̣︤ⲧ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩ ⲗⲟⲅⲭⲏ [ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲥⲡⲓⲣ· ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲛ̣ⲁⲩ. ⲙⲁ ⲣⲉϥⲣ̄ⲙⲛ̄︤ⲧ︥ⲣⲉ. ⲁⲩ ⲱ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ⳿ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉϥ ⲙⲛ̄︤ⲧ︥ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏ(ⲛ)‧

col. A: 1 [ⲥⲉ]ϫ̣ⲓϣ̣[ⲟ]ϫⲛⲉ Em Em2 : [ . . ] . ⲡ̣ϣ̣[ⲟ]ϫⲛⲉ HM ǁ 2 [ⲛ̄ϭⲓ]ⲛ̣[ⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲱϣ Em Em2 emend the text thus. The manuscript reads ⲟⲩϣϣ ǁ 11 [ⲙⲓϣⲉ] Em2 : “[gekämpft]” Schenke : [ⲱⲥⲕ] HM ǁ 21 [ⲧⲡⲩⲅ]ⲏ̣ ⲙ̄[ⲡ]ⲙⲟ[ⲟⲩ Em. This line is in ekthesis Em ǁ 23 ⲁ̣[ⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ] Em Em2 ǁ 24–25 [ⲡⲟ]ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲕ ⲛ̣̄[ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ] | ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄[ⲥⲉⲓ‧] : cf. MS C, 27,8–10 ǁ col. B: 1 post ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ add. [ⲉⲧⲃⲉ] Funk ǁ 2 ⲟⲩ ⲱ̄ ⲣⲱ[ⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ] Em Em2 ǁ 4 ⲉ̣ϫ̣[ⲡ]ⲟ Em Em2 : ⲉϫ̣ⲱ̣ HM ǁ 5 [ⲉ]ϫⲙ̄‑ or [ⲁ]ϫⲙ̄‑ Em ǁ 6–7 ⲁⲗ̣ⲗ̣ⲁ̣ ⲗⲩ|ⲡⲓ Em Em2 ǁ 11 ⲧ̣ⲉⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ : MS perhaps reads ⲧⲉⲛⲩ; ⲟ written perhaps above ⲛ, in lacuna ǁ 18 ϩ̣ⲙ̣̄‑ HM ǁ 20 [ⲁⲣⲓⲣ]ⲙ̄ϩⲉ Em Em2 : [ⲉⲣⲣ̄]ⲙ̄ϩⲉ HM ǁ 21–25 [ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲥⲉ]ⲛⲁ̣ⲧⲥⲟⲓ̣̈ ⲛ̄|[ⲟⲩϩⲙ︤ϫ‧ ⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲟⲩⲭ̣ⲟ|[ⲗⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧ]ⲛ̣̄ ⲇⲉ ϫⲓ | [ⲛ]ⲏ̣[ⲧⲛ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲱⲛϩ̄ Em Em2; at the end of line 23 HM reads ⲟⲩⲗⲟ ǁ

153

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frags. 2B + 5 + 7 + 11 (flesh side) [ ] [ ] ⲁ̣[ ϩ . [ ⲡⲉ] ⲧⲛⲁ̣[ ϯⲛⲁ[   ]ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣[  ] ϩⲱ̣ ϩ[ⲁⲙⲏ]ⲛ· ⲡⲉ(ⲛ) ⲧⲁϥ[  ] ⲉ̣ⲣⲟⲓ̈‧ ⲁ ⲛⲟⲕ̣ [ϩⲱ] ϯⲛ̣ⲁⲧⲣⲉϥ . [   ] ⲛ̣ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲓ̈ ϩⲁ ⲙ̣[ⲏⲛ‧] ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛ[ϥ̄] ϫ[ⲓ] ⲁ̣ⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲙ[ⲁ] [ⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ. ⲡⲁ[ⲓ̈] ⲟⲩ̣ϣ︤ⲙⲙⲟ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ̣ ϩⲁⲙ[ⲏ]ⲛ· [ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲉⲣⲉ̣ϥ̣ ϫⲱⲕ [ⲇⲉ] ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ ⲭⲟ[ⲣⲓⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ̣[ϥ‧ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧] ]. [ [ ]. [ ]ⲟⲩⲛ̣ [ ] ⲉ̣ⲣⲟ̣ⲕ [      ϩⲁ]ⲙ̣ⲏ(ⲛ)‧ [ ] [ ]ⲕ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ⲥ̄⳨]ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ϩ[ⲁⲙⲏⲛ]‧ ϯ [ⲛⲁ]ϯ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲟ[ⲩⲟⲉⲓ] ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩ(ⲛ) [ⲉⲣ]ⲟ̣ⲕ ϩⲁⲙⲏ[ⲛ‧] ⲟⲩ

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ⲣ︤ⲑ︦]

ⲟⲓⲕⲟ[ⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ ⲧⲉⲧ . [ [ . . ]ⲛⲛ[ [  ⲥ̄]⳨ⲟ︤̄[ⲥ︥̄ [ ] [ ] ⲡⲟ[ ⲛⲧⲕ̄ⲡ[ ϫⲓⲛⲧⲁ̣[ⲣⲭⲏ ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ [ⲛ̄ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ· . [ϫⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ] ϫ̣ⲓ ϩⲁ[ⲓ̈]ⲃⲉⲥ ϩ[ⲁⲣⲟⲕ ⲛ̄] ϭⲓⲛⲉⲧϩⲓⲟⲩ̣[ⲛⲁⲙ] ⲁ̣[ϫ]ⲛ̣̄ⲛⲉⲧϩⲓϩ̣[ⲃⲟⲩⲣ] [ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉ]ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲛ[ [   ]ⲛ̣ⲁⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ[ⲃⲟⲗ] [ ]ϫⲉ[  ] [ ] [  ]ⲛ̣̄ϣⲟ[ⲣⲡ︥‧ ⲧⲱ] ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ [ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ] ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̣̄[⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ϫⲓⲥⲉ] ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲕ [ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛⲅ̄] ϫⲓⲥⲉ ϩⲛ︥ⲧ[ⲡⲉ ⲉϣ] ϫ̣ⲉ ⲡⲉⲕⲟⲩⲱ̣ϣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ ⲡⲁⲓ̈· ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̣̄⳨ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣̄︥ ⲙ̣̄ⲡ̣ⲣ̄ⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲁⲛⲅ̄ ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̄ⲙⲁ̣ⲟ⳿ ϯⲛⲁ ⲙⲁϩⲕ︥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ̣ ϩⲛ︥ⲧⲁ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄[ⲙⲁ]ⲟ̣· [ϯ̣] ⲛⲁⲧ̣ⲁⲗⲉ ⲉ[ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ] ϫⲱⲕ̣ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̣̄⳨ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣︥̄ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲁϣ[ⲧ︥] ⲉⲣⲟⲕ

col. A: 6 ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣[ⲟϥ] HM Em2  ǁ 8 “der mich [gesehen] hat” (ⲁϥⲛ̣[ⲁⲩ] ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈) Plisch : ⲁϥϫ̣[ⲱϩ] ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ “possible” Em ǁ 9 [ϩⲱ] Em Em2 ǁ 15 [ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲉⲣⲉ̣ϥ : ⲉⲣⲟ̣ϥ̣ HM ǁ 15–18 [ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲉⲣⲉ̣ϥ|ϫⲱⲕ [ⲇⲉ] ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ]|ⲭⲟ[ⲣⲉⲓⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ] | ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ̣[ϥ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧] Em3; ϫⲱⲕ in ekthesis ǁ 30–32 ϯ|[ⲛⲁ]ϯ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲟ[ⲟⲩⲉⲓ] ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩ(ⲛ) | [ⲉⲣ]ⲟ̣ⲕ ϩⲁⲙⲏ[ⲛ‧] ⲟⲩ Em Em2 ǁ col. B: 1 ⲟⲓⲕ[ⲟⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ Em Em2 : ⲟⲓⲕⲟ[ⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ “lexically less likely” Em ǁ 9 ϫⲓⲛⲧⲁ̣[ⲓ̈ Funk ǁ 11–12 ϫ̣[ⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ]|ϫⲓϩⲁ[ⲓ̈]ⲃⲉⲥ ϩ[ⲁⲣⲟⲕ] Em Em2 ǁ 14–15 ⲁ̣[ϫ]ⲛ̣̄ⲛⲉⲧϩⲓϩ̣[ⲃⲟⲩⲣ] | [ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉ]ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ̄ ⲛ[ Em Em2 Em1 ǁ 19 ⲛ̣̄ϣⲟ[ⲣ︦ⲡ︦] HM Em1 ǁ 20 post ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ add [ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ] Funk ǁ 32 ⲁϣ[ⲧ̄] Em2 : ⲁϣ[ⲁⲓ̈] HM ǁ

154

Text and Translation

Frags. 2B + 5 + 7 + 11 (hair side) [ⲣ︦ⲓ︦] [ⲉⲩⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲣⲉ [ⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲁⲙⲏ]ⲛ· ϣⲟ [ⲡ︤ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ] ⲱ̣̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄[⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] [ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϭⲱ]ⲗⲡ︥ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] [ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲙ̣[ⲁ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ·] [ ] [ ]ⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ [ ]ϣⲁⲅⲉ [ⲛⲉⲁ‧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄]ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲱ̄ [ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] ⲁ̣ⲗⲗⲁ ⲣⲁ [ϣⲉ ⲛ̄]ⲧ̣ⲟϥ ⲛ︤ⲅⲥⲟⲩ(ⲛ) [ⲡⲉⲕ]ϫ̣ⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉϥⲛⲏ̣[ⲩ] [ϣⲁⲣ]ⲟⲕ‧ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̣ [ⲣⲁϣ] ⲡⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥ̣ⲑ̣[ⲃ̄] [ⲃⲓ]ⲏ̣ⲩ ϩⲁⲙⲏ[ⲛ‧] [ⲧ]ⲙ̣ⲉϩⲥⲛ︥ⲧ[ⲉ ⲛ̄ⲭⲟⲣ] [ⲓ]ⲁ ⲙ̄[ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄‧] [      ⲁⲛ︤ⲅⲟⲩ] [ϩⲏⲕⲉ] ⲁ̣ⲛ ⲁⲗ̣ⲗ̣[ⲁ ⲁⲛⲅ︥] [ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲟ‧ ϯⲛⲁ̣ [ⲙⲁϩ︤ⲕ ⲉ]ⲃ̣ⲟ̣ⲗ ϩⲛ︥ⲧⲁ [ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲟ· ⲕⲉ ⲕ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲓ̈] ⲡ̣ⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧϣⲁⲁⲧ̣ ϫⲱⲕ· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧϭⲟϫ︤ⲃ ⲙⲟⲩ̣ϩ̣· ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ̣ⲡⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉ̣ ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ̣̄︥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲛ ⲧ̣ⲁϥ[ϩⲉ] ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ· [ⲕⲉⲕⲟ]ⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉ ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣̄︥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡ̣ⲉⲡⲗⲏ̣ ⲣⲱⲙⲁ̣ [ⲧ]ⲏⲣ︤ϥ ϫⲱⲕ

5

10

15

20

25

30

ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟⲗ [ ] [ ] [ ]ⲙ̣ⲉ [ ].ⲛ [ⲉⲓ̈ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲉⲓ̈ⲥ]ⲱⲃⲉ· [ϩⲁ]ϩ̣ ⲛ̄ⲗ̣ⲁ̣[ⲟⲥ ⲟ]ⲛ ⲁⲩ ϭⲱϣⲧ︥ [ⲉⲃⲟ]ⲗ̣ ϩⲏ̣ⲧⲕ︥· ⲟⲩⲁ ⲉϥ[ⲥⲱⲃ]ⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥⲣⲁϣⲉ̣ [ⲕ]ⲉ̣ⲟⲩⲁ⳿ ⲉϥⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲉ[ϥⲣ̄ϩⲏⲃ]ⲉ [ⲁ]ⲩ̣ⲱ ⲉϥⲛⲉϩ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣· [ϣ]ⲟⲣⲡ︤ⲕ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ [ⲡ]ⲉ ⲥ̣̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄. ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩ[ⲱ] ϯⲛ̣ⲁϣⲟⲣⲡ︤ⲧ ⲉ̣ⲣⲟⲕ· ⲛ̄ⲧ̣[ⲟ]ⲕ̣ ⲛ̣︤ⲙ[ⲙ]ⲁⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ [ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄]ⲥ̣̄︥ [ⲁⲛ]ⲟⲛ ϩⲉ(ⲛ) [   ⲁⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲛ ϩⲉ(ⲛ) [ϣⲙ︥ⲙⲟ ⲙⲛ︥ϩ]ⲉ̣ⲛ . . [ ] [ ] ⲡⲉ[ ⲛⲟ̣[ ⲡ[ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [    ⲁⲛⲟ]ⲕ ⲛ̣[ⲙ̄] ⲙⲁ[ⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡ]ⲉ̣ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ̣︤̄[ⲥ︥̄] ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣ⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ̣[ⲧⲟ]ⲩⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟ̣[ⲗ] ⲙ̣̄ ⲙ[ⲟⲕ] ⲉϥⲟⲩⲏⲩ̣ [ⲉ]

col. A: 1–5 [ⲉⲩⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲙ]ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲣⲉ usque ad ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ·] Em2 Em1 ǁ 8–9 ϣⲁⲅⲉ|[ⲛⲉⲁ‧ Funk ǁ 10–15 ⲁⲗⲗⲁ usque ad ⲉϥ̣ⲑ̣[ⲃ̄]|[ⲃⲓ]ⲏ̣ⲩ Em Em2 : “erkenne, [was der] Herr [besitzt], wenn er dich verherrlichen wird. Denn er ist reich und er wird […]” Schenke ǁ 16–19 [ⲧ]ⲙ̣ⲉϩⲥⲛⲧ[ⲉ usque ad ⲁ̣ⲛ Em3 ǁ 19–22 ⲁⲗ̣ⲗ̣[ⲁ] usque ad [ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲟ : HM Em1 ǁ col. B: 1 ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟⲗ HM ǁ 6–7 [ⲉⲓ̈ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲉⲓ̈ⲥ]ⲱⲃⲉ· | [ϩⲁ]ϩ̣ ⲛ̄ⲗ̣ⲁ̣[ⲟⲥ ⲟ]ⲛ Em2 Em1 ǁ 11 ⲉ[ϥⲣ̄ϩⲏⲃ]ⲉ Em Em2 Em1 : ⲉ[ϥϩⲏⲃ]ⲉ HM ǁ 12 post ⲉϥⲛⲉϩ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ add [ⲁⲕ]‑ HM ǁ 14 ϩ[ⲱ] Em Em2 Em1 : ϩ[ⲱⲱⲧ] HM ǁ 16 ⲛ̄ⲧ̣[ⲟ]ⲕ̣ ⲛ̣[ⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ Em Em2 ǁ 17–19 [ⲁⲛ] ⲟⲛ usque ad ⲙⲛ̄ϩ]ⲉ̣ⲛ Em1, on the basis of letter traces in B ǁ 30–32 ⲱ̄ ⲡ]ⲉ̣ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄[̄ⲥ︥̄] ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣ⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉ̣[ⲧⲟ] ⲩⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟ̣[ⲗ] ⲙ̣̄|ⲙ[ⲟⲕ] ⲉϥⲟⲩⲏⲩ̣ [ⲉ] * [ⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈‧] Em Em2 Em1 ǁ

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frag. 23 (hair side)1

155

Frag. 23 (flesh side)

p. 111 [ ] [ⲡⲉⲟⲟ]ⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲡ[ϣⲏⲛ] ⲉⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲡⲉϥⲕ̣ⲁⲣ[ⲡⲟⲥ] ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲱ]ⲛ̣︤ϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫ̣[ⲉ] [ⲉ]ⲩ̣[ⲛ]ⲁⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ̄ [ϩⲛ︥ⲛ]ⲉ̣ⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ [ϣ︤ⲙⲙ]ⲟ ⲛ̄ⲥ̣ⲉ̣ϯ̣ⲉ [ⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ]ⲁ̣ϥ̣ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] [ ]

1 3 5 7 9

p. 112 [ ] [ ]ϥ ⲛⲧϭ . [ ] . . . ϣⲓⲡⲉ̣· ⲁⲩ̣ [ⲥ]ϩⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧ̣[ⲛ̄ⲣ]ⲁ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛⲉⲧⲛ︥ⲥⲧⲟ̣[ⲗ]ⲏ̣ [ⲉⲩ] ⲛ̣ⲏⲩ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏ̣[ⲧ ⲉⲩ] ⲡ̣ⲱⲣ︤ϣ̣ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉ̣[ ] [    ]ⲕⲱ̣[ ] [ ]

111: 3–7 restored according to B Em  ǁ 112: 3–6 Em2 ǁ 1

Frag. 6 (hair side)      ] . ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[      ] . . [

Frag. 6 (flesh side)

1 2

     ] ϩⲓϫⲙ̣̄[      ] . [

1

[ ] [ ] .[ ⲥⲉ̣ⲛⲁϣ . [  ] . ⲱ̣ [ ] ⲁⲛ ⲛ̄ϭⲓϩⲉⲛⲙⲏⲏ̣[ϣⲉ] ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ̣[ [  ⲧ]ⲩⲡⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲙ[ [  ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϫ̣[ⲱⲕ ⲉ] [ⲃⲟⲗ ⲉ]ϩ̣ⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ̣ [ⲙ̄] [ⲡⲉⲥ̄]⳨̣ⲟ̣︤̄ⲥ̣︥̄ ⲛ̄[

Frag. 9 (hair side) [ ]ⲥ̣ . [      ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲁ [ ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓ [ⲁ    ⲇⲩⲛⲁ]ⲙⲓⲥ‧ ⲡϣⲉ [ ]ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ︥ [      ⲉⲃ]ⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉ [ ]ⲱⲟⲩ‧ [ ] [ ] [ ]

3 5 7 9

Frag. 9 (flesh side) [ ] [ ] [ ] . [  ] ⲥⲙⲛ︥ⲧϥ︥ [ⲉ]ⲣ̣ⲟⲛ‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲛ ⲛⲁ(ⲛ)

1 3

ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̣̄[ ]ϣ̣[   ⲙⲛ̄] ⲛⲥⲱⲥ ⲙ̣̄[ⲡⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁⲣ] ⲭⲏⲥ ⲙⲛ̣̄[ⲛⲉⲡⲣⲟ] ⲫⲏⲧⲏ[ⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛⲉ]

1 Although we can infer that this fragment originally belonged to the folio paginated 111–112 on the basis of the parallel version in B, it is difficult to establish which part of the folio it preserves.

156

Text and Translation

[ϫ]ⲉ ⲱ̇ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧ ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲛⲁ[ⲓ̈ⲁⲧⲧⲏ]ⲩ̣ [ⲧ]ⲛ̄ ϫⲉ ⲁⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱ[ⲧ [ . ]ⲉⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄ [ [  ] . [ ]ϫ . [

5 7 9

ⲁⲃⲣⲁ[ϩⲁⲙ ⲙⲛ̄ⲓⲥⲁ] ⲁⲕ ⲙ̣[ⲛ̄ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ [ ] [ ] [ ]

col. B, 2–6 ⲙ̣̄[ⲡⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁⲣ]|ⲭⲏⲥ usque ad ⲙ̣[ⲛ̄ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ] Em ǁ

Frag. 10 (hair side) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ].‧ [ ]ⲉⲁⲩ [ ]ⲉⲣⲟⲕ [ ]ⲕ·

1 3 5 7

[ ⲁⲃⲣⲁ] ϩⲁⲙ [ⲙⲛ̄ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ ⲙⲛ̄] ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ [ⲙⲛ̄ⲙⲱⲩ] ⲥⲏⲥ ⲡ . [ ⲛϣⲁ . [ ⲛⲧⲉ̣[ ⲁ.[

col. B: 1–4 ⲁⲃⲣⲁ]|ϩⲁⲙ usque ad [ⲙⲛ̄ⲙⲱⲩ]|ⲥⲏⲥ Em ǁ

Frag. 10 (flesh side) [ ] ⲕ̣ⲁ̣ⲗⲱⲥ̣ [ ] . ⲧⲥⲟ [     ⲉⲃ]ⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ [ ]ⲙ⳿ ⲉⲧ [ ]ⲛ⳿ ⲁϥ [ ]..

1 3 5

[ ] [ ] ⲧⲟ̣[ ⲧⲉⲛ̣[ ⲣ ⲉⲃⲟ̣[ⲗ [ ]

col. A: 1 ⲕ̣ⲁ̣ⲗⲱⲥ̣ : ⲁⲗⲗⲱⲥ̣ HM ǁ

Frag. 12 (hair side) ] . [  ]ⲉ̣ⲃ̣ⲧ̣[ ] . ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲣ̣[

Frag. 12 (flesh side) 1 2

Frag. 13 (hair side)     ]ⲕⲛⲁ . [

]ⲉⲛ . . [ ]ⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲩ̣[

Frag. 13 (flesh side) 1

] . ϣⲱϣ[

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frag. 14 (hair side) [     ]ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ . [ [  ] . ⲛⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙ̣[ⲁⲑⲏ] [ⲧ]ⲏⲥ‧ ⲉⲣⲉ[ [  ]ϩ̣ⲉⲛⲟⲩⲟ̣[ [   ]ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲡⲟ̣[ⲗⲓⲥ ⲉ] [ⲧⲙ]ⲙ̄ⲁⲩ‧ ⲁ[ⲛϫⲛⲟⲩ] [ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ̣[‧ ϫⲉ ⲁϣ] ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲓ̈ⲡⲟⲗ̣[ⲓⲥ‧ ⲡⲉ] ϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ[‧ ϫⲉ ⲧⲁⲓ̈] ⲧⲉ ⲑⲓⲗ︦ⲏ︦ⲙ [ [ . ⲧ]ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ̣ [ [ . . ] . ⲧⲉⲧ . [  ⲛⲁ] ⲙⲉⲣⲁⲧⲉ [ [ . ]ⲁϭ. ⲱⲛ . [ [ . ]ⲉⲛⲁⲥⲱ . [

157

Frag. 14 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

[  ] . . [    ] [    ]ϥⲟⲩọ . [ [    ]ⲙⲛ̄ⲗⲁⲁ̣[ⲩ] [  ⲉ]ⲣ̣ⲟϥ⳿ ⲟⲩ[ [  ⲗ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲩ ⲁⲙ[ [  ]ⲟϥ ϩⲓⲧⲛ̣̄[ [   ]‧ ⲁⲛϫ[ⲛⲟⲩϥ] [ⲉⲛϫ]ⲱ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ̣ⲥ̣ ϫⲉ [ⲁϣ ⲡⲉ ⲡ]ⲉⲓ̈ⲙⲁ ⲉⲧ [    ] . ⲧ ⲉⲧⲡⲉ . [    ] ⲡ̣ⲉϫⲁϥ̣ [ϫⲉ] [ⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲧⲉ] ⲧⲉⲥⲕⲏ̣[ⲛⲏ] [ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲉⲓ]ⲱ̣ⲧ ϫⲓⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ [ⲣⲭⲏ] ⲉ̣ⲟⲩϣⲡ[ⲏ] [ⲣⲉ  ]ⲧ̣ⲉ ⲉϭⲱ[

Hair side: 6–7 ⲁ[ⲛϫⲛⲟⲩ] | [ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ̣ Em : ⲁ[ⲛϫⲟⲟⲥ] | [ⲇⲉ ⲉⲡ]ⲥⲱⲧⲏ[ⲣ] HM ǁ 9 [ⲧⲁⲓ̈] Em : [ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲥ] HM ǁ Flesh side: 2 4–6 ⲟⲩ|[ⲧⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ⲗ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲩ ⲁⲙ̣[ⲁϩ]|[ⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙ]ⲟ̣ϥ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̣̄[ⲡ] HM ǁ 11–13 ⲡ̣ⲉϫⲁϥ̣ usque ad [ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲉⲓ]ⲱ̣ⲧ Em ǁ

Frags. 15 + 17 (hair side) [ ] [ ] ]. [ [ ]ⲟⲥ [ ]ⲃ̣ⲉ [ ] [ ]

1 3 5 7

[ ].[] [ ]ϣⲏ ⲣ̣[ⲏ ] . ⲡⲣⲟ ⲫ[ⲏⲧⲏⲥ ]ⲙⲟⲟⲩ [ ]ⲇ̣ⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ‧ [ ] . ⲉⲣⲟ̣ⲟⲩ‧ [ ] . . . [  ]

NB: These two columns are from the same sheet, but from two different leaves, being separated by the spine. According to HM, the folding direction of the sheet was with the hair side on the outside, in which case the right hand column used to be column A of a page, while the left hand one stood as column B of another page. The gap between the two pages in the original manuscript is unknown.

Frags. 15 + 17 (flesh side) [  ] . [ ⲛⲅ̄ . [ ⲉⲡ̣[

1

.[ .[

158

Text and Translation

ⲉⲕϩⲙ̣[ⲟⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ] ⲛⲁⲙ ⲙ̄[ⲡⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ϩⲓϫ]ⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲕⲑⲣ̣[ⲟⲛⲟⲥ   ]ⲩ [ ]ⲉ . [

3

.[ ϩ̣[

5

NB: Fragments of the same bifolio, but of two different leaves. Cf. the preceding.

Frag. 16 (hair side) ]ϣ[ ]..[ ].[ ].[

Frag. 16 (flesh side) 1 3

Frag. 18 (hair side) ] . ⲛⲉ̣[ ϩ]ⲟ̣ⲧϩⲧ̄ [ ] ⲣ̣ . ⲁ[

Frag. 18 (flesh side) 1

Frag. 19 (hair side) [   ]ϥ . [ ⲡ̣ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡ̣[ⲱ] ⲛϩ︥‧ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲩⲣ̄ⲡⲙ[ⲉ] ⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ̣[ⲅⲉ]ⲛ̣[ⲉⲁ] ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉϥⲥ̣[ϩⲓ]ⲙ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲛⲁ] ⲣ̄ⲭⲏⲣⲁ‧ [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲛⲉϥ] [ϣ]ⲏ̣ⲣⲉ ϣ[ⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲟⲣ] [ⲫⲁⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲥ̣ [

].[ ].[ ].[ ].[

ⲛⲟ̣[ ϭⲓϫ̣[ ⲁ̣ⲓ̈ . [

Frag. 19 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

[  ] . . . [ [ ] . ⲛⲉ ⲥϯ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ̣ [ⲕⲉ] ⲟ̣ⲩⲉⲓ̣ⲉ ⲥϯ ⲉⲃⲓⲱ ⲛ̄ ⲧ̣ⲱ̣[ⲧⲛ̄] ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲱ [ⲧ]ⲛ̣̄ [ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲡⲩⲅⲏ ⲙ̄ [ⲙⲟⲟⲩ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛ︦ϩ‧ [    ]ⲧ̣ⲉ ⲉ[ [    ] . . [

Hair side: 7–8 ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲟⲣ]|[ⲫⲁⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲥ̣ : [ϣ]ⲏⲣⲉ ϣ[ⲏⲙ ⲣ̄ⲁⲧⲉⲓ]|[ⲱⲧ . ]ⲉ̣ⲉ̣[ HM ǁ

Edition of P. Berol. 22220

Frag. 20 (hair side) [  ]. . [  ]ⲛ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣[ [  ]ⲡ̣ⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ. ⲁϥ . [ [  ]ⲉ̣ ϩⲱⲥ ⲉϥⲟ ⲛ̄ϭⲁ̣[ⲃ [  ] ⲁ̣ϥⲡⲱⲧ⳿ ⲉϩⲟ̣[ⲩⲛ] [ⲡ]ⲉ̣ϫⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧ̣[ⲏⲣ ⲛⲁϥ‧] [ϫⲉ] ⲱ̄ ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇ[ⲁⲥ [   ]ⲟⲩϭⲁ[ⲃ

Frag. 20 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

Frag. 21 (hair side)    ] . ⲉⲕ[ ] . [   ] . ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲁⲛ . [   ]ⲛ︤ϩ ⲛ︤ⲅⲣ̄ϩⲁⲓ̈ⲃⲉⲥ [ ]ⲟ[ ] . ⲉ̣ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲓⲕⲓ [ⲙ]ⲉ[ⲛⲟ]ⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ[ⲓ] [ⲡⲉ   ]ϫ̣ⲉ ⲛ̇ⲛ̣ⲉ[ [     ] ⲕⲁⲧ̣[ⲁ [ ]

  ]ⲡ̣ⲉⲥ[ ] ⲉ̣ . [ . ⲉ̣ ⲉⲣⲉⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ . [ ⲙ̄]ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲏ ⲛⲁⲥⲱ̣[ ]ⲙ̣ⲉⲧⲁⲛⲟⲓ̈[ⲁ ] . ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲥ︥ [ ]ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲟⲩ[ ]ⲙⲛ̄ⲉⲩ̣[

Frag. 21 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

   ] . [ ] ⲅ̣ⲁⲣ̣ [   ] ⲕ̣ⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ, ⲟⲩ . [   ]ⲉ ⲡⲉ· ⲡⲉⲕⲱ . [ ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ︥ . [ ]ⲁ[ ] . ⲁⲩ. ⲟⲩⲱ[ ]ⲡ̣[   ] . ⲙⲏⲛⲉ̣[    ] . ϩ· [      ] . [

Hair side: 4–5 ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲓⲕⲓ|[ⲙ]ⲉ[ⲛⲟ]ⲥ Em ǁ

Frag. 22 (hair side) [ ] . . ⲙ̣[   ⲉⲓ] ⲙ̣ⲏⲧⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲉⲧⲛ̣̄[ [ ] . ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄ ⲙ̄[ ] [  ]ϣ̣ⲱⲡⲉ. ⲡ . [ [  ]ⲧⲡⲉ· ⲙ̣[ [  ]ⲉⲟⲩⲁ⳿ ϫⲟ̣[ [  ] . ⲁϥ . [ [  ]ⲉⲣⲟ[

Frag. 22 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

[ ].[ [   ]ⲉⲩⲕ̣ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲩⲅ̣ⲙ[ⲁ] [  ]ⲧ̣ⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲙ̣̄[ [  ] ϩ̣ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥ̣[ⲙⲟⲥ] [ⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̄· ⲏ̄ ⲉⲧⲃ̣[ⲉ [   ]ⲗ ϩ︤ⲛⲛ̄ⲥ . [ [    ] . ⲧⲉ̣[ [     ]ⲉⲕ[

159

160

Text and Translation

Frag. 24 (hair side)   ] . [ ]ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟ[ⲥⲙⲟⲥ ]ⲟ̣ⲩ ⲛⲁⲥ ⲉ[ ]ⲛ̣ⲧⲉⲥ̣ⲕ[ ⲧ]ⲏⲣ︤ⲥ ⲉⲧ[ ]· ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉ̣[ ]ⲛϣ[ ]ⲁϩⲏ[

Frag. 24 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

Frag. 25 (hair side) ]ⲕ[ . . . ]ⲟⲩ[ ]ⲣ̣ⲱ ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏ̣[ⲏⲧⲉ ⲁⲩ]ϫ̣ⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ⲉ̣[ⲣⲟⲓ̈ ] . ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲧ̣ [ ] ⲧ̣ⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϭⲉ̣ [ ]ϣⲱⲡ[ⲉ ].[.]...[

  ] . ⲉ . ⲟⲛ . [ ]ϥϯ ⲉⲣⲟϥ̣ [ ]ⲗ̣ⲓⲧⲣⲁ ⲛ̣̄[ ]ⲗⲓⲧⲣⲁ ⲛ̄[ ]ⲟ̣ⲉ ⲛ̄ⲗⲓⲧ[ⲣⲁ ]ⲗⲓⲧ̣[ⲣⲁ ]ϣⲉ[ ]..[

Frag. 25 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

    ]ϥ[  ] . ⲁ[ ⲧⲉⲛⲟ]ⲩ̣ ϭ̣ⲉ ⲱ ⲡⲁ[ ]ⲟ̣ⲕ ϩⲛ︥ⲟⲩⲉ︤ⲓ[ ]ⲉ︤ⲓⲟⲛ ϩⲛ︥ⲟ[ⲩ ] . ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲡ̣[ ] ⲁⲩⲱ [ ]..[].[

Hair side: 3 ϫ̣ⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ⲉ̣[ⲣⲟⲓ̈ : ⲁ̣ⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ⲉ[ HM ǁ

Frag. 26 (hair side)      ]ⲟ̣ⲣⲫ̣[ ]ⲗ̣ⲁ[ ]ⲛ[ ]ⲕ⳿ ⲉⲃⲟ[ⲗ ].[]..[

Frag. 26 (flesh side) 1 3

     ] . ⲉϥ[ ]ⲉ[ ] . ⲣ[ ]ⲩ· ⲁⲛ[ ]ⲉ . . [

Hair side: 1 ]ⲟ̣ⲣⲫ̣[ⲁⲛⲟⲥ : ]ⲱ̣ⲣ̣ⲫ̣[ HM ǁ

Frag. 27 (hair side) ]ⲛ̣[ ].ⲣ.[ ]ϥⲛ[ ]ϩⲛ̄[ ]ⲙ̄[ ]ⲉ ⲱ̄[ ] . ⲉ. ⲡⲁ[ ].[

Frag. 27 (flesh side) 1 3 5 7

   ]ⲕ̣[ ]ⲙⲁ[ ]ⲡⲟ . [ ]ⲉ̣ ⲛ̄ . [ ]..[ ]ⲛⲁ[ ]ϫⲉ ⲛ̄ . [ ]..[

Edition of Strasbourg Copte 5–7

161

Edition of Strasbourg Copte 5–7 Copte 6 + 7.7 recto ↑

ⲣ︦ⲛ︦ⲍ︦ ⲱⲛ︤ϩ ⲛⲏⲧ︤ⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣ︤ϥ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲁⲙⲱⲧ︤ⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ϭⲟⲙ ⲧⲏⲣ︤ⲥ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣ⲧ̣︤ⲙ̣ⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟ̣ⲗ̣[ⲟⲥ‧ ⲛ̄]  5 ⲧⲉ[ⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱ]ⲛ̣ϩ̣︥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲃ[ⲟⲗ] . [ ]ϯⲛⲉⲙⲁⲣ[ ] [ ]ⲙⲁ ⲛⲁⲛ [ ] [        ϩⲓϫ]ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲧⲟⲟ[ⲩ] [ ] . ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉϥ 10 [ ]ⲟ̣ⲣ̄ [ ]ϭⲟⲙ [ ]ⲉ [ ]ⲣ̣ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ 3 ⲧⲛ̄ϭⲟⲙ Sch Crum Ber : [ϥ]ϭⲟⲙ Jac  ǁ 6 “[ich] habe dir gegeben, Mar[ia]” Sch  ǁ 8 ϩⲓϫ] ⲙ̣̄ⲡⲧⲟⲟ[ⲩ] Sch : ⲉ̣ⲡⲧⲟⲟ̣[ⲩ] Jac : ⲉϫ]ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲟⲟⲩ also possible ǁ

verso →

ⲣ︦ⲛ︦ⲏ︦ ⲁⲛⲉⲛⲃⲁⲗ ϫⲱⲧⲉ ϩ︤ⲙⲙⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ⲁⲛⲉⲓⲱⲣ︤ϩ‧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ, ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ‧ ⲙ︤ⲛⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ, ⲧⲏⲣ︤ϥ ⲛ̄ [ⲧⲉϥ]ⲙ̣ⲛ̣︦ⲧ̣︦ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ‧ ⲁϥϯϩⲓ̣ⲱ̣ⲱⲛ  5 ⲛ̣̄ⲧϭⲟⲙ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ[ⲛⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲁⲡ]ⲟ̣ⲥ ⲧ̣ⲟⲗⲟⲥ‧ ⲛ̄[ ] ⲁ̣ⲩⲣ̄ⲑⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡ̣[ ] ⲟ̣ⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ . [ ] ⲙⲁϥ‧ ⲱ[ ] 10 ⲥⲉⲧ̣[ ] ⲛⲟ̣[ ] ϫⲓ̣[ ] ⲧ̣[ ]

162

Text and Translation

Copte 7, 2.6.4.3 recto ↑

verso →

ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲛ̣̄ . . ϥⲥⲱ . [ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ] ϫⲉ ⲥ[ⲉⲛ]ⲁϫⲓ ϩⲁ[ⲓ̈ⲃⲉⲥ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲕ] ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲡ[ⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ]ⲧ̣ϣⲟ[ⲟⲡ ϩⲓ] ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲛ̣[ⲁⲙ ⲁϫ]ⲛ̄ⲛ[ⲉⲧϩⲓϩⲃⲟⲩⲣ] [ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲛ̄ a few lines missing [ⲱ̄] ⲡⲉ[ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ] [ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲧⲱⲟⲩ]ⲛ ⲱ̄ ⲡ[ⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲉⲧ] [ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲓⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙ]ⲟ̣ⲕ̣ ⲛⲅ︦[ϫⲓⲥⲉ] [              ] ϩⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲡⲉ] a few lines missing ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨[ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲁϣⲧ] ⲉⲣⲟⲕ⳿ ⲉⲩⲙ̣[ⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ] ϩⲁⲙ̣[ⲏⲛ·

[         ]ⲟⲛ ⲉⲓ̈ⲛ[ⲁⲩ] ⲉⲣⲟⲕ [ⲉⲓ̈ⲥⲱⲃⲉ‧ ϩⲁϩ] ⲛ̄ⲗⲁⲟⲥ [ⲟ]ⲛ ⲁⲩ [ϭⲱϣⲧ︥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩⲏⲧ̣[︦ⲕ‧ ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲛⲟⲩⲁ [ⲥⲱⲃⲉ ⲉϥⲣ]ⲁ̣ϣ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲟⲩⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ] a few lines missing [   ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ] ⲛ̣︤ⲙⲙⲁ[ⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ] [ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ] ϩ̣ⲉⲛⲥⲛ[   ⲁ] [ⲛⲟⲛ ϩⲉⲛϣ]ⲙ̣︥ⲙⲟ ⲙ̣[ⲛ̄ϩⲉⲛ  ] a few lines missing [      ⲁⲛⲟ]ⲕ̣ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲕ̣ [ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲩ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲕ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲏⲩ ⲉ]ⲃ̣ⲟⲗ [ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈

Connection between Strasbourg 7, 2.6.4.3 and reconstruction in Em1; recto: cf. A

Copte 5 + 7.9 recto ↑

 5



10



15



[ϫⲉ ⲉ]ⲩ̣ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ︤ϥ ϩⲛ︥[ⲛⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ] [ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ϣ]ⲙ︥ⲙⲟ‧ ⲛ̄ⲥⲉϯ ⲉⲟ̣[ⲟⲩ ⲛ]ⲁ̣ϥ [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ︤ⲙⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ‧ ϫⲉ [  ]ⲛ̣ⲉ ⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡⲓ[ ] . [  ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲙⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϭⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕ [ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄] ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ [ⲉⲥⲛⲁϩ]ⲩ̣[ⲡ]ⲟⲙⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̣[ⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲓ̈ [ⲉϫ︤ⲙⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨]ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ[‧ ⲁⲓ̈]ϫⲓ̈ [ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϭ]ⲣⲏⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ‧ [ϩⲙ︥ⲡϣⲉ‧ ⲧⲉ]ϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ [ⲙ̄]ⲡⲉⲧⲟ [      ⲟⲩ]ⲱϣ︤ϥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲟⲩ [   ϩⲙ︥ⲡⲉⲑ]ⲃⲃⲓⲟ‧ ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓ [          ] ⲁⲓ̈ⲣ̄ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ϩⲙ̄ⲡϣⲉ‧ ⲱ ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲉⲓⲱⲧ‧ ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ [ⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ ϩ]ⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈‧ [ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡ]ϫⲁϫⲉ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲟⲩ [ⲱⲥϥ︥ ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ︥ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲙ︥ⲡⲉ

Edition of Strasbourg Copte 5–7



20



25

163

[ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏⲛ ⲡⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ [ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ]ⲃⲟⲗ‧ ϩⲓⲧⲛ︥ⲛⲓⲙ [ϩⲓⲧⲙ︥ⲡⲙ]ⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ϩⲁ [ⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲧⲙ]ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ [ⲧⲁⲡϣⲏⲣ]ⲉ ⲧⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲉⲣⲉ [ⲧⲉϥⲙ︥̄ⲛ︦ⲧ̄︥ⲉⲣⲟ ϣⲟ]ⲟⲡ‧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲧⲱⲛ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩ̣ⲙ̣̄ [ⲡϣⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ      ]

1–3 [ϫⲉ ⲉ]ⲩ̣ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ︤ϥ usque ad ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ︤ⲙⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ Em1 Sch (partly) : ⲉⲩ]ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ︤ϥ ϩ︤ⲛ[ⲛⲉϥⲕⲁⲣ]|[ⲡⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ϣ]ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ‧ ⲛ̄ⲥⲉϯ ⲉⲟ[ⲟⲩ] ⲛⲁϥ | [ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩⲓⲧ︤ⲙⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ Jac : ⲉⲩ]ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ ϩⲁ[ϩⲧⲏ ⲡⲁⲡ]ϣⲙⲙⲟ ⲛⲥⲉϯ ⲥ[ⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ϩⲓⲧⲙⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ Rev ǁ 4–5 [ϥⲟⲩⲟⲧⲃ̄] ⲉⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡⲕ̣[ⲏ]|[ⲡⲟⲥ Jac : [ϥⲟⲩⲟⲧⲃ̄] ⲉⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡ[ϫⲁ]|[ϫⲉ Rev ǁ 6 [ϭⲟⲙ] Sch Em4 Ber (“puissance”) : ⲛⲟⲙⲧⲉ Jac ǁ 7–8 suggested Em4 : “[damit sie] mit mir [die Welt] ertragen” Sch Ber : [ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙ]ⲟⲥ ⲟn line 8 suggested also by Crum : [ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲧϩⲩⲡⲟ]ⲙⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ[ⲙ̄]ⲙⲁⲓ̈ [ⲉⲛⲁⲅⲁⲑ]ⲟⲥ Rev  ǁ 10–13 “das] Diadem desen, welcher ist …, [indem man] sie [in ihrer] Niedrigkeit verachtete, da man [sie] nicht [erkannt] hat” Sch : [ⲉⲧⲉ ⲧⲉ]ϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ [ⲛ̄ⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟ|[ⲛ︤ϩ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲥ]ⲱϣ︤ϥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲟⲩ | [ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲩⲑ]ⲃⲃⲓⲟ‧ ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓ|[ⲛⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲟⲩ] Jac : [ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ]ϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ [ⲛⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟ[ⲩⲛⲧⲁⲩ] ⲥⲱϣϥ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ [ϩⲙⲡⲉⲩ]ⲑⲃⲃⲓⲟ ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓ [ⲉⲡⲙⲧⲟⲛ] Rev : ⲉⲓ|[ⲙⲉ proposed by Crum on lines 12–13 ǁ 13–14 ⲁⲓ̈ⲣ̄ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ | [ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ̄] Jac Sch Rev Ber ǁ 14–15 ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ | [ⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ : ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ | [ⲡⲉⲓϫⲁϫⲉ Jac Rev : ⲕⲛⲁⲧⲣⲉ | [ϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ Sch Ber ǁ 17–18 ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉ|[ⲭ︦ⲣ︦ (sic!) Jac [ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ Sch Crum Rev Ber ǁ 19 [ⲉϥⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ]ⲃⲟⲗ Jac Rev Ber ǁ 22–25 ⲉⲣⲉ | [ϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ϣⲟ]ⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ | [ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲓⲧ︤ⲙⲡϣ︤ⲣⲡ]|[ⲙⲓⲥⲉ Jac Rev ǁ

verso →

 5



10



15



[ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ]ϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲛ̄ϩⲩ] ⲙ[ⲛⲟⲥ] ⲧⲏⲣϥ︥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲥ︤⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄] ⲁϥⲕⲟⲧϥ︥ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ ⲡⲉϫⲁ[ϥ ⲛⲁⲛ] ϫⲉ ⲁⲥϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ[ⲧⲟⲩ] ⲛⲟⲩ‧ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲛⲁϥⲓⲧ‧ ⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲛ̄ⲧⲏⲩ] ⲧ︤ⲛ‧ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ︦ⲁ︦ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲣⲟ[ⲟⲩⲧ ⲡⲉ] ⲧⲥⲁ[ⲣⲝ ⲇ]ⲉ ⲟⲩⲁⲥⲑⲉⲛ[ⲏⲥ ⲧⲉ ϭⲱ] ϭⲉ ⲛ̄[ⲧ]ⲉ̣ⲧⲛ︥ⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ̣ [ⲛ︤ⲙⲙⲁⲓ̈] ⲁⲛⲟⲛ [ⲇ]ⲉ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲥ[ⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ] ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲉ[ⲛ]ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ[ⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉϣ] ϫⲉ ⲕⲣ̄[ϩⲟⲧ]ⲉ ϭⲉ [ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ ⲡϣⲏ] ⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ‧ ⲉ[ ] ϩⲱⲱⲛ ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ . [ ] ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣ︤ⲃ‧ ⲡⲉ[ϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ] ϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧ[ⲉ ϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁ] ⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ [ⲣⲁϣⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ‧ ⲙ̄[ⲡⲣ̄ⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧⲉ] ϩⲏⲧ︤ⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥ[ⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ] ⲁⲣⲓⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛ[ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓϫⲟ]

164 20



Text and Translation

ⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧ︤ⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟ[ⲩ ϫⲉ ⲉϣ] ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲥ[ⲱⲓ̈ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ] ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩ[ⲧⲛ︥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︥] ϭⲉ ⲣⲁϣⲉ ϫⲉ ⲁⲓ̈[ϫⲣⲟ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥ] ⲙⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲓ̈[ ]

1–2 [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ]ϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ | ⲙ̄[ⲡϩⲱⲃ] ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ϥⲱⲛϩ̄] Jac : [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ]ϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲡⲉⲓϣⲗⲏⲗ] ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲙⲡⲉ[ϥⲉⲓⲱⲧ] Rev : [ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ]ϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲓⲥ︦] ⲙ̄[ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ?] ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ϥⲉⲓⲱⲧ] Sch Ber ǁ 5–6 ⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲛ̄ⲧⲏⲩ]|ⲧⲛ̄ Sch Ber : ⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲟⲟⲧⲏⲩ]ⲧ︤ⲛ (sic!) Jac : ⲛ̄ⲧ[ⲟⲟⲧⲧⲏⲩ]ⲧⲛ̄ Crum (unlikely) Rev ǁ 11–13 ϫⲉ [ⲙ̄ⲡ]ⲣ̄[ⲛⲟϭⲛ]ⲉϭ ⲉ[ⲣⲟⲛ ⲡϣⲏ]|ⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ‧ ⲉ[ⲣⲉⲡ︤ⲛⲧⲉⲗⲟⲥ] | ϩⲱⲱⲛ ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲓ[ⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ ⲇⲉ] etc. Jac : ϫⲉ [ⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲛ] ϭⲉ [ⲱ ⲡϣⲏ]ⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉ . . . [ⲁⲛⲟⲛ] ϩⲱⲱⲛ ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲛ[ϩⲱⲃ] Rev : ⲕⲣ̄ certain on line 11,where fragment 7.9 joins (cf. Sch) ǁ 15–18 suggested by Sch : ⲙ̄ⲡ︤ⲣⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧ[ⲉ ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁ]|ⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ‧ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ [ⲧⲱⲕ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ‧ ⲙ̄[ⲡ︤ⲣⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧⲉ] | ϩⲏⲧⲥ̄ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥ[ⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ] Jac : ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧⲉ ϩⲏⲧϥ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ. ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣ̄ϩⲟⲧⲉ ϩⲏⲧⲥ̄ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ Rev ǁ 21–22 ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲥ[ⲱⲓ̈ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ]|ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩ]ⲧⲛ̄ Sch Ber (cf. John 15:20) : ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲥ[ⲱⲓ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲩ]|ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩ[ Jac : ⲁⲩ]ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛⲥ[ⲱⲓ̈ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲉ]ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩ[ⲧⲛ Rev ǁ

Edition of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex

Edition of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex ⲕⲇ*

 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12

ⲁ̣ⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ⲟ[ⲩ]ϩⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲥⲏ︦ⲣ︦ ϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩ̣[ⲓ] ϫⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ϫⲟⲉ̣[ⲓⲧ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧⲟⲩⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲟϥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲛ̄ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ̈ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲧⲏ ⲣⲛ̄ ⲁⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁϥ ⲡⲉ‧ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲉϥ ϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲛⲁ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧ ⲥⲱ ⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ

1 ⲁ in ekthesis, enlarged and decorated ǁ

ⲕⲉ*

 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12



ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱ [ϣⲃ̄] ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲓ̈‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ⳿ ⲁⲛ [ⲣ̄ⲟ]ⲩⲕⲗⲟⲙ ⲁⲛⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉ ⲣⲟϥ‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ‧ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲓϩⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ̣ ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲕⲉ ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙ̄ ⲙⲏⲧⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲙⲏⲧⲉ‧ ⲥⲉϫⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩ‧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲕⲁⲧⲉⲭⲉ {ⲙ̄} ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲧⲱ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ

1–2 ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱ | [ⲙⲛ]ⲛ̣̄ⲥⲱⲓ̈ Hubai ǁ

165

166

Text and Translation

ⲕⲋ*

 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12

ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ ⲁⲃ ⲛⲅ̄ϫⲓⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙ[ⲟⲕ] ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲛⲅ̣̄ ⲟⲩⲣⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲟ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ϯ ⲛⲁⲁⲗⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ ⲁϣⲧ̄ ⲉϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲩⲙ︦ⲛ︦ ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ‧ ϣⲟ ⲡⲧ︦ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩ ⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ⲣⲓ ⲙⲉ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲗ ⲗⲁ ⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ̄

2 ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲕ cf. MS A, 109, col. B,22 : ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲓ̈ Hubai Hughes ǁ

ⲕⲍ*

 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12



ϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ ϫⲱⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ϩⲩ ⲙⲛⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲛ ⲥⲱϥ ⲧⲏⲣⲛ̄ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲡⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ̄ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏ̣[ⲩ] ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲛ̄ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ‧ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲓ⳿ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ϫⲉ ⲁ ⲙⲏⲛ: ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲟⲛ̄‧ ϫⲉ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ ⲱ̄ ⲕⲏ*



ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ‧  2 ⲧⲁⲭⲟⲣⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲉϩϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ︦ ⲛ̄  4 ⲥⲟⲡ‧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̣̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲱ̄

Edition of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex

 6

ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ‧ ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ ⲟⲛ‧  8 ⲉϥⲛⲁⲫⲟⲣⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲟ ⲉⲓⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ϯⲛⲁϯ 10 ⲡⲁⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓ⳿ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ ⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ 12 ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ϯⲛⲁⲁⲗⲉ ⲉ

ⲕⲑ*

 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12

ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲩⲙⲛ︦ⲧ ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ‧ ϣⲟⲡⲧ︦ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲣ̄ϭⲱⲗⲡ︦ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ̄ ⲡ̣ⲁⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ:– ⲧⲙⲉϩϥⲧⲟ⳿ ⲛ̄ⲭⲟⲣⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲟⲩϩⲏⲕⲉ ⲁⲛ⳿ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉ ⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϯⲡⲟⲩⲟ ⲉⲓⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ϯⲛⲁ ⲡⲗⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲕ ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲟ⳿ ⲗ*



 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12

ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ϯⲛⲁⲁⲗⲉ ⲉ ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲕ‧ ϣⲟⲡⲧ︦ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕ ⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲡⲉⲕⲉⲓ ⲱⲧ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϥⲑ︦: ⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲕ ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲱ̄ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲓⲉϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ

1 ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ, ⲧ written on top of ⲱ ǁ 12 ⲉⲓⲉϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ, last ⲉ written below the line ǁ

167

168

Text and Translation

ⲗⲁ*

 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12

ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲁⲓ̈ ϫⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲉⲣⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡϣⲉ‧ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ϯⲛⲁ ⲧⲣⲉⲛⲁϫⲁϫⲉ ϩⲩⲡⲟ ⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲡϫⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲓⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ̄ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓ ⲧⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲧⲙ︦ⲛ︦ ⲗⲃ*



 2



 4



 6



 8



10



12



ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲧⲁⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ‧ ⲧⲁ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ︦ⲧ︦ⲉⲣⲟ ϣⲟ̣ ⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲧⲱⲛ‧ ⲉⲥ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡϣ[ⲉ] ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥ̣ ⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲟⲩϥ ϣⲁⲡⲉⲥ⳨ⲥ‧ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲟ︤ⲩ ⲡⲉ {ⲡⲉ} ⲡⲉⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲧⲱⲛ ⲡⲉ‧ ⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲡⲛ︦ⲁ︦ ⲡⲉ ϥ︦ⲑ︦: ϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ϫⲓⲛⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϫⲓⲛ

7 ϣⲁⲡⲉⲥ⳨ⲥ, ⲉ written small on top of the line ǁ 10 ⲟⲩ deleted Hubai

ⲗⲅ*

ⲧⲕⲁⲧⲁⲃⲟⲗⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥ  2 ⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ‧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡ[ⲉ] ⲁⲗⲫⲁ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲁⲩⲱ [ⲱ]  4 ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ: ⲁⲛ[ⲟⲕ]  6 ⲡⲉ ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲛ̄ⲁⲧϣⲁϫ[ⲉ]

Edition of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex



ⲉⲣⲟϥ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲧϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲥ ϣⲁⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲁⲙⲏ(ⲛ): 10 ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲁⲛϯⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ‧ 12 ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ϣⲁ{ⲉ}ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲛ̄ⲉⲛⲉϩ ϥⲑ︦:–  8

169

170

Text and Translation

Translation of P. Berol. 22220 (p. 97) […9 lines broken …] for the kingdom of heaven […] by the glory […] while the kingdom of heaven on your right. Blessed is the one who will eat with me in the kingdom of heaven.2 You are the salt of the earth, and you are the lamp that illuminates the world.3 Do not sleep nor slumber4 [until you] put on the garment of the kingdom, the one that I bought with the blood of the grape.5 Andrew replied (and) said: “My Lo[rd] ǁ […24 lines broken …] If I healed those who belong to the world,6 it is also necessary for me to go down to Amente for the others who are bound there.7 So then, that which is necessary (p. 98) […23 lines broken …] everything with certainty. I, for my part, I shall gladly reveal to you, for I know that it is possible for you to do everything joyfully. For man is self-determined (αύτεξούσιος)  ǁ […7 lines broken …] [self-determined] (αύτεξούσιος) […] master [yourself]. So then, while you are in the body, do not let matter master you! Arise, let us leave this place,8 for the one who will hand me over (παραδιδόναι) has approached. And you will all flee and be offended because of

2  Cf. Luke 14:15, 22:30; Matthew 26:29. The heavenly supper during which Jesus eats at the same table with the saints is common in the Coptic apostolic memoirs. See, e. g., Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 2 (Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus,” 113–114, 130); Ps.-Evodius, On the Dormition of the Virgin (Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 271–273); Book of Bartholomew (Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 60). 3 Cf. Matthew 5:13–15. In Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 2, Christ characterizes the apostles in a similar way: “You are the salt that will season the entire world” (ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉϩⲙⲟⲩ ⲉϥⲛⲁϫⲱⲣ︤ⲕ ⲙ̄ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ̄), see Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus,” 113. 4  Cf. Proverbs 6:4; Psalm 131:4. 5 Cf. Genesis 49:11; Revelation 7:14. 6 Cf., e. g., Mark 1:34. 7  The Harrowing of Hell is a theme often mentioned in the apostolic memoirs, see, e. g., Book of Bartholomew (Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 60 ff.); Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 2 (Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus,” 121–122); Ps.-Chrysostom, On John the Baptist (Boud’hors, “Éloge de Jean-Baptiste,” 1568–1569); Ps.-Timothy of Alexandria, On Abbaton (Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 488); Ps.-Timothy of Alexandria, On Michael (Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1025); Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Lament of Mary (Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 2, 201–202); Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Martyrdom of Pilate (Lanchantin, “Martyre de Pilate,” 169). Except for the Book of Bartholomew, all these texts mention the descent to Hell only in a lapidary way. On the Harrowing of Hell in Coptic literature, see A. Piankoff, “La descente aux enfers dans les textes égyptiens et dans les apocryphes coptes,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 7 (1941) 33–46.  8 Cf. Matthew 26:46; Mark 14:42; John 14:31.

Translation of P. Berol. 22220

171

me.9 You shall all flee and [leave me] alone, but I do not remain alone for my Father is with me.10 I and my Father, we are a single one.11 For it is written: “I shall strike the shepherd (p. 99) and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.”12 I am the good shepherd, I shall lay down my soul for you.13 You, too, lay down your souls for your companions in order to be pleasing to my Father, for there is no commandment greater than this: that I lay down my soul for people.14 Because of [this] my Father loves me, for I fulfilled [his] wish, for I am God and I became human15 because […3 lines broken …] me […10 lines broken …] ǁ […] after how long time, or else, remember us, send for us, take us out of the world so that we may come to you? […25 lines broken …] (p. 100) the Savior. He said to us: “O my holy members, my blessed seeds,16 get up […] pray […24 lines broken …] ǁ […] on the mountain. We, too, became like a body of spirit.17 Our eyes opened18 in every direction and the entire place was revealed before us. We saw the heavens opening up one after another.19 Those who guard the gates were disturbed. The angels were afraid and they ran this side and that, thinking [that] they would all be destroyed. We saw our Savior traversing all the

 Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27.  Cf. John 16:32. 11  Cf. John 10:30. 12 Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27. 13 Cf. John 10:11. 14 Cf. John 15:13. 15  See Evodius, On the Passion 1, where Christ is called “God who became man” (ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲣ̄ⲣⲱⲙⲉ), Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica, 1: 94 (Sahidic text), 2: 99 (English translation). 16 Cf. Isaiah 61:9, 65:23. 17 Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44. 18  Cf. Luke 24:31. 19  The heavens that “open up one after another” are often mentioned in the apostolic memoirs. In the Book of Bartholomew, during the vision of the apostles on the Mount of Olives, “the heavens opened up one after another (ⲁⲛⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ; Westerhoff, Buch der Auferstehung, 152); In Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 2, while Peter was invested with the apostleship, “He saw the seven heavens opening up one after another. He saw the glory of the Father and all the orders of the angels descending on the mountain for his consecration” (Morard, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus,” 127). The same expression occurs as well several times in the Mysteries of John (Budge, Coptic Apocrypha, 64–65). In the Enthronement of Gabriel, the heavens open up one after another, and the angels are descending on the Mount of Olives, where the apostles are found: “we, the apostles, saw with our eyes the heavens opening up one after another and a multitude of angels appeared on the mountain with us” (Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 66).  9 10

172

Text and Translation

heavens,20 [while his] feet [was being fixed with us] on the [mountain], [his head] pierced [the seventh] heaven. […8 lines broken …] (p. 101) […] from all the heavens. Then, this world became like a darkness before us, the apostles. We became like those in the immortal eons, while our [eyes] were penetrating [all] the heavens, the [power of] our apostleship was upon us. And we saw our Savior when he reached the seventh heaven […6 lines broken …] […] that the [heavens] were disturbed, [The] angels and the archangels prostrated on [their faces],21 [The] Cherubs [prostrated] before his […], The Seraphs let down their [wings], The [angels] ǁ that are [outside the veil of the temple22 sang], The elders [seated] on their [thrones] cast [down their] crowns before the [throne] of the Father,23 All [the saints took a] robe [and] when [they rolled it,24 the] Son [bowed] to [the feet of his Father] […6 lines broken …] then why are you crying and grieving so that the entire angelic host [is disturbed]? He answered [thus]: […5 lines broken …] (p. 102) “[…] I am greatly [grieved] […] killed […] by the [people of] Israel.25 O my [Father], if it is [possible], let this [cup] pass from me.26 Let them […] through another […] if they […] Israel […7 lines broken …] [so that] salvation may come to the entire world. [Then] again, the Son bowed to the feet [of] his Father, saying: “[O my Father], […4 lines broken …] I [want] ǁ to die joyfully and to shed my blood for the human race, but I cry only because of my beloved, these being [Abraham], Isaac [and] Jacob, for [they shall] stand [on the] day of judgment, [while] I shall sit on [my] throne to judge the world. [They shall] say to me: […7 lines broken …] [because of] the glory that has been given to me on earth. O my [Father, if it is possible, let this cup] pass from me.”27  Cf. Hebrews 4:14.  Cf. Revelation 7:11. 22  Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. 23 Cf. Revelation 4:10. 24 Cf. Revelation 7:13. 25 Other apostolic memoirs depict the Jews as those who kill Christ: the Stauros-text; Ps.-Evodius, On the Passion 1; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Lament of Mary; Ps.-Cyriacus of Behnesa, Martyrdom of Pilate; Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On Mary Magdalene; Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ; Ps.-Basil of Caesarea, On the First Church Dedicated to the Virgin; Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On Abbaton; Ps.-Timothy Aelurus, On the Archangel Michael; Ps.-Theodosius of Alexandria, On the Dormition of the Virgin. 26 Cf. Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Luke 22:42. 27  Cf. Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Luke 22:42. 20 21

Translation of P. Berol. 22220

173

[The Father said] to him for [the] second time: “[O] my son, you […] (p. 103) will […28 lines broken …] The Son replied for the [third] time: “O [my] Father, if the […]28 ǁ […32 lines broken …] (p. 104) […32 lines broken …] ǁ […29 lines broken …] he completed the service (λειτουργία) until [he] went to them. (p. 105) […] all […] in the […24 lines broken …] prophet. [The Savior] said to us: “There is no lot that surpasses yours, [nor] glory more exalted ǁ than [yours] […27 lines broken …] [The] wood of […] The wood of […] The wood of […] The wood […] (p. 106) [The wood of] strength [The wood of forgiveness] of sin […] […] unless […] king […25 lines broken …] shadow […] O entirety ǁ […] good […] O […18 lines broken …] the cross […6 lines broken …] […] three [days I shall] take you to [heaven] with me and I will instruct you about those that you desire (p. 107) [to] see. So [do not be disturbed] when [you] see me”. We said to him: “Lord, in what form will you appear to us? Or in what kind of body will you come? Tell us.” John spoke up and said: “Lord, if you come to us, do not reveal yourself to us in all your glory, but turn your glory into another glory so that we may be able to bear it, lest we see [you] and despair because of fear”. [The Savior answered]: “I [shall take away] from you [the fear] that you are afraid [of], so that you might see and believe,29 but do not touch me until I go ǁ up to [my] Father who [is your] Father, [my God] who is your God,30 and my Lord who is your Lord. If someone approaches me, he will [burn]. I am the [fire that] blazes. The [one who draws] close to me, draws close to [the] fire, the one who is far from me is far from life.31 Now then, gather to me, O my holy members, dance (χορεύειν) and [answer] to me.” The [Savior] […], he [stood up], and [we made a circle surrounding] him. [He] said to us: “I am [in] your midst [like] a child.”32 He said: “Amen! A little while I am in your midst.”33 [We] answered: “Amen!” (p. 108) “[Those who] want [to set the] world against me are taking counsel  Cf. Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Luke 22:42.  Cf. John 20:8. 30 Cf. John 20:17. 31 Cf. 1 John 5:12. 32 Cf. Luke 22:27. 33  Cf. John 7:33, 13:33. 28 29

174

Text and Translation

against me for I am stranger to it.34 Behold then now, I grieve because of the sins of the world,35 [but] I rejoice because of [you], for you have [fought] well in [the world]. Know [yourselves] so that you might profit from me, and I shall rejoice over your work.” “I am the king, Amen! I [am] the [son] of the king,36 [Amen]! I [am the straight] travelling [way,37 Amen! I am the immortal] bread.38 Eat and [be satiated], Amen! I fight [for] you. You, too, make war, Amen! I am sent. I, myself, want to send you.39 ǁ Amen! [Why], O men, […] yourself? […] I want [to bring] you joy over the world, but grieve instead because of [the] world as if you have not entered it, Amen! Do not weep from now on, but rejoice instead,40 Amen! I have overcome the world,41 you, too, do not let the world overcome you, Amen! I became free from the world. You, too, [be] free of [it], Amen! [They] shall give [me vinegar and gall] to drink,42 but [you], acquire [for yourself] life and [rest], Amen! They shall [pierce] me with a lance [in my] side.43 The one who saw, let him bear witness, and his testimony is true,44 Amen! (p. 109) […4 lines broken …] Amen! The one who has […] me, I, [myself], I shall make him […] with me, Amen! The one who does not [receive] my body [and] my blood is a stranger to me,45 Amen!” When he finished [his dance (χορεία), we answered] after [him: “Amen!”] […4 lines broken …] “[…] to you […], Amen! “[…6 lines  Jesus says also in the apostolic memoir embedded in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s On the Life and the Passion of Christ, “I am a stranger to this world” (ⲁⲛⲅ̄ⲟⲩϣⲙ̄ⲙⲟ ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ; van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 152). 35 Cf. John 1:29. 36 Cf. Psalm 71:1. 37 Cf. John 14:6; the “straight way” features in Psalm 107:7; Proverbs 2:13, 16; 2 Peter 2:15. 38  Cf. John 6:35. 39  Cf. John 17:18, 20:21. 40 Cf. John 16:20, 22. 41 Cf. John 16:33. 42  Cf. Mark 15:23. 43  Cf. John 19:34–35. 44  Cf. John 21:24. 45 John 6:54, 56. The fact that only those who partook of the body and blood of Christ will be saved is mentioned in other apostolic memoirs. In the sermon of Ps.-Bachios of Maiuma On the apostles, Christ tells the apostles that at the final judgment, when they will sit to judge mankind, they should not show mercy for those who rejected the Eucharist: “I do not want you to forgive anyone except those who took from my body and my blood” (ⲛ̄ϯⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲁⲛ ϩⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲕⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲗⲁⲁⲩ‧ ⲉⲓ̈ⲙⲏⲧⲉⲓ̈ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩϫⲓ̈ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ, Morard, “Homélie copte sur les apôtres,” 423). In the judgment scene from the Enthronement of Michael, Christ shows his apostles those who are tormented in the afterlife because “They did not take from my body and my blood” (ⲙⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲩϫⲓ̈ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ, Müller, Bücher der Einsetzung 1, 38). 34

Translation of P. Berol. 22220

175

broken …] cross, [Amen]! I [shall] approach you, Amen! A ǁ dispensation (οἰκονομία) […3 lines broken …] cross […3 lines broken …] you are the […] from the [beginning] […] cross […], Amen! “[…] so that those on the right [shall] take shelter [under you], [apart from] those on [the left, O] cross […] shall destroy […3 lines broken …] [first]. Rise up, [rise], O [cross. Lift] yourself [up and] lift up to the [heaven] [if] this is your wish. O cross, do not be afraid. I am rich, I shall fill you with my wealth. [I] shall climb [upon] you, O cross. They shall hang me upon you (p. 110) [as a testimony against them, Amen! Receive me to yourself], O [cross], [do not reveal my body, Amen!] […3 lines broken …] the generation. [Do not] weep, O [cross], but rather rejoice instead and know [your] Lord who is coming [to] you that he is [gentle] and [humble],46 Amen!” [The] second [dance] (χορεία) of [the cross] […] [I am] not [poor], but [rich], I shall [fill you] with my [wealth]. A little longer, O cross, that which is lacking is perfected, and that which is diminished is full. A little longer, O cross, the one which has fallen rises. [A little longer], O cross, the entire fullness (πλήρωμα) is perfected. ǁ […5 lines broken …] [Seeing you, I am] laughing. [Many] people [also] looked for you, one [laughing] and rejoicing, another one weeping, [mourning] and smiting. You are eager for me, O cross. I, [myself], I shall be eager for you. [You and me], O [cross], [we are …]. [We are strangers47 and] […9 lines broken …] [me and you], O cross, truly, [the one who is] far from [you] is far [from (p. 111) me] [… unknown number of lines missing …] [Glory] to you, [tree] whose fruit appeared so that it shall be known [in the] lands of the [foreigners] and be [glorified] by […] (p. 112) […] shame. Your names were written on your robes, which are coming down spreading […]. Unplaced fragments of P. Berol. 22220 Frag. 9 (hair side) (col. A) […] them […] of wisdom […] [power]. The wood […] entirety […] (col. B) […] they will […] multitudes, unless the one who shall […] image (τύπος) of […]. When he [finished to] sing (ὑμνεύειν) [to the] cross […]

46 Cf. 47

Matthew 11:29.  Cf. Hebrews 11:13.

176

Text and Translation

Frag. 9 (flesh side) (col. A) […] established it/him among us. He said to us: “O my holy members, [blessed are] you for my Father has […] you […] (col. B) […] afterwards, the [patriarchs] and prophets, [these being] Abraham, [Isaac and Jacob] […] Frag. 10 (hair side) (col. B) […] [Abraham, Isaac,] Jacob [and Moses] the […] Frag. 14 (hair side) […] the [disciples] […] […] in that city. [We asked the] Savior: “[What] is this city?” He said to us: “[This] is Jerusalem […] [the] city […] […] [my] beloved […] (flesh side) […] no one […] him […] […] by […] We [asked him saying]: “[What is] this place that […] to heaven […]?” He said: “[This is] the tent (σκηνή) [of my] Father from the [beginning], that a [wonder] […] Frag. 15 + 17 (hair side) […] son(s) […] prophet(s) […] death […] righteous […] them […] (flesh side) […] while you are [sitting at the] right of [the Father upon] your [throne] […] Frag. 19 (hair side) […] the book of life. His [generation] (γενεά) will not be remembered, for his wife [will] become widow [and his] sons [will be orphans] […] (flesh side) […] gives milk, another one gives honey. You rest yourselves [by] the spring of [the water] of life […] Frag. 20 (hair side) […] the Savior. He […] as if he became weak […] he ran away. The Savior said [to him]: “O Judas […] weak […] (flesh side) […] woman […] faithful […] repentance […]

Translation of P. Berol. 22220

177

Frag. 21 (hair side) […] and you give shadow […] to the Adversary (ἀντικείμενος), this being […] according […] (flesh side) […] for […] world […] your […] he […] Frag. 22 (hair side) […] unless you […] you […] be […] the heaven […] one […] he […] (flesh side) […] a proclamation (κήρυγμα) […] proclaim […] in the entire world, or about […] in […] Frag. 24 (hair side) […] of the world […] to her […] of her […] entire […] and […] (flesh side) […] pound (λίτρα) of […] pound (λίτρα) of […] pound (λίτρα) […] pound (λίτρα) […] Frag. 25 (hair side) […] Behold, [they] took council [against me] […] kill […] Now then […] (flesh side) […] Now [then], O my […] you in a […] in a […] […] and […]

178

Text and Translation

Translation of Strasbourg Copte 5–7 Strasbourg Copte 6 + 7,7 (p. 157) reveal to you my entire glory, and I will instruct you concerning all your power and the mystery of your apostleship.” [Immediately, he revealed] to us […] […] to us […] [on] the mountain […] of his […] [… 2 lines broken …] power […] (p. 158) our eyes penetrated everywhere and we perceived the glory of his divinity and the entire glory of [his] lordship. He clothed us with the power of [our] apostleship […] they became like the […] light […] Strasbourg Copte 7,2.6.4.3 (recto) […] cross […] [Amen], so that [the one] who is [on] the right [shall] take [shelter under you, apart] from [those on the left, O cross] [… a few lines missing …] [O cross, rise up, rise], O [holy cross, lift yourself] and [lift] […] to the [sky] [… a few lines missing …] O cross, [they shall hang me] upon you as a [testimony against them], Amen. […] (verso) […] also, [seeing] you, [I am laughing. Many] people [also looked for] you, there is one [laughing,] rejoicing, [there is another one] […] [you] and me, [O cross, we are] […] [we are] strangers [and] […] [… a few lines missing …] [me] and you, [O cross, truly the one] who is far [from you is far] from [me] […] Strasbourg Copte 5 + 7,9 (recto) […] [so that] it shall be known in [the lands of the] foreigners and it shall be [glorified] by its fruit, for […] a multitude of […], Amen. Give me your [grace, O] my Father, so that [it shall] endure with me [on the cross], Amen. [I] took [for myself the] diadem of the kingdom [from the wood. The] diadem of the […] destroys them […] [in] humiliation, without […]. I became king from [the wood.48 O my] Father, you will make [my enemies] submit to me, [Amen. The] enemy shall be [annihilated through] whom? Through the [cross, Amen]. The sting of death49 [shall be destroyed] through whom? [Through the] Only-Begotten, Amen. Whose is [the] kingdom? It is [of the Son], Amen. From [where is his kingdom? It is from the wood, Amen.] […] 48 Cf.

Psalm 95:10.  1 Corinthians 15:56.

49

Translation of Strasbourg Copte 5–7

179

(verso) [When he] finished the entire [hymn (ὕμνος)] of the [cross], he turned to us. He told [us]: “The hour when I shall be taken from [you] has approached. The spirit [is eager but] the [flesh is] weak,50 so [remain] and watch [with me].”51 [And] we, the apostles, [we] cried saying: “But [if] you are [afraid], [you, the Son] of God, what […]?” He answered and [told us]: “Do not be afraid [that you will be] destroyed, but rather [rejoice] greatly. [Do not be afraid] of the power [of death]. Remember all [those that I told] you: if they persecuted [me, they will] persecute you.52 So rejoice that I have [overcome the] world.53 I have […]

50 Cf.

Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38. Matthew 26:38; Mark 14:34. 52 John 15:20. 53  John 16:33. 51 Cf.

180

Text and Translation

Translation of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex (p. 24) It happened one day while our Savior was sitting on the Mount of Olives, before the impious Jews crucified him, (and) we were all gathered with him. He spoke up saying: “O my holy members, gather to me so that I sing (ὑμνεύειν) to the cross and (p. 25) you answer after me.” We [made] a circle and surrounded him. He said to us: “I am in your midst like a little child.”54 He said: “Amen! A little while I am with you in your midst.55 They take counsel against me now. Do not restrain (κατέχειν) me, O cross, rise up, rise, (p. 26) O holy cross, and lift [yourself], O cross. I am rich. Amen! I shall climb upon you, O cross. They shall hang me upon you as a testimony against themselves. Receive me to yourself, O cross. Amen! Do not weep, O cross, but rather rejoice (p. 27) greatly. Amen!” And when he finished the hymn (ὕμνος), we all answered after him: “Amen!” The second hymn (ὕμνος) of the cross “I am the way of the blessed life,56 Amen! I am the immortal bread,57 eat and be satiated, Amen!” We answered after him: “Amen!” He told us again: “Gather to me, O (p. 28) my holy members so that I dance (χορεύειν) for the cross for the third time, and you answer after me ‘Amen!’ O cross filled with light! Yet again, he shall carry the light, Amen! I shall approach you, O cross, Amen! I shall climb (p. 29) upon you as a testimony against them. Receive me to yourself, O cross. Do not reveal my body, Amen!” The fourth dance (χορεία) of the cross I am not poor, O cross that gives light, Amen! I shall fill you with my wealth, (p. 30) Amen! I shall climb upon you. Receive me to yourself, O cross. Glory to you for you obeyed to your Father, Amen! Glory to you, entire sweetness, Amen! Glory to the divinity, Amen! Open your grace, O my Father, so that I may sing (ὑμνεύειν) (p. 31) to the cross, Amen! I took for myself the diadem of the kingdom from the wood,58 Amen! I shall make my enemies submit to me, Amen! The enemy shall be  Cf. Luke 22:27. John 7:33, 13:33. 56 Cf. John 14:6. 57  Cf. John 6:35. 58  Cf. Psalm 95:10. 54

55 Cf.

Translation of the Hymn of the Cross according to the Qasr el-Wizz Codex

181

annihilated through the cross, Amen! The sting of death59 shall be annihilated through the Only-Begotten Son, Amen! (p. 32) Whose is the kingdom? It is of the Son, Amen! From where is his kingdom? It is from the wood,60 Amen! Who sent him to the cross? It is the Father, Amen! What is the cross? From where is it? It is from the Spirit, Amen! It is from eternity forever, from (p. 33) the foundation (καταβολή) of the world, Amen! I am Alpha, Amen, and Omega, Amen, the beginning and the end, Amen! I am the unspeakable beginning, the unspeakable end, and perfect forever, Amen!”61 And when we heard these, we glorified God, the one whose is the glory forever and ever, Amen!

59 1

Corinthians 15:56. Psalm 95:10. 61 Cf. Revelation 22:13. 60 Cf.

Bibliography ***, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati vol. 1: Bibbia. Letteratura cristiana antica (Studi e testi, 121; Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1946). ***, Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum (Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute, 2; Boston, MA: Byzantine Institute, 1950). ***, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Quaderni, 48; Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1960). ***, “New Words of Jesus?,” Time Magazine Jan. 7, 1966, 32. ***, Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont. Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 20; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1988). ***, Cristianesimo latino e cultura Greca sino al sec. IV. – XXI incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 7–9 maggio 1992 (Studia ephemeridis ‘Augustinianum’, 42; Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1993). ***, Écritures et traditions dans la littérature copte. Journée d’études coptes, Strasbourg 28 mai 1982 (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 1; Peeters: Louvain, 1983). ***, Études Coptes IV: Quatrième journée d’études (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 8; Paris – Louvain: Peeters, 1995). ***, Christianisme d’Égypte. Hommages à René-Georges Coquin (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 9; Louvain – Paris: Peeters, 1995). ‘Abd al-Masîḥ, Yassâ – Khater, Antoine, “An Arabic Apocryphon of Saint Stephen the Archdeacon,” Studia Orientalia Christiana. Collectanea 13 (1968/1969) 161–198. Abraha, Tedros – Assefa, Daniel, “Apocryphal Gospels in the Ethiopic Tradition,” in Frey – Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 611–653. Allberry, Charles R. C., A Manichaean Psalm-Book part 2 (Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection, 2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938). Altaner, Berthold, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der altlateinischen Übersetzungen von Väterschriften,” Historisches Jahrbuch 61 (1941) 208–226. Amélineau, Émile, Contes et romans d’Égypte chrétienne 2 vols. (Collection de contes et chansons populaires, 13–14; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1888). Amélineau, Émile, Les actes des martyrs de l’Église Copte (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1890). Aranda, Gonzalo, “Tradiciones marianas apócrifas en las homilías coptas del Pseudo-Cirillo de Jerusalén: I. Origen e infancia de Maria, nacimiento de Jesus,” Scripta de Maria 4 (1981) 101–121. Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo, Dormición de la Virgen. Relatos de la tradición copta (Apócrifos cristianos, 2; Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 1995). Arras, Victor, De transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice 2 vols. (CSCO, 351–352. Scriptores aethiopici, 68–69; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1974). Atiya, Aziz S., (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia 8 vols. (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1991).

184

Bibliography

Baehrens, Wilhelm Adolf, Origenes Werke vol. 8: Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten Kommentar zum Hehelied in Rufins und Hieronimus’ Übersetzungen (Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, 33; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1925). Balestri, Giuseppe – Hyvernat, Henri, Acta Martyrum vol. 2 (CSCO, 86. Scriptores coptici, 6; repr. Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1953). Barry, Catherine – Funk, Wolf-Peter – Poirier, Paul-Hubert – Turner, John D., Zostrien (NH VIII,1) (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section ‘Textes’, 24; Québec – Louvain – Paris: Les presses de l’Université Laval – Éditions Peeters, 2000). Basset, René, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite (rédaction copte) vol. 2 : Les mois de hatour et de kihak (Patrologia Orientalis, 3/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907). Basset, René, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite (rédaction copte) vol. 5: Les mois de baounah, abib, mesoré et jours complémentaires (Patrologia Orientalis, 17/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1923). Battista, Antonio – Bagatti, Bellarmino, Edizione critica del testo arabo della Historia Iosephi fabri lignarii e ricerce sulla sua origine (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Minor, 20; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1975). Bauckham, Richard, et al. (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses. The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts (Library of New Testament Studies; New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2008). Baumstark, Anton, “Die nichtgriechischen Paralleltexte zum achten Buche der Apostolischen Konstitutionen,” Oriens Christianus 1 (1901) 98–137. Baumstark, Anton, review of Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes 1, Revue biblique 3 (1906) 245–265. Bausi, Alessandro, “I manoscritti etiopici di J. M. Wansleben nella Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 33 (1989) 5–33. Bausi, Alessandro, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunità monastiche dell’Eritrea,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 38 (1994) 13–69. Bausi, Alessandro, “A First Evaluation of the ‘Arabic Version of the Apocalypse of Paul’,” Parole de l’Orient 24 (1999) 131–164. Beard-Shouse, Melody Gabrielle, The Circle Dance in the Acts of John: An Early Christian Ritual (M. A. thesis; Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas, 2009). Behlmer, Heike, Schenute von Atripe: De iudicio (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino. Serie prima – Monumenti e testi, 8; Turin: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali – Soprintendenza al Museo delle Antichità Egizie, 1996). Behlmer, Heike, “Index der Lehnwörter und Namen in Amélineau, Œuvres de Schenoudi,” Enchoria 24 (1997–1998) 1–33. Bellet, Paulino, “Theodosio de Alejandría y su homilia copta sobre la Asunción de la Virgen,” Ephemerides Mariologicae 1 (1951) 243–266. Bellet, Paulino, “Testimonios coptos de la aparición de Cristo resucitado a la Virgen,” Estudios bíblicos 13 (1954) 199–205. Bertrand, Daniel A., “Papyrus Strasbourg copte 5–6,” in Bovon – Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1, 425–428. Bethge, Hans Gebhard et al. (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (Nag Hammadi & Manichaean Studies, 54; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002). Beylot, Robert, “Bref aperçu des principaux textes éthiopiens dérivés des Acta Pilati,” Langues orientales anciennes, philologie et linguistique 1 (1988) 181–195.

Bibliography

185

Beylot, Robert, Le Martyre de Pilate. Édition critique de la version éthiopienne et traduction française (Patrologia Orientalis, 45/4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993). Bick, Josef, Wiener Palimpseste vol. 1: Cod. Palat. Vindobonensis 16, olim Bobbiensis (Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 159/7; Vienna: Hölder, 1908). Bilabel, Friedrich, Ein koptisches Fragment über die Begründer des Manichäismus (Veröffentlichungen aus den Badischen Papyrus-Sammlungen, Heft 3; Heidelberg, 1922). Blanc, Cécile, Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean (Sources chrétiennes, 120; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966). Bombeck, Stefan, “Pseudo-Kyrillos In Mariam virginem. Text und Übersetzung von Pierpont Morgan M 597 fols. 46–74,” Orientalia 70 (2001) 40–88. Bombeck, Stefan, Die Geschichte der heiligen Maria in einer alten äthiopischen Handschrift 2 vols. (Dortmund: Praxiswissen, 2004–2010). Bosson, Nathalie – Boud’hors, Anne (eds.), Actes du huitième Congrès International d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin – 3 juillet 2004 2 vols. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 162–163; Louvain: Peeters, 2007). Boud’hors, Anne, “Éloge de Jean-Baptiste,” in Bovon – Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1, 1552–1578. Bouriant, Urbain, “Les Canons Apostoliques de Clément de Rome. Traduction en dialecte copte thébain d’après un manuscrit de la bibliothèque du Patriarche jacobite du Caire,” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 5 (1884) 199–216, 6 (1885) 97–115. Boutros, Ramez W., “The Christian Monuments of Tebtunis,” in Gabra (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism, 119–131. Bovon, François – Geoltrain, Pierre (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1997). Bowe, Barbara E., “Dancing into the Divine: The Hymn of the Dance in the Acts of John,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 83–104. Brakke, David, “Shenute: On Cleaving to Profitable Things,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 20 (1989) 115–141. Brakke, David, “The Authenticity of the Ascetic Athanasiana,” Orientalia 63 (1994) 17–56. Brakke, David, Demons and the Making of the Monk. Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 2006). Breckenridge, James D., “‘Et Prima Vidit’: The Iconography of the Appearance of Christ to His Mother,” The Art Bulletin 39.1 (1957) 9–32. Bremmer, Jan N. – Czachesz, István (eds.), The Visio Pauli and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha, 9; Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Browne, Gerald M., “Griffith’s Stauros-Text,” Studia Papyrologica 22 (1983) 75–119. Browne, Gerald M., Chrysostomus Nubianus: An Old Nubian Version of Ps.-Chrysostom, In venerabilem crucem sermo (Papyrologica castroctaviana 10; Rome/Barcelona: Papyrologica castroctaviana, 1984). Browne, Gerald M., “Ps.-Chrysostom, In venerabilem crucem sermo: The Syriac Version,” Le Muséon 99 (1986) 39–59. Browne, Gerald M., “An Old Nubian Version of Ps.-Chrysostom, In quattuor animalia,” Altorientalische Forschungen 15 (1988) 215–219.

186

Bibliography

Browne, Gerald M., “A Revision of the Old Nubian Version of the Institutio Michaelis,” Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 3 (1988) 17–24. Browne, Gerald M., “Ps.-Chrysostom, In venerabilem crucem sermo: The Greek Vorlage of the Syriac Version,” Le Muséon 103 (1990) 125–138. Browne, Gerald M., “An Old Nubian Version of the Liber Institutionis Michaelis,” in Godlewski (ed.), Coptic Studies, 75–79. Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter (London: Kegan Paul, 1898). Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis, Contendings of the Apostles 2 vols. (London: Henry Frowde, 1899). Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1913). Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis, Coptic Martyrdoms in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1914). Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1915). Budka, Julia – Gundacker, Roman – Pieke, Gabriele (eds.), Florilegium Aegyptiacum. Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013 (Göttinger Miszellen, Beihefte, 14; Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, 2013). Bumazhnov, Dmitrij (ed.), Christliches Ägypten in der spätantiken Zeit. Akten der 2. Tübinger Tagung zum Christlichen Orient (7.–8. Dezember 2007) (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Bundy, David, “An Anti-Marcionite Commentary on the Lucan Parables (Pseudo-Ephrem A),” Le Muséon 103 (1990) 111–123. Burke, Tony – Landau, Brent (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha. More Noncanonical Scriptures vol. 1 (Gran Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016). Burmester, Oswald Hugh Ewart, “Egyptian Mythology in the Coptic Apocrypha,” Orientalia 7 (1938) 355–367. Burrell, Barbara, Neokoroi. Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Cincinnati Classical Studies, n.s. 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004). Burtea, Bogdan, “Ḥaṣurä mäsqäl,” in S. Uhlig et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 2, 1045–1046. Buzi, Paola, Catalogo dei manoscritti copti borgiani conservati presso la Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III” di Napoli (Accademia dei Lincei – Memorie, Ser. IX, 25/1; Rome: Scienze e lettere, 2009). Buzi, Paola – Camplani, Alberto (eds.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 125; Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2011). Cadbury, Henry Joel, “A Proper Name for Dives,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 399–404. Cadbury, Henry Joel, “The Name for Dives,” Journal for Biblical Literature 84 (1965) 73. Campagnano, Antonella, “Monaci egiziani fra V e VI secolo,” Vetera Christianorum 15 (1978) 223–246. Campagnano, Antonella, Ps. Cirillo di Gerusalemme. Omelie copte sulla Passione, sulla Croce e sulla Vergine (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antiquità, 66; Milano: Cisalpino – Goliardica, 1980).

Bibliography

187

Casey, Robert P., “The Apocalypse of Paul,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933) 1–32. Cavallo, Guglielmo, “Grammata Alexandrina,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 24 (1975) 23–54. Cerulli, Enrico, “Un hymne éthiopien à Pilate sanctifié,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 49 (1975–1976) 591–594. Cerulli, Enrico, “Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in Ethiopian Tradition and Poetry,” Proceedings of the British Academy 59 (1975) 141–158. Chaîne, Marius “Le Livre du Coq (‘Matzḥafa Dorho’),” Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 13 (1905) 276–281. Chaîne, Marius, “Catéchèse attribuée à Saint Basile de Césarée. Une lettre apocryphe de Saint Luc,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 23 (1922–1923) 150–159, 271–302. Chaîne, Marius, “Sermon de Théodose patriarche d’Alexandrie sur la dormition et l’assomption de la Vierge,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 29 (1933–1934) 272–314. Chassinat, Émile, Le quatrième livre des entretiens et épîtres de Shenouti (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 23; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1911). Chauleur, Sylvestre, “Deux pages d’un manuscrit sur la Sainte Vierge,” Cahiers Coptes 12 (1956) 3–5. Clackson, Sarah J., “The Michaelides Manuscript Collection,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994) 223–226. Clivaz, Claire, “L’Évangile du Sauveur, He 5,7 et la prière de supplication: en quête d’autres traditions sur la prière au Mont des Oliviers,” Apocrypha 18 (2007) 109–138. Clivaz, Claire, “Hebrews 5.7, Jesus’ Prayer on the Mount of Olives and Jewish Christianity: Hearing Early Christian Voices in Canonical and Apocryphal Texts,” in Bauckham et al. (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses, 187–209. Conti Rossini, Carlo, “Nuovi appunti sui giudei d’Abissinia,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei ser. 5, vol. 31 (1922) 221–240. Contreras, Enrique – Menapace, Daniel, “Catequesis de San Pacomio a propósito de un monje rencoroso,” Cuadermos Monasticos 103 (1992) 503–536. Copeland, Kirsti Barrett, Mapping the Apocalypse of Paul: Geography, Genre and History (Ph.D. dissertation; Princeton University, 2001). Coquin, René-Georges, “Apollon de Titkooḥ ou/et Apollon de Bawiṭ,” Orientalia 46 (1977) 435–446. Coquin, René-Georges, “Le fonds copte de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire,” in Écritures et traditions, 9–18. Coquin, René-Georges, “Un encomion copte sur Marie-Madeleine attribué à Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 90 (1990) 169–212. Coquin, René-Georges, “Canons, Apostolic,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia 2, 451–453. Coquin, René-Georges, “Cyriacus,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia 3, 669–671. Cowley, Roger W., “The So-Called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock’: Part of an Apocryphal Passion Gospel. ‘The Homily and Teaching of Our Fathers the Holy Apostles’,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1 (1985) 16–22. Cramer, Maria, Koptische Paläographie (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964). Cramer, Maria – Krause, Martin, Das koptische Antiphonar (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 12; Münster, Aschendorf, 2008).

188

Bibliography

Crum, Walter Ewing, “Notes on the Strassburg Gospel Fragments,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 22 (1900) 72–76. Crum, Walter Ewing, “Texts Attributed to Peter of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903) 387–397. Crum, Walter Ewing, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1905). Crum, Walter Ewing, “Hagiographica from Leipzig Manuscripts,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 29 (1907) 289–296, 301–307. Crum, Walter Ewing, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester – London: Manchester University Press – Bernard Quaritch et al., 1909). Crum, Walter Ewing, “New Coptic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 5 (1918–20) 497–503. Crum, Walter Ewing, “Some Further Meletian Documents,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13 (1927) 19–26. David, Joseph, “Les éclaircissements de Saint Athanase sur les Psaumes: Fragments d’une traduction en copte sahidique,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 24 (1924) 3–37. DeConick, April D., Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series, 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). De Lagarde, Paul, Ægyptiaca (Göttingen: D. A. Hoter, 1883; repr. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1972). Depuydt, Leo (ed.), Homiletica from the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (CSCO, 524– 525. Scriptores coptici, 43–44; Louvain: Peeters, 1991). Depuydt, Leo (ed.), Encomiastica from the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (CSCO, 544–545. Scriptores coptici, 47–48; Louvain: Peeters, 1993). Depuydt, Leo, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 4–5; Oriental Series, 1–2; Leuven: Peeters, 1993). De Rustafjaell, Robert, The Light of Egypt from Recently Discovered Predynastic and Early Christian Records (London: Kegan Paul – Trench – Trübner & Co., 1909). De Santos Otero, Aurelio, Los Evangelios apócrifos (Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 148; Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1956, 19886). De Vis, Henri, Homélies coptes de la Vaticane 2 vols. (Coptica, 1, 5; Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Roghandel-Nordisk Forlag, 1922–1929). De Vogüé, Adalbert, “Deux réminiscences du livre de Josué dans la première catéchèse de saint Pachôme,” Studia monastica 36 (1994) 7–11. Devos, Paul, “Le dossier hagiographique de S. Jacques l’Intercis I: La passion grecque inédite (BHG. 772),” Analecta Bollandiana 71 (1953) 157–210. Devos, Paul, “L’apparition du Ressuscité à sa Mère. Un nouveau témoin copte,” Analecta Bollandiana 96 (1978) 388. Dewey, Arthur J., “The Hymn in the Acts of John: Dance as Hermeneutic,” Semeia 38 (1986) 67–80. Dewey, Arthur J., “The Gospel of the Savior: A Gem in a Jigsaw Puzzle,” Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 22 (2002) 1–15. Dib, Pierre, “Jules d’Aqfahs,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 15 (1910) 301–306. Dib, Pierre, “Deux discours de Cyriaque, évêque de Behnesâ, sur la Fuite en Égypte,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 15 (1910) 157–161.

Bibliography

189

Dilley, Paul C., “Christus Saltans as Dionysos and David: The Dance of the Savior in Its Late-Antique Cultural Context,” Apocrypha 24 (2013) 237–254. Dilley, Paul C., “The Discourse of the Savior and the Dance of the Savior,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 184–196. Dillmann, August, Verzeichniss der abessinischen Handschriften (Die Handschriften-verzeichniss der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Bd. 3; Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1878). DiTommaso, Lorenzo – Turcescu, Lucian (eds.), The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11–13 October 2006 (Bible in Ancient Christianity, 6; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008). Dochhorn, Jan, “Das Testament Isaaks nach den sahidischen Textzeugen und dem bohairischen Paralleltext. Eine synoptische Übersicht mit kritischen Anmerkungen,” in Bumazhnov (ed.), Christliches Ägypten, 261–329. Dolbeau, François, “Listes d’apôtres et de disciples,” Geoltrain – Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2, 453–480. Downey, Glanville, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to Arab Conquest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961). Dörries, Hermann – Klostermann, Erich – Kroeger, Matthias, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarios (Patristische Texte und Studien, 4; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964). Egan, George A., Saint Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel 2 vols. (CSCO, 291–292. Scriptores armeniaci, 5–6; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1968). Egan, George A., “A Re-consideration of the Authenticity of Ephem’s ‘An Exposition of the Gospel’,” in Granfield – Jungmann (eds.), Kyriakon, 128–134. Ehrman, Bart D., Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003). Ehrman, Bart D., Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003). Ehrman, Bart D., The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006). Ehrman, Bart D., Forgery and Counterforgery. The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013). Ehrman, Bart D. – Pleše, Zlatko, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Ehrman, Bart D. – Pleše, Zlatko, The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Elliott, James Keith (ed.), The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 113; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004). Emmel, Stephen et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit. Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.–26. Juli 1996 2 vols. (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 6/1–2; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999). Emmel, Stephen, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior (“Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium”): Righting the Order of Pages and Events,” Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002) 45–72. Emmel, Stephen, “The ‘Gospel of the Savior’: A New Witness to the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel,” Bulletin de l’AELAC 12 (2002) 9–12.

190

Bibliography

Emmel, Stephen, “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium = The Strasbourg Coptic Gospel: Prolegomena to a New Edition of the Strasbourg Fragments,” in Bethge et al. (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruction, 353–374. Emmel, Stephen, “Preliminary Reedition and Translation of the Gospel of the Savior: New Light on the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel and the Stauros-Text from Nubia,” Apocrypha 14 (2003) 9–53. Emmel, Stephen, “Ein altes Evangelium der Apostel taucht in Fragmenten aus Ägypten und Nubien auf,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 85–99. Emmel, Stephen, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus 2 vols. (CSCO, 599–600. Subsidia, 111– 112; Louvain: Peeters, 2004). Engberding, Hieronymus, “Untersuchungen zu den jüngst veröffentlichten Bruchstücken sa‘idischer Liturgie,” Oriens Christianus 43 (1959) 59–75. Erbetta, Mario, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento vol. 1/2 (Turin: Marietti, 1981). Erho, Ted, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (2013) 1–23. Evelyn White, Hugh G., The Monasteries of the Wadi ‘n Natrûn part 1: New Coptic Texts from the Monastery of Saint Macarius (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition; New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926). Evetts, Basil Thomas Alfred, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria vol. 2: Peter I to Benjamin I (661) (Patrologia Orientalis, 1/4; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907). Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962) 170–179. Flinders Petrie, William Matthew, Gizeh and Rifeh (London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1907). Forget, Jacques, Synaxarium alexandrinum. Pars posterior 2 vols. (CSCO, 67, 90. Scriptores arabici, 11, 13; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1926). Förster, Hans, “Ein bisher unediertes Fragment des Ms B des Liber Bartholomaei. Edition von P. Vindob. K. 9574,” Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004) 55–75. Förster, Hans, “‘Streck dich nicht mit einer Verheirateten zum Weingelage hin’ (Sir 9,9a). Edition von P. Vindob. K. 9670,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 14 (2010) 273–305. Frey, Jörg, “Leidenskampf und Himmelsreise. Das Berliner Evangelien-Fragment (Papyrus Berolinensis 22220) und die Gethsemane-Tradition,” Biblische Zeitschrift 46 (2002) 71–96. Frey, Jörg – Schröter, Jens (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen. Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach‑ und Kulturtraditionen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 254; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Funk, Franz Xaver, “Das achte Buch der Apostolischen Konstitutionen in der koptischen Überlieferung,” Theologische Quartalschrift 86 (1904) 429–442. Funk, Wolf-Peter, Unpublished transcription of P. Berol. 22220 based on Hedrick – Mirecki and Emmel’s editions, with some improvements. Gabra, Gawdat, Cairo: The Coptic Museum and Old Churches (Cairo: Egyptian International Publishing Co., 1993). Gabra, Gawdat (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum Oasis (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2005).

Bibliography

191

Galtier, Émile, Le martyre de Pilate (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 27; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1912). Gardner, Iain, “A Codex Leaf from a Short Recension (Rec. D) of the Liber Bartholomaei (LB),” in Hoogendijk – Muhs (eds.), Sixty-Five Papyrological Texts, 19–28. Gardner, Iain – Johnston, Jay, “The Passover Litany of the Liber Bartholomaei: Edition of Bibliothèque Nationale Copte 1321 F. 40,” Journal of Coptic Studies 11 (2009) 61–70. Gardner, Iain – Johnston, Jay, “The Liber Bartholomaei on the Ascension: Edition of Bibliothèque Nationale 1321 F. 37,” Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010) 74–86. Garitte, Gérard, “Constantine, évêque d’Assiout,” in Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum, 287–304. Garitte, Gérard, “Rufus, évêque de Šotep et ses commentaires des évangiles,” Le Muséon 69 (1956) 11–33. Geoltrain, Pierre – Kaestli, Jean-Daniel (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 2 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 2005). Ghica, Victor, “Frammento inedito di tradizione pacomiana,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 70 (2004) 451–456. Godlewski, Włodzimierz (ed.), Coptic Studies. Acts of the Third International Congress of Coptic Studies, Warsaw, 20–25 August, 1984 (Warsaw: Éditions scientifiques de Pologne, 1990). Godron, Gérard, Textes relatifs à Saint Claude d’Antioche (Patrologia Orientalis, 35/4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1970). Goehring, James E. – Timbie, Janet A. (eds.), The World of Early Egyptian Christianity: Language, Literature, and Social Context. Essays in Honor of David W. Johnson (CUA Studies in Early Christianity; Washington, DC: the Catholic University of America Press, 2007). González Casado, Pilar, Las relaciones lingüísticas entre el siríaco y el árabe en textos religiosos árabes cristianos vol. 1 (Ph.D. dissertation; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2000). Gounelle, Rémi, “À propos des volailles cuites qui ont chanté lors de la passion du Christ,” Recherches augustiniennes 33 (2003) 19–63. Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur vol. 1 (Studi e testi, 118; Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944). Granfield, Patrick  – Jungmann, Josef Andreas (eds.), Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Münster: Aschendorff, 1970) 128–134. Grébaut, Sylvain, “Litanies de la Croix,” Aethiopica 3 (1925) 187–190. Gregory, Caspar René, “Les cahiers des manuscrits grecs,” Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 4th ser. 13 (1885) 261–268. Griffith, Francis Llewellyn, The Nubian Texts of the Christian Period (Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jg. 1913. Phil.-hist. Classe, 8; Berlin: Reimer, 1913). Griffith, Francis Llewellyn, “Some Old Nubian Christian Texts,” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909) 545–551. Grobel, Kendrick, “… Whose Name was Neves,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963–1964) 373–382. Guerrier, Louis – Grébaut, Sylvain, Le Testament en Galilée de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ (Patrologia Orientalis, 9/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1913).

192

Bibliography

Guidi, Ignazio, “Il testo copto del Testamento di Abramo,” “Il Testamento di Isacco e il Testamento di Giacobbe,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei ser. 5, vol. 9 (1900) 157–180, 223–264. Guidi, Ignazio, “Frammenti copti VI,” Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei ser. 4, vol. 3/2 (1887) 368–384. Győry, Hedvig (ed.), Le lotus qui sort de terre. Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga (Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts. Supplément; Budapest: Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2001). Haase, Felix, Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur orientalisch-apokryphen Evangelienliteratur (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913). Hagen, Joost L., “The Diaries of the Apostles: ‘Manuscript Find’ and ‘Manuscript Fiction’ in Coptic Homilies and Other Literary Texts,” in Immerzeel – van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies 1, 349–367. Hagen, Joost L., “‘The Great Cherub’ and His Brothers. Adam, Enoch and Michael and the Names, Deeds and Faces of the Creatures in Ps.-Chrysostom, On the Four Creatures,” in Bosson – Boud’hors (eds.), Actes du huitième Congrès International d’études coptes 2, 467–480. Hagen, Joost L., “Ein anderer Kontext für die Berliner und Strassburger ‘Evangelienfragmente.’ Das ‘Evangelium des Erlösers’ und andere ‘Apostelevangelien’ in der koptischen Literatur,” in Frey – Schröter, Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 339–371. Hagen, Joost L., “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in Orlov – Boccaccini (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch, 7–34. Hall, Robert G., “The Installation of the Archangel Michael,” Coptic Church Review 5 (1984) 108–111. Hallock, Frank H., “Coptic Apocrypha,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933) 163– 174. Hannick, Christian, Maximos Holobolos in der kirchenslavischen homiletischen Literatur (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien, 14; Vienna: VÖAW, 1981). Harnack, Adolf von – Schmidt, Carl, “Ein koptisches Fragment einer Moses-Adam Apokalypse,” Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Classe 28, 2 (1891) 1045–1049. Hartenstein, Judith, “Das Petrusevangelium als Evangelium,” in Kraus – Nicklas (eds.), Das Evangelium nach Petrus, 159–181. Hatch, William H. P., “Three Hitherto Unpublished Leaves from a Manuscript of the Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha in Bohairic,” in Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum, 305–317. Hebbelynck, Adolphe – van Lantschoot, Arnold, Codices coptici Vaticani, Barberiniani, Borgiani, Rossiani vol. 1: Codices coptici Vaticani (Rome: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1937). Hedrick, Charles W., “A Newly Discovered Gospel (Berlin MSS P22220) and the Early Christian Tradition,” American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998) 381–382. Hedrick, Charles W., “A Preliminary Report on Coptic Codex P. Berol. Inv. 22220,” in Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien 2, 127–130. Hedrick, Charles W., “An Anecdotal Argument for the Independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the Synoptic Gospels,” in Bethge et al. (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruction, 113–126.

Bibliography

193

Hedrick, Charles W., “Caveats to a ‘Righted Order’ of the Gospel of the Savior,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003) 229–238. Hedrick, Charles W., “A Revelation Discourse of Jesus,” Journal of Coptic Studies 7 (2005) 13–15. Hedrick, Charles W., “Dating the Gospel of the Savior: Response to Peter Nagel and Pierluigi Piovanelli,” Apocrypha 24 (2013) 223–236. Hedrick, Charles W. – Mirecki, Paul A., Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel (California Classical Library; Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1999). Heide, Martin, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs. Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen, 56; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000).

Henin, Gerges, ‫( كتاب ميامير وعجائب العدرا‬Cairo: El-Helal, 1902).

Hoogendijk, Francisca A. J. – Muhs, Brian Paul (eds.), Sixty-Five Papyrological Texts Presented To Klaas A. Worp on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, 33; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2008). Horn, Jürgen, “Der erste Märtyrer. Zu einem Topos der koptischen Märtyrerliteratur (mit zwei Anhängen),” in Koch (ed.), Studien zur spätantiken, 31–55. Horner, George, The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones Ecclesiastici (London: Williams & Norgate, 1904). Hubai, Péter, “Unbekannte koptische Apocryphe aus Nubien (Vorläufiger Bericht)”, in Győry (ed.), Le lotus qui sort de terre, 309–323. Hubai, Péter, A Megváltó a keresztről. Kopt apokrifek Núbiából (A Kasr el-Wizz kódex) (Cahiers Patristiques. Textes coptes; Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2006). Hubai, Péter, Koptische Apokryphen aus Nubien. Der Kasr el-Wizz Kodex (Texte und Untersuchungen, 163; Berlin – New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 2009). Hughes, George R., unpublished translation of the Qasr el-Wizz codex (dated July 1, 1966). Hughes, George R., “A Coptic Liturgical Book from Qasr el-Wizz in Nubia,” Oriental Institute Report 1965/1966 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1966) 10–13. Hyvernat, Henri, “Fragmente der altcoptischen (sic!) Liturgie,” Römische Quartalschrift 1 (1887) 330–345. Hyvernat, Henri, Bybliothecae Pierpont Morgan codices coptici photographice expressi vol. 17: Codex M 576. Vita et transitus S. Ioh. ev. sahidice (Rome: s.n., 1922). Iles Johnston, Sarah (ed.), Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 2004). Immerzeel, Mat – van der Vliet, Jacques (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000 2 vols. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 133; Leuven – Paris – Dudley: Peeters, 2004). Jacoby, Adolf, Ein neues Evangelienfragment (Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner, 1900). Jakab, Attila, review of Hubai, A Megváltó, Apocrypha 18 (2007) 342–344. James, Montague Rhodes, “Some New Coptic Apocrypha,” Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) 577–586. James, Montague Rhodes, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, 19638). Janssens, Bart, et al. (eds.), Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 137; Louvain: Peeters, 2004).

194

Bibliography

Jaspert, Bernd (ed.), Christliche Frömmigkeit. Studien und Texte zu ihrer Geschichte vol. 1: Von den Aufängen bis zum 15. Jahrhundert (Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz, 2013). Jenkins, Philip, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001). Joest, Christoph, “Übersetzung von Pachoms Kathechese ‘An einen grollenden Mönch’,” Le Muséon 120 (2007) 91–129. Jones, Timothy Paul, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007). Junod, Eric – Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, Acta Iohannis. Praefatio, Textus alii, Commentarius, Indices 2 vols. (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, 1–2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983). Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, “Response to A. J. Dewey,” Semeia 38 (1986) 81–88. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, “Où en est l’étude de l’Évangile de Barthélemy?” Revue biblique 95 (1988) 5–33. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel – Cherix, Pierre, L’évangile de Barthélemy (Collection Apocryphes; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993). Kahle, Paul E., Bala’izah. Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1954). Khater, Antoine – Khs-Burmester, Oswald Hugh Ewart, Catalogue of the Coptic and Christian Arabic MSS preserved in the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo (Publications de la Société d’archéologie copte. Bibliothèque de manuscrits, 1; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1967). King, Karen L., What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 2003). King, Karen L., “Gnosticism,” in Iles Johnston (ed.), Religions of the Ancient World, 652–655. Klameth, Gustav, “Über die Herkunft der apokryphen Geschichte Josephs des Zimmermanns,” Angelos 3 (1928) 6–31. Klauck, Hans-Josef, The Apocryphal Gospels. An Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2004). Kloppenborg, John S., Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008). Knox, Sanka, “Old Coptic MS. Earthed Near Abu Simbel,” New York Times Dec. 24, 1965, 15. Koch, Guntram (ed.), Studien zur spätantiken und frühchristlichen Kunst und Kultur des Orients (Göttinger Orientforschungen, 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982). Kraus, Thomas J. – Nicklas, Tobias, Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse. Die griechischen Fragmente mit deutscher und englischer Übersetzung (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, 11. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004). Kraus, Thomas J. – Nicklas, Tobias (eds.), Das Evangelium nach Petrus. Text, Kontexte, Intertexte (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007). Kropp, Angelicus, Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte 3 vols. (Brussels: Édition de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1931). Kruger, Michael J., The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P. Oxy. 840 and Its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity (Texts and Editions for New Testament Study, 1; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2005).

Bibliography

195

Kruit, Nico – Witkam, Jan Just, List of Coptic Manuscript Materials in the Papyrological Institute Leiden and in the Library of the University of Leiden (Leiden: Papyrological Institute, Legatum Warnerianum in Leiden University Library, 2000). Kuhn, Karl Heinz, “The Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 8 (1957) 225–239. Kuhn, Karl Heinz, Pseudo-Shenoute, On Christian Behavior (CSCO, 206–207. Scriptores coptici, 29–30; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1960). Kuhn, Karl Heinz, “An English Translation of the Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 18 (1967) 325–336. Kuhn, Karl Heinz, “Four Additional Sahidic Fragments of a Panegyric on John the Baptist Attributed to Theodosius, Archbishop of Alexandria,” Le Muséon 96 (1983) 251–265. Lacau, Pierre, Fragments d’apocryphes coptes (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 9; Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1904). Ladeuze, Paulin, “Apocryphes évangéliques coptes. Pseudo-Gamaliel; Évangile de Barthélemy,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 7 (1906) 245–268. Lafontaine, Guy, “Une homélie copte sur le Diable et sur Michel, attribuée à Grégoire le Théologien,” Le Muséon 92 (1979) 37–60. Łajtar, Adam – Obłuski, Artur – Zych, Iwona (eds.), Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana. The Włodzimierz Godlewski Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw, 2016). Lake, Kirsopp, “The Epistola Apostolorum,” Harvard Theological Review 14 (1921) 15–29. Lake, Kirsopp, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vol. 1 (Loeb Classical Library, 153; Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press – William Heinemann, 1935). Lamacraft, Charles T., “Early Book-Bindings from a Coptic Monastery,” The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, 4th series, 20 (1939–1940) 214–233. Lanchantin, Ève, “Une homélie sur le Martyre de Pilate, attribuée à Cyriaque de Behnessa,” Apocrypha 13 (2002) 135–202. Lanne, Emmanuel, Le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc (Patrologia Orientalis, 28/8; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1958). Layton, Bentley, “Towards a New Coptic Paleography,” in Orlandi – Wisse (eds.), Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies, 149–158. Layton, Bentley, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired since the Year 1906 (London: British Library, 1987). Layton, Bentley (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (Nag Hammadi Studies, 20; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989). Lefort, Louis-Théophile, “Note sur le texte copte des Constitutions Apostoliques,” Le Muséon 12 (1911) 23–24. Lefort, Louis-Théophile, “S. Athanase écrivain copte,” Le Muséon 46 (1933) 1–33. Lefort, Louis-Théophile, “Coptica Lovaniensia,” Le Muséon 51 (1938) 1–65. Lefort, Louis-Théophile, “Le nom du mauvais riche (Lc. 16.19) et la tradition copte,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 37 (1939) 65–72. Lefort, Louis-Théophile, Les manuscrits coptes de l’Université de Louvain 1: Textes littéraires (Louvain: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1940). Lefort, Louis-Théophile, “Fragments coptes,” Le Muséon 58 (1945) 97–120. Lefort, Louis-Théophile, “À propos de ‘L’Histoire de Joseph le Charpentier’,” Le Muséon 66 (1953) 201–223.

196

Bibliography

Lefort, Louis-Théophile, S. Athanase. Lettres festales et pastorales en copte 2 vols. (CSCO 150–151. Scriptores Coptici 19–20; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1955). Lefort, Louis-Théophile, Œuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples 2 vols. (CSCO, 159–160. Scriptores coptici, 23; Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1956). Lemm, Oscar Eduardovich von, “Kleine koptische Studien XXVI–XLV: XLIV. Eine neue Bartholomäus-Apokalypse,” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 21/3 (1904) 151–167 (repr. in Idem, Studien, 333–349). Lemm, Oscar Eduardovich von, “Kleine koptische Studien XLVI–L: L. Zum Berliner Fragment einer Bartholomäus-Apokalypse,” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 25/5 (1906) 185–193 (repr. in Idem, Studien, 457–465). Lemm, Oscar Eduardovich von, Kleine koptische Studien I–LVIII (Subsidia Byzantina, 10; Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat, 1972). Lietzmann, Hans, “Sahidische Bruchstücke der Gregorios‑ und Kyrillos-Liturgie,” Oriens Christianus 16 (1920) 1–19. Lifchitz, Déborah, Textes éthiopiens magico-religieux (Travaux et mémoires de l’Institut d’éthnologie, 38; Paris: Institut d’éthnologie, 1940). Lipsius, Richard Adelbert, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden vol. 1 (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetscheke, 1883). Louis, Catherine, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l’IFAO du Caire. Contribution à la reconstitution de la bibliothèque du Monastère Blanc (Ph.D. dissertation; École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2005). Lucchesi, Enzo, Répertoire des manuscrits coptes (sahidiques) publiés de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris (Cahiers d’orientalisme, 1; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1981). Lucchesi, Enzo, “Chénouté a-t-il écrit en grec?,” in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont, 201–210. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Un évangile apocryphe imaginaire,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 28 (1997) 167–178. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Une (pseudo‑)Apocalypse d’Athanase en copte,” Analecta Bollandiana 115 (1997) 241–248. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Feuillets coptes non identifiés du prétendu Évangile de Barthélemy,” Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997) 273–275. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Pierre l’Apôtre ou Pierre d’Alexandrie?,” Analecta Bollandiana 117 (1999) 285–288. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Un nouveau témoin copte du Sermon sur la conduite chrétienne du Pseudo-Chenouté,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 66 (2000) 419–422. Lucchesi, Enzo, “La ‘Vorlage’ arabe du Livre du coq éthiopien,” Orientalia 74 (2005) 91–92. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Encore un fragment copte de l’‘Évangile de Barthélemy’,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 31 (2005) 79–81. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Fausses attributions en hagiographie copte,” Le Muséon 113 (2006) 233–254. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Identification de P. Vindob. K. 2644,” Orientalia 76 (2007) 174–175. Lucchesi, Enzo, “L’homélie copte d’Évode de Rome en l’honneur des Apôtres: un feuillet nouveau,” Orientalia 76 (2007) 379–384. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Les sept Marie dans une homélie copte et l’origine du mälkɘ’ éthiopien,” Analecta Bollandiana 127 (2009) 9–15. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Deux commentaires coptes sur l’Evangile de Matthieu,” Le Muséon 123 (2010) 19–37.

Bibliography

197

Lucchesi, Enzo, “Regards nouveaux sur la littérature copte,” in Buzi – Camplani (eds.), Christianity in Egypt, 369–414. Lucchesi, Enzo, “Deux témoins coptes de l’homélie sur l’Archange Gabriel, attribuée à Jean Chrysostome,” Analecta Bollandiana 129 (2011) 324. Luckritz Marquis, Christine, “An Encomium on Mary Magdalene. A New Translation and Introduction,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 197–216. Luisier, Philippe, review of Beylot, Martyre de Pilate, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 61 (1995) 251. Luisier, Philippe, “De Pilate chez les Coptes,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 62 (1996) 411–425. Lusini, Gianfrancesco, “Appunti sulla patristica greca di tradizione etiopica,” Studi classici e orientali 38 (1988) 469–493. MacCoull, Leslie S. B., “Dated and Datable Coptic Documentary Hands Before A. D. 700,” Le Muséon 110 (1997) 349–366, at 349–351. Macomber, William F., Catalogue of the Christian Arabic Manuscripts of the Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies, Muski, Cairo (Studia Orientalia Christiana; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1984). Malan, Salomon Caesar, The Conflicts of the Holy Apostles: An Apocryphal Book of the Early Eastern Church (London: D. Nutt, 1871). Maloney, George A., Pseudo-Macarius: The Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter (The Classics of Western Spirituality, 75; New York, NY – Mawhaw, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992). Markschies, Christoph, “Was wissen wir über den Sitz im Leben der apokryphen Evangelien?,” in Frey – Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 61–90. Markschies, Christoph – Schröter, Jens (eds.), Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung vol. 1/2: Evangelien und Verwandtes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Marrassini, Paolo, “I manoscritti etiopici della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze,” Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 31 (1987) 69–110. Martin, Victor – Kasser, Rodolphe, Papyrus Bodmer XIV. Évangile de Luc chap. 3–24 (Cologne – Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961). McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its History, Theology, and Texts (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 23; Leiden – New York, NY – Köln: E. J. Brill, 1994). Metzger, Marcel, Les Constitutions apostoliques vol. 1 (Sources chrétiennes, 320; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985). Metzger, Marcel, Les Constitutions apostoliques vol. 3 (Sources chrétiennes, 336; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987). Mina, Togo, Le martyre d’Apa Epima (Service des antiquités de l’Égypte, 3; Cairo: Imprimerie nationale, 1937). Mina, Togo, “Jules d’Aqfahs et ses œuvres. À propos d’une icône conservée dans l’Église d’Abou’s-Seifein,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 3 (1937) 41–47. Miner, Dorothy (ed.), Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954). Mingana, Alphonse, Woodbrooke Studies. Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshūni vol. 2 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1928). Mingarelli, Giovanni Luigi, Ægyptiorum codicum reliquiæ Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatæ 2 vol. (Bologna: Typis Lælii a Vulpe, 1785).

198

Bibliography

Moraldi, Luigi, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento vol. 1 (Classici delle religioni, 5; Turin: UTET, 1971). Morard, Françoise, “Homélie copte sur les apôtres au Jugement Dernier,” in Warren et al. (eds.), Early Christian Voices, 417–430. Morard, Françoise, “Homélie sur la vie de Jésus et son amour pour les apôtres,” in Geoltrain – Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2, 101–134. Morenz, Siegfried, Die Geschichte von Joseph dem Zimmermann (Texte und Untersuchungen, 56/1; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1951). Munier, Henri, “Fragments des actes du martyre de l’Apa Chnoubé,” Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 17 (1917) 145–159. Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung 2 vols. (Patristische Texte und Studien, 15–16; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975–1977). Müller, Caspar Detlef Gustav, Die alte koptische Predigt: Versuch eines Überblicks (Berlin: Darmstadt, 1954). Müller, Caspar Detlef Gustav, Die Engellehre der koptischen Kirche. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der christlichen Frömmigkeit in Ägypten (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959). Müller, Caspar Detlef Gustav, Die Bücher der Einsetzung der Erzengel Michael und Gabriel 2 vols. (CSCO, 225–226. Scriptores coptici, 31–32; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962). Nagel, Peter, “Zur sahidischen Version des Testamentes Isaaks,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 12 (1963) 259–263. Nagel, Peter (ed.), Carl-Schmidt-Kolloquium an der Martin-Luther-Universität 1988 (Wissenschaftliche Beiträge, 1990/23; Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-Universität, 1990). Nagel, Peter, “Ein koptisches Fragment aus Kyrill von Jerusalem (Cat. VI 22–24) über die Anfänge des Manichäismus (P. Heid.Inv.Kopt. 450),” in Études Coptes IV, 40–52. Nagel, Peter, “‘Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern von der Auferstehung’ – Zur Herkunft und Datierung des ‘Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums’,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (2003) 215–257. Nagel, Peter, “Apokryphe Jesusworte in der koptischen Überlieferung,” in Frey – Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 495–526. Nagel, Peter, “Koptischer Kreuzhymnus aus Nubien (6.–8. Jh.),” in Jaspert (ed.), Christliche Frömmigkeit, 320–322. Nagel, Peter, “Ein Stauros-Text aus Qasr el-Wizz in koptischer und altnubischer Parallelversion,” in Budka – Gundacker – Pieke (eds.), Florilegium Aegyptiacum, 271–286. Nagel, Titus, “Das ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ und das Johannesevangelium,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (2002) 251–267. Nakano, Chièmi, “Fragments d’une homélie copte sur la Vierge Marie attribuée à Cyrille de Jérusalem [CPG 3603] (Le Caire, Ifao Copte 159–160, 302–304),” Journal of Coptic Studies 14 (2012) 1–26. Nautin, Pierre – Husson, Pierre, Origène: Homélies sur Jérémie XII–XX (Sources chrétiennes, 238; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1977). Nestle, Eberhard, “Pilatus als Heiliger,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 53 (1899) 540. Orlandi, Tito, “Cirillo di Gerusalemme nella letteratura copta,” Vetera Christianorum 9 (1972) 93–100.

Bibliography

199

Orlandi, Tito, Papiri copti di contenuto teologico/Koptische Papyri theologischen Inhalts (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, 9; Wien: Brüder Hollinek, 1974). Orlandi, Tito, Constantini episcopi urbis Siout encomia in Athanasium duo (CSCO, 349–350. Scriptores coptici, 37–38; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1974). Orlandi, Tito, “Les papyrus coptes du Musée Égyptien de Turin,” Le Muséon 87 (1974) 115–127. Orlandi, Tito, Omelie copte (Corona Patrum, 7; Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1981). Orlandi, Tito, “Gli Apocrifi copti,” Augustinianum 23 (1983) 57–71. Orlandi, Tito, Vite di monaci copti (Collana di testi patristici, 41; Rome: Città Nouva Editrice, 1984). Orlandi, Tito, “Bacheus,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia 2, 324. Orlandi, Tito, “Cycles,” in Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia 3, 666–668. Orlandi, Tito, “Evodius of Rome,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia 4, 1078–1079. Orlandi, Tito, “James Intercisus,” in Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia 4, 1321. Orlandi, Tito, Coptic Texts Relating to the Virgin Mary. An Overview (CMCL. Letteratura copta, serie Studi; Rome: C. I. M., 2008). Orlandi, Tito, “The Turin Coptic Papyri,” Augustinianum 53 (2013) 501–530. Orlandi, Tito – Campagnano, Antonella, Vite dei monaci Phif e Longino (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità, 51; Milano: Cisalpino – Goliardica, 1975). Orlandi, Tito – Wisse, Frederik (eds.), Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies (Rome: C. I. M., 1985) 149–158. Orlov, Andrei A. – Boccaccini, Gabriele (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch. No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica, 4; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2012). Outtier, Bernard, “Une explication de l’Évangile attribuée à saint Ephrem. À propos d’une édition récente,” Parole de l’Orient 1 (1970) 385–407. Pearson, Birger A. – Vivian, Tim, Two Coptic Homilies attributed to Peter of Alexandria. On Riches, On the Epiphany (CMCL; Rome: C. I. M., 1993). Pearson, Birger A., Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity; London – New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2004). Pérès, Jacques-Noël, L’Épître des apôtres et le Testament de notre Sauveur Jésus-Christ (Apocryphes, 5; Turnhout: Brepols, 1994). Pérès, Jacques-Noël, “Les traditions éthiopiennes relatives à Pilate,” Apocrypha 21 (2010) 83–92. Pérès, Jacques-Noël, “Épître des apôtres,” in Bovon – Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1, 357–392. Perkins, Pheme, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). Petersen, Theodore, “The Paragraph Mark in Coptic Illuminated Ornament,” in Miner (ed.), Studies in Art and Literature, 295–330. Piankoff, Alexandre, “La descente aux enfers dans les textes égyptiens et dans les apocryphes coptes,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 7 (1941) 33–46. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Les origines de l’Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 25–64. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Exploring the Ethiopic Book of the Cock: An Apocryphal Passion Gospel from Late Antiquity,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003) 427–454.

200

Bibliography

Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Livre du coq,” in Geoltrain – Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 2, 135–203. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “The Reception of Early Christian Texts and Traditions in Late Antiquity Apocryphal Literature,” in DiTommaso – Turcescu (eds.), The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity, 429–439. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Thursday Night Fever: Dancing and Singing with Jesus in the Gospel of the Savior and the Dance of the Savior around the Cross,” Early Christianity 3 (2012) 229–248. Pleyte, Willem – Boeser, Pieter Adriaan Aart, Manuscrits coptes du Musée d’antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1897). Plisch, Uwe-Karsten, Verborgene Worte Jesu – verworfene Evangelien. Apokryphe Schriften des frühen Christentums (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft und von Cansteinsche Bibelanstalt, 2000). Plisch, Uwe-Karsten, “Zu einigen Einleitungsfragen des Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums (UBE),” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 64–84. Poirier, Paul-Hubert, “Fragments d’une version copte de la Caverne des trésors,” Orientalia 52 (1983) 415–423. Poirier, Paul-Hubert, “Note sur le nom du destinataire des chapitres 44 à 54 de la Caverne des Trésors,” in Christianisme d’Égypte, 115–122. Poirier, Paul-Hubert, review of Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen, Laval théologique et philosophique 67 (2011) 187–189. Prieur, Jean-Marc, Acta Andreae. Textus et indices (Corpus christianorum. Series apocryphorum, 6; Turnhout: Brepols, 1989). Proverbio, Delio Vania, La recensione etiopica dell’omelia pseudocrisostomica De ficu exarata ed il suo tréfonds orientale (Aethiopistische Forschungen, 50; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1998). Proverbio, Delio Vania, “Additamentum Sinuthianum. Nuovi frammenti dal Monastero Bianco in un codice copto della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Rendiconti ser. 9, vol. 12 (2001) 409–417. Pulver, Max, “Jesu Reigen und Kreuzigung nach den Johannes-Akten,” Eranos-Jahrbuch 9 (1942) 141–177. Quecke, Hans, Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.Nr. 181 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 6; Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1977). Quecke, Hans, Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschriften 813 and 814 der Chester Beatty Library und der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 11; Rome – Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1984). Quibell, James E., Excavations at Saqqara (1908–9, 1909–10). The Monastery of Apa Jeremias (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’IFAO, 1912). Renaudot, Eusèbe, Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio vol. 1 (Frankfurt-am-Main – Paris: Joseph Baer – J. A. Toulouse, 18472). Revillout, Eugène, Apocryphes coptes du Nouveau Testament (Études Égyptologiques, 7; Paris: F. Vieweg, 1876). Revillout, Eugène, “L’Évangile des XII Apôtres récemment découvert,” Revue biblique 1 (1904) 167–187, 321–355. Revillout, Eugène, Les apocryphes coptes I: Les Évangiles des douze apôtres et de Saint Barthélemy (Patrologia Orientalis, 2/2; Paris: Firmin Didot, 1904).

Bibliography

201

Reymond, Eve Anne Elizabeth – Barns, John Wintour Baldwin, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). Rietz, Henry W. Leathem, “Scholars Announce Discovery of New Gnostic Gospel,” Religious Studies News 12:2 (May 1997) 4. Righi, Davide, Severiano di Gabala, In apostolos: Clavis Coptica 0331 (CPG 4281) 2 vols. (Rome: C. I. M., 2004). Robinson, Forbes, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels. Translations Together with the Texts of Some of Them (Text and Studies, 4/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896). Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro, “The Coptic Manuscript Ms. Or 7023 (Partly, Layton 158). An Assessment of its Structure and Value,” Le Muséon 119 (2006) 25–32. Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro, “The Coptic Apocalypse of Paul in Ms Or 7023,” in Bremmer – Czachesz (eds.), Visio Pauli, 158–197. Rondeau, Marie-Josèphe, Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIIe-Ve siècles) vol. 1: Les travaux des Pères grecs et latins sur le Psautier. Recherches et bilan (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 219; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982). Rosenstiehl, Jean-Marie, “La chute de l’Ange: Origines et développement d’une légende. Ses attestations dans la littérature copte,” in Écritures et traditions, 37–60. Rosenstiehl, Jean-Marie, “L’itinéraire de Paul dans l’au-delà. Contribution à l’étude de l’Apocalypse apocryphe de Paul,” in Nagel (ed.), Carl-Schmidt-Kolloquium, 197–212. Rossi, Francesco, “Trascrizione con traduzione italiana dal copto di due omelie di S. Giovanni Crisostomo con alcuni capitoli dei Proverbi di Salomone e frammenti vari di due esegesi sul giorno natalizio del nostro Signore Gesù Cristo,” Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 2nd ser., 40 (1890). Rossi, Francesco, “Trascrizione con traduzione italiana dal copto di un sermone sulla necessita della morte e sul giudizio finale,” Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 2nd ser., 41 (1891). Rossi, Francesco, “Trascrizione con traduzione italiana dal testo copto di un sermone sulla Passione del nostro Signore Gesù Cristo con vari altri frammenti copti del Museo Egizio di Torino,” Memorie della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 2nd ser., 42 (1892) 111–143. Royse, James R., Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools. Studies and Documents, 36; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2008). Samir, Khalil, “Témoins arabes de la catéchèse de Pachôme ‘À propos d’un moine rancunier’ (CPG 2354.1),” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 42 (1976) 494–508. Samir, Khalil, “A propos du volume II de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43 (1977) 182–197. Satzinger, Helmut, Koptische Urkunden III. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen Berlin (Berlin: Verlag Bruno Heßling, 1968). Sauget, Joseph-Marie, “La collection homilético-hagiographique du manuscrit Sinaï arabe 457,” Proche Orient Chrétien 22 (1972) 129–167. Sauget, Joseph-Marie, “Une ébauche d’homéliaire copte pour la Semaine Sainte: le manuscrit Borgia arabe 99,” Parole de l’Orient 14 (1987) 167–202. Saweros, Ibrahim – Suciu, Alin, “The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death. A New Translation and Introduction,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 526–554. Scanlon, George T. – Hingot, Georges, “Slip-Painted Pottery from Wizz/La poterie engobée de Wizz,” African Arts/Arts d’Afrique 2 (1968) 8–13, 65–69.

202

Bibliography

Scanlon, George T., “Excavations at Kasr el-Wizz: A Preliminary Report,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 56 (1970) 29–57; 58 (1972) 7–42. Schenke, Gesa, Der koptische Kölner Papyruskodex 3221 vol. 1: Das Testament des Iob (Papyrologica Coloniensia, 33; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009). Schenke, Hans-Martin, “Das sogenannte ‘Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium’ (UBE),” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 2 (1998) 199–213. Schenke, Hans-Martin, “Das Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium, auch ‘Evangelium des Erlösers’ genannt,” in Markschies – Schröter (eds.), Antike christliche Apokryphen 1/2, 1277–1289. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (rev. ed.; Cambridge – Louisville, KY: James Clarke – Westminster – John Knox Press, 1991). Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, “The Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus,” in Schneemelcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 103–105. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, “Gospels Attributed to the Apostles as a Group,” in Schnee­ melcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 374–382. Schneider, Paul G., The Mystery of the Acts of John: An Interpretation of the Hymn and the Dance in Light of the Acts’ Theology (San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press, 1991). Scholer, David M., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1995–2006 (Nag Hammadi & Manichaean Studies, 65; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2009). Schmidt, Carl, review of Jacoby, Evangelienfragment, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 162 (1900) 481–506. Schmidt, Carl, Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung (Texte und Untersuchungen, 43; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1919). Schmidt, Carl, review of Bilabel, Ein koptisches Fragment, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 28 (1925) 378–379. Schmidt, Carl – MacDermot, Violet, Pistis Sophia (Nag Hammadi Studies, 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978). Sethe, Kurt, “Zu den Märtyrerakten des Apa Schnube,” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache 57 (1922) 139–140. Sheridan, Mark, Rufus of Shotep. Homilies on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (CMCL; Rome: C. I. M., 1998). Sheridan, Mark, “A Homily on the Death of the Virgin Mary Attributed to Evodius of Rome,” in Immerzeel – van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies 1, 393–405. Sheridan, Mark, “Rhetorical Structure in Coptic Sermons,” in Goehring – Timbie (eds.), The World of Early Egyptian Christianity, 25–48. Shier, Louise A., “Old Testament Texts on Vellum,” in Worrell, Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan, 23–167. Shisha-Halevy, Ariel, “Unpublished Shenoutiana in the British Library,” Enchoria 5 (1975) 53–108. Shoemaker, Stephen, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition Attributed to Evodius of Rome. An Edition from Morgan MSS 596 & 598 with Translation,” Analecta Bollandiana 117 (1999) 241–283. Shoemaker, Stephen, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford – New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Bibliography

203

Simon, Jean, “Homélie copte inédite sur S. Michel et le Bon Larron, attribuée à S. Jean Chrysostome,” Orientalia n.s. 3 (1954) 217–242. Skeat, Theodore Cressy, “Early Christian Book Production: Papyri and Manuscripts,” in Elliott (ed.), The Collected Biblical Writings, 33–59. Smith Lewis, Agnes, Acta Mythologica Apostolorum (Horae Semiticae, 3; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1904). Smith Lewis, Agnes, Mythological Acts of the Apostles (Horae Semiticae, 4; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1904). Speyer, Wolfgang, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1/2; Göttingen, 1970). Spiegelberg, Wilhelm – Jacoby, Adolf, “Zu dem Strassburger Evangelien-fragment. Eine Antikritik,” Sphinx 4 (1901) 171–193. Spiegelberg, Wilhelm, “Eine sahidische Version der Dormitio Mariae,” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 25 (1903) 1–15. Suciu, Alin, “New Fragments from the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi Fabri Lignarii,” Le Muséon 122 (2009) 279–289. Suciu, Alin, “À propos de la datation du manuscrit contenant le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc,” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 189–198. Suciu, Alin, “The Borgian Coptic Manuscripts in Naples: Supplementary Identifications and Notes to a Recently Published Catalogue,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 77 (2011) 299–325. Suciu, Alin, “A British Library Fragment from a Homily on the Lament of Mary and the So-Called Gospel of Gamaliel,” Aethiopica. International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 15 (2012) 53–71. Suciu, Alin, “Ps.-Theophili Alexandrini Sermo de Cruce et Latrone (CPG 2622): Edition of Pierpont Morgan M595 with Parallels and Translation,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 16 (2012) 181–225. Suciu, Alin, “A Coptic Fragment from the History of Joseph the Carpenter in the Collection of Duke University Library,” Harvard Theological Review 106:1 (2013) 93–104. Suciu, Alin, “The Book of Bartholomew: A Coptic Apostolic Memoir,” Apocrypha 26 (2015) 211–237. Suciu, Alin, “The Recovery of the Lost Fragment Preserving the Title of the Coptic Book of Bartholomew: Edition and Translation of Cornell University Library, Misc. Bd. Ms. 683,” Apocrypha 26 (2015) 239–259. Suciu, Alin, “The Vossen Collection of Coptic Manuscripts,” Patristics, Apocrypha, Coptic Literature and Manuscripts [blog], July 16, 2016, https://alinsuciu.com/2016/07/16/ the-vossen-collection-of-coptic-manuscripts/ (retrieved October 12, 2016). Suciu, Alin – Lundhaug, Hugo, “The Coptic Parchment Fragments in the Collection of the Oslo University Library: A Checklist,” forthcoming. Su-Min Ri, Andreas, Commentaire de la Caverne des Trésors. Étude sur l’histoire du texte et de ses sources (CSCO, 581. Subsidia, 103; Louvain: Peeters, 2000). Stegemann, Viktor, Koptische Paläographie (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums und des Mittelalters, 1; Heidelberg: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1936). Stern, Ludwig, “Das Leben Josephs des Zimmermanns aus dem Koptischen übersetzt,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 26 (1883) 267–294.

204

Bibliography

Swanson, Mark, “The Specifically Egyptian Context of a Coptic Arabic Text: Chapter Nine of the Kitab al-Idah of Sawîrus ibn al-Muqaffa,” in Medieval Encounters 2 (1996) 214–227. Swanson, Mark, “Recent Developments in Copto-Arabic Studies, 1996–2000,” in Immerzeel – van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies 1, 239–267. Tamburrino, Pio, “Les Saints de l’Ancien Testament dans la 1re catéchèse de Saint Pachôme,” Melto 4 (1968) 33–44. Torallas Tovar, Sofía, Biblia Coptica Montserratensia. P. Monts. Roca II (Orientalia Montserratensia, 2; Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat – Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, 2007). Torallas Tovar, Sofía, “A New Sahidic Coptic Fragment: Sortes Sanctorum or Apophthegmata Patrum?,” Journal of Coptic Studies 17 (2015) 153–164. Ten Hacken, Clara, “Coptic and Arabic Texts on Macrobius, an Egyptian Monk of the Sixth Century,” in Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien 2, 117–126. Ten Hacken, Clara, “A Coptic Text on Macrobius of Tkoou, Spiritual Son of Moses of Abydos,” Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden te Leiden 79 (1999) 103–116. Thompson, Herbert, The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932). Tibet, David, The Investiture of Michael. A Diplomatic Edition of the Coptic Text of P. IFAO ff. 145–148 (M. A. thesis; Macquarie University, 2009). Till, Walter, “Johannes der Täufer in koptischen Literatur,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16 (1958) 310–332. Till, Walter – Leipoldt, Johannes, Der koptische Text der Kirchenordnung Hippolyts (Texte und Untersuchungen, 58; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954). Tite, Philip, “An Encomium on John the Baptist. A New Translation and Introduction,” in Burke – Landau (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha 1, 217–246. Trigg, Joseph W., Origen (The Early Church Fathers; New York, NY: Routledge, 1998). Troupeau, Gérard, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes 1: Manuscrits chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque Nationale. Département des manuscrits; Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1972). Tsakos, Alexandros, “The Liber Institutionis Michaelis in Medieval Nubia,” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 1 (2014) 51–62 (Article 2). Tsakos, Alexandros – Bull, Christian – Abercrombie, Lloyd – Thomassen, Einar, “Miscellanea Epigraphica Nubica IV: A New Edition of the Wizz Codex with an English Translation,” Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 10 (2013) 193–209. Turner, Eric G., The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977). Uhlig, Siegbert et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 4 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003–2010). Vaillant, André, “L’homélie d’Épiphane sur l’ensevelissement du Christ. Texte vieuxslave, texte grec et traduction française,” Radovi staroslavenskog instituta 3 (1958) 6–100. Van den Berg-Onstwedder, Gonnie, “A New Fragment of the Apocryphon of Bartholomew the Apostle,” Göttinger Miszellen 150 (1996) 37–41. Van den Broek, Roelof, “Four Coptic Fragments of a Greek Theosophy,” Vigiliae Christianae 32 (1978) 118–142.

Bibliography

205

Van den Broek, Roelof, “An Early Chronology of Holy Week in Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem’s On the Passion (Pierpont Morgan Library, M 610),” in Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien 2, 101–108. Van den Broek, Roelof, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ. A Coptic Apocryphon (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 118; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2013). Van den Oudenrijn, Marcus-Antonius, Gamaliel. Äthiopische Texte zur Pilatusliteratur (Spicilegium Friburgense, 4; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1959). Van der Vliet, Jacques, “S. Pachôme et S. Athanase: un entretien apocryphe,” Analecta Bollandiana 110 (1992) 21–27. Van Lantschoot, Arnold, “Lettre de Saint Athanase au sujet de l’amour et de la tempérance,” Le Muséon 40 (1927) 265–292. Van Lantschoot, Arnold, Recueil des colophons des manuscrits chrétiens d’Égypte (Bibliothèque du Muséon, 1; Leuven: J.-B. Istas, 1929). Van Lantschoot, Arnold, “L’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes,” Gregorianum 27 (1946) 493–526. Van Lantschoot, Arnold, “Fragments coptes d’une homélie de Jean de Parallos contre les livres hérétiques,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati 1, 296–326. Van Lantschoot, Arnold, “Abbā Salāma, métropolite d’Éthiopie (1348–1388) et son rôle de traducteur,” in Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici, 397–401. Van Unnik, Cornelius Willem, “A Note on the Dance of Jesus in the Acts of John,” Vigiliae Christianae 18 (1964) 1–5. Vilders, Monique, “Two Folios from a Syriac Lectionary in Leiden,” Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 65 (1985) 77. Vivian, Tim, “Monks, Middle Egypt, and Metanoia: The Life of Phib by Papohe the Steward (Translation and Introduction),” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 547–571. Vivian, Tim, Words to Live By. Journeys in Ancient and Modern Egyptian Monasticism (Cistercian Studies Series, 207; Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2005). Voicu, Sever, “Le prime traduzioni latine di Crisostomo,” in Cristianesimo latino e cultura Greca, 397–415. Voicu, Sever, “Pseudo Severiano di Gabala, Encomium in XII Apostolos (CPG 4281): Gli spunti apocrifi,” Apocrypha 19 (2008) 217–266. Volkoff, Oleg V., “Un saint oublié: Pilate,” Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 20 (1969) 167–195. Wallin, Georg, Qissat Yusuf an-naggar, sive historia Josephi fabri lignarii (Leipzig: Andrea Zeidler, 1722). Walters, Colin C., “Christian Paintings from Tebtunis,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 191–208. Warren, David H. et al. (eds.), Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions and Symbols. Essays in Honor of François Bovon (Biblical Interpretation Series, 66; Leiden – Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2003). Weninger, Stefan, “Laḥa Maryam,” in Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3, 477. Wessely, Carl, Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts vol. 4 (Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, 15; Leipzig: Haessels Verlag, 1914). Wessely, Carl, Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme écrits sur papyrus vol. 2 (Patrologia Orientalis, 18/3; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1924).

206

Bibliography

Westerhoff, Matthias, Auferstehung und Jenseits im koptischen “Buch der Auferstehung Jesu Christi, unseres Herrn” (Orientalia biblica et christiana, 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999). Wietheger, Cäcilia, Das Jeremias-Kloster zu Saqqara unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Inschriften (Arbeiten zum spätantiken und koptischen Ägypten, 1; Altenberge: Oros Verlag, 1992). Wilmart, André – Tisserant, Eugène, “Fragments grecs et latins de l’Évangile de Barthélemy,” Revue biblique n.s. 10 (1913) 161–190. Wilmart, André, “La collection des 38 homélies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome,” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1918) 305–327. Winstedt, Eric Otto, “A Coptic Fragment Attributed to James the Brother of Lord,” Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907) 240–248. Wipszycka, Ewa, “Saint Claude à Pohe: un exemple de fonctionnement d’un sanctuaire de pèlerinage dans l’Égypte de l’Antiquité tardive,” in Łajtar – Obłuski – Zych (eds.), Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana, 281–305. Witakowski, Witold, “John Chrysostom,” in Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3, 293–295. Worrell, William Hoyt, The Coptic Manuscripts in the Freer Collection (University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series, 10; New York, NY – London: MacMillan, 1923). Worrell, William Hoyt, The Proverbs of Solomon in Sahidic Coptic according to the Chicago Manuscript (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 12; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1931). Worrell, William Hoyt (ed.), Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection (Ann Arbor, MI – London: University of Michigan Press – Humphrey Milford – Oxford University Press, 1942). Wright, William, Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1847 (London: British Museum, 1877). Yingling, Erik, “Singing with the Savior: Reconstructing the Ritual Ring-Dance in the Gospel of the Savior,” Apocrypha 24 (2013) 255–279. Zahn, Theodor, Acta Joannis (Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1880). Zahn, Theodor, “Neue Funde aus der alten Kirche,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 11 (1901) 347–370, 431–450. Zanetti, Ugo, Les manuscrits de Dair Abu Maqar. Inventaire (Cahiers d’orientalisme, 11; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1986). Zanetti, Ugo, “Le roman de Bakhéos sur les trois jeunes saints de Babylone. Fragments coptes sahidiques,” in Janssens et al. (eds.), Philomathestatos, 713–747. Zentgraf, Käte, “Eucharistische Textfragmente einer koptisch-saidischen Handschrift,” Oriens Christianus 41 (1957) 67–75; 42 (1958) 44–54; 43 (1959) 76–102. Zikri, Antoine, “Un fragment copte inédit sur la vie du Christ,” Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 36 (1936) 45–48. Zoega, Georg, Catalogus codicum Copticorum manu scriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur (Rome, 1810; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1973).

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition P. Berol. 22220 = PB; Strasbourg Copte 5–7 = S; Qasr el-Wizz codex = Q.

I. Greek-Coptic Words ἀγαθόν m. good PB 106, col. B,2 (ἀγγελικός) m. angelic – ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲕⲏ PB 101, col. B,24–25 ἄγγελος m. angel PB 100, col. B,12–13; PB 101, col. A,24, 32 αἰών m. eternity PB 101, col. A,7 ἀλλά but PB 98, col. B,26; PB 102, col. B,5; PB 107, col. A,16, 30–31; PB 108, col. A,9; col. B,6, 12; PB 110, col. A,10, 19; S 5v,16; Q 26,11–12 ἄλφα Q 33,3 ἀμήν amen – ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ PB 107, col. B,29, 32; PB 108, col. A,17–18, 19–20, 22–23, 26, 29–30; col. B,1, 10, 13, 17, 21, 26, 32; PB 109, col. A,7, 10–11, 15, 18, 24, 30, 32; col. B,11; PB 110, col. A,2, 5, 15; S 5r,5, 8, 16, 18, 20–21, 22; S 7r; Q 25,7; Q 28,12; Q 31,6 – ⲁⲙⲏⲛ Q 26,4, 10; Q 27, 1, 4, 8, 10, 11–12; Q 28,5, 9; Q 29,5, 10; Q 30,1, 6, 8; Q 31,1, 4, 9, 12; Q 32,2, 6, 8; Q 33,2, 3, 4, 5, 9 – ϥ̄ⲑ︦ Q 30,9; Q 32,11; Q 33,13 (ἀντικείμενος) m. adversary – ⲁⲛⲧⲓⲕⲓⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ PB fr 21H,4–5 ἀπόστολος m. apostle PB 101, col. A,3; S 5v,8

– ⲙⲛⲧⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ PB 101, col. A,11–12; S 6r,4; S 6v,5–6 (ἀρχάγγελος) m. archangel – ⲁⲣⲭⲏⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ PB 101, col. A,25–26 ἀρχή f. beginning PB 109, col. B,9; Q 33,4, 6 ἀσθενής m. weak S 5v,7 (αύτεξούσιος) m. free will, autonomous – ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲥ PB 98, col. A,32; col. B,7–8 γάρ for PB 97, col. A,10; PB 98, col. B,17, 26, 31; PB fr 21F,1 γενεά m. generation PB 110, col. A,8–9; PB fr 19H,4 γένος m. race PB 102, col. B,4 δέ but etc. PB 101, col. B,27; PB 108, col. B,15, 24; S 5v,7, 9; Q 24,1; Q 25,2; Q 27,2; Q 33,10 δίκαιος m. righteous PB fr 17H, col. B,5 δύναμις f. force PB fr 9H,4 εἰ μήτι except for PB 106, col. A,4–5; PB fr 9H,6; PB fr 22H,1–2 ἔνδυμα f. garment PB 97, col. A,27 ἐντολή f. commandment PB 99, col. A,12

208

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

ἐξουσία f. power S 5v,17 (ἐπιθυμεῖν) desire – ⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ PB 106, col. B,32–106, col. A,1 ἤ PB 99, col. B,2; PB 107, col. A,7; PB fr 22F,5 (ἰουδαῖος) Jew – ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ Q 24,5 (θεραπεύειν) cure – ⲑⲉⲣⲁⲡⲉⲩⲉ PB 97, col. B,26 (θρόνος) m. throne PB 101, col. B,5, 8; PB 102, col. B,14; PB fr 17F, col. A,6 καλῶς m. good PB 108, col. A,11; PB fr 10F, col. A,1 καρπός m. fruit S 5r,3 κατά according PB fr 21H,7 καταβολή f. foundation Q 33,1 καταπέτασμα m. veil PB 101, col. B,1–2 (κατέχειν) hold back – ⲕⲁⲧⲉⲭⲉ Q 25,11 κλῆρος m. lot PB 105, col. A,30 κήρυγμα m. proclamation PB fr 22F,2 κόσμος m. world PB 97, col. A,22–23; col. B,25; PB 99, col. B,5–6; PB 101, col. A,4; PB 102, col. A,22–23; col. B,15; PB 108, col. A,3, 8, 12; col. B,5–6, 7–8, 14, 16, 18; PB fr 21F,2; PB fr 22F,4; PB fr 24H,2; S 5v,22–23; Q 33,1–2 λαμπάς m. lamp PB 97, col. A,21 λαός m. people PB 102, col. A,5–6; PB 110, col. B,7; S 7v λειτουργία f. service PB 104, col. B,31 λίτρα m. pound PB fr 24F,3, 4, 5, 6 λόγχη f. lance PB 108, col. B,28

(λύπεῖν) grieve – ⲗⲩⲡⲓ PB 108, col. A,7 – ⲗⲩⲡⲏ PB 108 col. B,6–7 μαθητής m. disciple PB fr 14H,2–3 μέλος m. member PB 100, col. A,3; PB 107, col. B,18; PB fr 9F, col. A,5; Q 24,10; Q 28,1 μέν on the one hand S 5v,6 μετάνοια repentance PB fr 20F,4 μήποτε lest PB 107, col. A,20 μονογενής m. Only-Begotten S 5r,20; Q 31,11 μυστήριον m. mystery S 6r,3 οἰκονομία f. dispensation PB 109, col. B,1 ὀρφανός m. orphan PB fr 19,7–8 (ὅσον) how much – ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲥⲟⲛ PB 98, col. B,11 οὐδέ nor PB 97, col. A,24; PB 105, col. A,31 πάλιν again Q 28,7 (παραδιδόναι) hand over – ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ PB 98, col. B,18–19 παράνομος m. impious Q 24,6 πατριάρχης m. patriarch PB fr 9F, col. B,2–3 (πηγή) – ⲡⲩⲅⲏ PB fr 19F,5 (πιστεύειν) believe – ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ PB 107, col. A,30 πιστή f. believer PB fr 20F,3 πλήρωμα m. fullness PB 110, col. A,31–32 (πληροῦν) to fill – ⲡⲗⲏⲣⲟⲩ Q 29,11 πόλις f. city PB fr 14H,5, 8, 11 (πνεῦμα) m. spirit – ⲡⲛ︦ⲁ︦ PB 100, col. B,3; S 5v,6; Q 32,11 πόλεμος m. battle – ⲁⲣⲓⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ PB 108, col. A,29

I. Greek-Coptic Words

πρεσβύτερος PB 101, col. B,3–4 προφήτης m. prophet PB 105, col. A,28; PB fr 9F, col. B,3–4; PB fr 17, col. B,3–4 πύλη f. gate PB 100, col. B,11 σάρξ f. flesh S 5v,7 σεραφίμ m. Seraphim PB 101, col. A,30 (σκανδαλίζειν) offend – ⲥⲕⲁⲛⲇⲁⲗⲓⲍⲉ PB 98, col. B,22 σκηνή f. tent PB fr 14F,12 σοφία f. wisdom PB fr 9H,3–4 σπέρμα m. seed PB 100, col. A,4–5 σταυρός m. cross – ⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ Q 24,12; Q 25,12; Q 26,1, 6, 9–10, 11; Q 27,6; Q 28, 6, 11; Q 29,3, 7, 9; Q 30,3; Q 31,1, 8; Q 32, 9 – ⲥ̄⳨ⲟ︤̄ⲥ︥̄ PB 106, col. B,21; PB 109, col. A,30; col. B,4, 10, 15, 21, 25, 31; PB 110, col. A,3, 10, 17, 23, 28, 31; col. B,14, 17, 30; PB fr 9H, col. B,10; S 5r,8, 18; S 7r; S 7v; Q 28,2 – ⲥ⳨ⲥ Q 32,7 (σταθροῦν) crucify – ⲥⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲩ Q 24,4 στολή f. robe PB 101, col. B,11; PB 112,4 σῶμα m. body PB 98, col. B,12; PB 100, col. B,3; PB 107, col. A,8–9; PB 109, col. A,12; PB 110, col. A,5; Q 29,5 σωτήρ m. savior PB 100, col. A,1; col. B,18; PB 101, col. A,14; PB 105, col. A,29; PB 107, col. A,24–25; col. B,22; PB fr 14H,7; PB fr 20H,2, 5; Q 24,2 τέλειος m. perfect Q 33,9 – ⲧⲉⲗⲉⲓⲟⲛ Q 33,5, 7 τότε then PB 101, col. A,2; PB 102, col. A,24

209

τύπος m. image, type PB fr 9H, col. B,7 (ὕλη) f. matter – ϩⲩⲗⲏ PB 98, col. B,13 (ὑμνεύειν) sing – ϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ PB 101, col. B,3; PB fr 9H, col. B,9; Q 24,11; Q 30,12 (ὕμνος) m. hymn – ϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ S 5v,1–2; Q 27,2–3, 5 (ὑπομείνειν) endure – ϩⲩⲡⲟⲙⲉⲓⲛⲉ S 5r,7 (ὑποτάσσειν) submit – ϩⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥⲉ S 5r,15; Q 31,5–6 φόρειν carry – ⲫⲟⲣⲉⲓ Q 28,8 χάρις f. grace S 5r,6; Q 30,11 χερουβίμ m. Cherubim PB 101, col. A,27–28 χήρα f. widow PB fr 19H,6 χολή f. gall PB 108, col. B,23–24 (χορεία) f. dance – ⲭⲟⲣⲓⲁ PB 109, col. A,17; PB 110, col. A,16–17; Q 29,6 (χορεύειν) dance – ⲭⲟⲣⲉⲩⲉ PB 107, col. B,19–20; Q 28,2 χώρα f. land PB 111,6; S 5r,1 ψυχή f. soul PB 99, col. A,5, 8, 14 ὦ interj. PB 100, col. A,3; PB 102, col. A,6; col. B,27, 32; PB 103, col. A,32; PB 106, col. A,32; col. B,3; PB 107, col. B,18; PB 108, col. A,2; PB 109, col. B,15, 21, 31; PB 110, col. A,3, 9, 23, 27, 30; col. B,13, 16, 30; PB fr 9F, col. A,5; PB fr 20H,6; PB fr 25F,2; S 5r,6, 14; S 7r; S 7v; Q 24,9; Q 25,12; Q 26,1, 3, 6, 9, 11; Q 27,13 Q 28,5, 11; Q 29,3, 8; Q 30,3, 11 (ὡς) like – ϩⲱⲥ PB 108, col. B,8; PB fr 20H,3 (ὥστε) inasmuch as – ϩⲱⲥⲧⲉ PB 101, col. B,24

210

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

II. Names ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ PB 102, col. B,8; PB fr 9F, col. B,5; PB fr 10H, col. B,1–2 ⲁⲛⲇⲣⲉⲁⲥ PB 97, col. A,31–32 ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ PB 102, col. B,9–10; PB fr 9F, col. B,6; PB fr 10H, col. B,3 ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ PB 102, col. B,9; PB fr 9F, col. B,5–6; PB fr 10H, col. B,2

(ⲓⲥⲣⲁⲏⲗ) – ⲓⲏ︦ⲗ︦ PB 102, col. A,6, 13 ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ PB fr 20H,6 ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ PB 107, col. A,10–11 ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ PB fr 10H, col. B,3–4 (ϩⲓⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲁⲗⲏⲙ) – ⲑⲓⲗ︦ⲏ︦ⲙ PB fr 14H,10

III. Coptic Words ⲁⲗⲉ Q 26,5; Q 28,12; Q 30,1 ⲁⲙⲛⲧⲉ m. Hades PB 97, col. 2,29 ⲁⲛ negation Q 29,8 – ⲛ-… ⲁⲛ PB 98, col. B,27; PB 109, col. A, 12; PB 110, col. A,9; (ⲁⲛⲁ⸗) ⲣ̄ⲁⲛⲁ⸗ please – ⲣ̄ⲁⲛⲁϥ PB 99, col. A, 10–11 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ personal pronoun / augens – ⲁⲛⲟⲕ PB 98, col. A,25; col. B,28–29; PB 107, col. B,26; PB 108, col. A,31; PB 109, col. A,8–9; PB 110, col. B,14, 29; S 7v; Q 25,5; Q 29,7 – ⲛⲧⲟⲕ PB 101, col. B,23; PB 110, col. B,16; S 7v – ⲁⲛⲟⲛ PB 100, col. B,1; PB 101, col. A,2–3; S 5v,9; Q 24,6; Q 25,2; Q 33,10 – ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ PB 98, col. B,20; PB 99, col. A,6; PB 108, col. B,14–15, 19, 24, 27–28; PB fr 19F,3–4; S 5v,21; S 7v; Q 25,1 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ predicate / nexus ⲡⲉ – ⲁⲛⲟⲕ PB 99, col. A,3; PB 107, col. B,10; PB 108, col. A,17, 18, 20, 23; col. B,22; Q 27,6, 8; Q 33,2 – ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ PB 97, col. A,18–19, 20–21; Q 25,1

ⲁⲛⲟⲕ] ⲁⲛⲅ‑ subject pronoun – ⲁⲛⲅ PB 99, col. A,18; PB 108, col. A,4; PB 109, col. B,27; PB 110, col. A,18, 19; Q 26,3 – ⲛⲧⲕ PB 109, col. B,8 – ⲁⲛⲟⲛ PB 98, col. B,29–30; PB 110, col. B,17, 18 ⲁⲡⲉ f. head PB 100, col. B,23 ⲁⲡⲟⲧ m. cup PB 102, col. A,8–9; col. B,29 ⲁⲩⲱ and PB 97, col. A,20; PB 98, col. B,19; PB 101, col. A,13; col. B,11, 22; PB 102, col. B,2; PB 107, col. B,3, 5; PB 108, col. A,15, 25; col. B,30–31; PB 110, col. A,14, 25; col. B,9, 12; PB fr 24H,6; PB fr 25F,6; S 6r2; Q 24,12; Q 33,3, 4, 7, 8 ⲁⲧ‑ privative prefix – with infinitive: see ⲙⲟⲩ, ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲁϣ what? PB 107, col. A,7, 8; PB fr 14H,7; PB fr 14F,9 ⲁϫⲛ-, (ⲁϫⲛⲧ⸗) without – ⲁϫⲛ PB 109, col. B,14; S 7r ⲃⲱⲕ go PB 97, col. B,28; PB 104, col. B,32; PB 107, col. A,32; PB 108, col. B,9

III. Coptic Words

ⲃⲁⲗ m. eye PB 100, col. B, 4; PB 101, col. A,9; S 6v,1 (ⲃⲟⲗ) outside – ⲃⲟⲗ PB 101, col. B,1 – ⲉⲃⲟⲗ PB 98, col. A,26; col. B,15–16; PB 99, col. A,1, 17; col. B,5; PB 100, col. B,6, 7, 16; PB 101, col. A,1; PB 102, col. B,2–3; PB 104, col. B,30; PB 105, col. A,1; PB 106, col. A,2; PB 107, col. A,22, 25; col. B,14–15, 16; PB 108, col. B,20; PB 109, col. A,16; col. B,16, 28; PB 110, col. A,4, 21; col. B,1, 8, 31; PB 110, col. B,32–111, col. A,1; PB 111,4, 8; PB fr 9H, col. A,6; col. B,8–9; PB fr 10F, col. A,3; col. B,5; PB fr 26H,3; S 5r,3, 13, 17, 19, 23, 24; S 5v,1, 15; S 6r,1, 5; S 7v; Q 27,2; Q 29,4; Q 31,3, 8, 10; Q 32,4, 5, 10, 11 ⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ dissolution PB 100, col. B,16; PB 109, col. B,16; S 5r,19; S 5v,16 ⲉ‑ circumstantial converter PB 99, col. A,12 ⲉ-, ⲉⲣⲟ⸗ preposition – ⲉ PB 97, col. A,22; col. B,28; PB 99, col. A,13; PB 100, col. B,8, 11, 14, 17; PB 101, col. A,14, 15; PB 102, col. B, 15; PB 105, col. A,32; col. B,1; PB 106, col. B,30, 31; PB 107, col. A,18; col. B,13; PB 108, col. A,3; col. B,14 – see also ⲃⲟⲗ – ⲉⲣⲟⲓ PB 97, col. B,27; PB 107, col. A,4, 32; col. B,9, 12, 18; PB 108, col. A,1; PB 109, col. A,8, 14; PB 110, col. B,13; PB fr 25H,3; Q 24,11; Q 25,10; Q 27,13 – ⲉⲣⲟⲕ PB 107, col. A,21; PB 109, col. A,14, 22, 32; col. B,32; PB 110, col. A,3; col. B,6, 15; Q 26,9; Q 28,10– 11 – ⲉⲣⲟϥ PB 107, col. B,25; PB 108, col. A,5; col. B,10; PB fr 10H,6; PB fr 14F,4; PB fr 24F,2; B 7r; S 7v; Q 25,3–4; Q 29,3; Q 30,3; Q 33,7, 8 – ⲉⲣⲟⲛ PB 107, col. A,6, 14, 15; PB fr 9F, col. A,4; S 5v,3 – ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ PB 98, col. B,10, 14; PB 108, col. B,16–17 – ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ PB 107, col. A,1; PB fr 17H,6

211

– ⲉ (+ infinitive) PB 97, col. B,28; PB 98, col. A,29; col. B,9; PB 99, col. A,13; PB 102, col. B,1; PB 104, col. B,30; PB 108, col. A,32; col. B,4 ⲉⲃⲓⲱ m. honey PB fr 19F,3 ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ m. grape PB 97, col. A,30 ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ greatly, very – ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ PB 102, col. A,3 – ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ PB 102, col. B,6 ⲉⲛⲉϩ m. eternity Q 32,12; Q 33,9, 13 ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ m. f. milk PB fr 19F,2 ⲉⲣⲏⲩ reciprocity PB 100, col. B,10 ⲉⲥⲏⲧ ground, bottom – ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ PB 97, col. B,28; PB 101, col. A,31–32; col. B,7; PB 112,5 ⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ sheep PB 99, col. A,2 ⲉⲧⲉ-, ⲉⲧ‑ relative converter – ⲉⲧⲉ PB 97, col. B,32; PB 102, col. B,8– 9; PB 107, col. B,1–2, 3–4, 5; PB 109, col. A,11; PB fr 9F, col. B,4; PB fr 21H,5; S 6r2; Q 33,12 – ⲉⲧ PB 99, col. A,4; PB 101, col. B,1, 4 ⲉⲧⲃⲉ, ⲉⲧⲃⲏⲏⲧ⸗ because of, concerning – ⲉⲧⲃⲉ PB 97, col. B,29; PB 99, col. A,15, 20; PB 101, col. B,21; PB 102, col. B,6–7, 24; PB 108, col. A,7; col. B,1, 7 – ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 108, col. A9–10 ⲉⲟⲟⲩ m. glory PB 97, col. A,12; PB 102, col. B,24–25; PB 105, col. A,32; PB 107, col. A,16, 18; PB 111,7–8; S 6r,1; S 6v,2, 3; S 5r,2; Q 30,4, 6, 8; Q 33,11, 12 ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ if PB 107, col. B, 7 ⲉϣϫⲉ if PB 97, col. B, 25; PB 102, col. A,7; col. B,27; PB 103, col. A,32; PB 109, col. B,23–24 ⲉϫⲛ-, ⲉϫⲱ⸗ see ϫⲱ (preposition) ⲉⲓ come PB 99, col. B,6; PB 104, col. B,30; PB 107, col. A,8

212

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

ⲉⲓ auxiliary PB 107, col. A,13 ⲉⲓⲃ m. claw S 5r,18 – ⲉⲓⲉⲓⲃ Q 31,9 (ⲉⲓⲛⲉ) bring – ⲛⲧⲛ PB 99, col. B,3–4 (ⲉⲓⲣⲉ) make, do – ⲣ PB 97, col. A,22; PB 98, col. B,29; col. B,9, 13; PB 99, col. A,19; col. B,3; PB 100, col. B,2, 13; PB 101, col. A,6; PB 102, col. A,11; PB 108, col. B,18; PB 109, col. B,26; PB 110, col. B,11; S 5r,13; S 5v,14; Q 25,3 – ⲁⲣⲓ PB 108, col. A,29; col. B,20; S 5v,18 – ⲟ PB 107, col. A,27; PB fr 20H,3 ⲉⲓⲱⲣϩ perceive S 6v,2 ⲉⲓⲥ‑ behold – ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ PB 108, col. A,5–6; PB fr 25H,2 ⲉⲓⲱⲧ m. father – ⲉⲓⲱⲧ PB 102, col. B,30; PB fr 14F,13; S 5r,6, 14; Q 30,5–6, 11; Q 32,8 – ⲓ̈ⲱⲧ PB 98, col. B,27, 29; PB 99, col. A,11, 16; PB 101, col. B,9, 15; PB 102, col. A,7, 26, 27–28; col. B,27; PB 103, col. A,32–33; PB 107, col. B,1, 2; PB fr 9F, col. A,7; PB fr 15F,5 (ⲉⲓϣⲉ) hang – ⲁϣⲧ PB 109, col. B,32; S 7r; Q 26,7 ⲕⲉ (ϭⲉ) another – ⲕⲉ PB 102, col. A,10; PB 107, col. A,18; col. B,30; PB 110, col. A,22, 27, 30; col. B,10; PB fr 19F,2; S 7v; Q 25,7 – ⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ PB 97, col. B,29–30 ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ little PB 107, col. B,30; PB 110, col. A, 23, 27, 30; Q 25,6, 8 ⲕⲱ place, set – ⲕⲱ PB 99, col. A,5, 7, 14 – ⲕⲁ PB 101, col. A,31; PB 106, col. A,2; PB 107, col. A,22; PB 108, col. A,3 – ⲕⲁⲁⲧ PB 98, col. B,25 ⲕⲁⲕⲉ m. darkness PB 101, col. A,5 ⲕⲗⲟⲙ m. crown PB 101, col. B,7; Q 25,3

(ⲕⲱⲛⲥ) pierce – ⲕⲟⲛⲥⲧ PB 108, col. B,27 ⲕⲱⲧⲉ turn – ⲕⲱⲧⲉ PB 107, col. B,24–25; Q 25,3 – ⲕⲟⲧϥ S 5v,3 ⲕⲁϩ m. earth PB 97, col. A,20; PB 102, col. B,26 ⲕⲱϩⲧ m. fire PB 107, col. B,10, 13–14 ⲗⲁⲁⲩ indefinite pronoun PB fr 14F,3, 5 ⲙⲁ m. place PB 97, col. B,31; PB 98, col. B,16; PB 100, col. B,5; PB fr 14F,9; S 6v,1 ⲙⲉ love PB 99, col. A,16 ⲙⲉ f. truth PB 108, col. B,31 ⲙⲟⲩ die – ⲙⲟⲩ PB 102, col. B,1; S 5r,18; S 31,9 – ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ PB 101, col. A,8; PB 108, col. A,24; Q 27,9 ⲙⲟⲩⲕϩ afflict – ⲙⲟⲕϩ PB 101, col. B,22–23; PB 102, col. A,2 (ⲙⲙⲛ‑) there is no (negative existential) – ⲙⲛ PB 99, col. A,12; PB 105, col. A,30, 32; ⲙⲙⲟⲛ otherwise PB 99, col. B,2 ⲙⲙⲟⲛ truly PB 110, col. B,30; S 7v (ⲙ)ⲙⲛⲧⲉ-, (ⲙ)ⲙⲛⲧⲁ⸗ – ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 108, col. A,25 ⲙⲛ-, ⲛⲙⲙⲁ⸗ preposition with, and – ⲙⲛ PB 98, col. B,29; PB 100, col. B,14; PB 101, col. A,25; PB 102, col. B,9; PB 104, col. B,27; PB 108, col. B,23, 25; PB 109, col. A,13; PB fr 9F, col. B,3, 5, 6; PB fr 10H, col. B,2, 3; S 6r,3; S 6v,3; S 7v – ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲓ PB 97, col. A,17; PB 98, col. B,28; PB 106, col. B,30; PB 107, col. B,21; PB 109, col. A,10; PB 110, col. B,16; S 5v,8; S 7v – ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲕ PB 110, col. B,29–30; S 7v – ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ Q 24,7 – ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲛ PB 100, col. B,22 – ⲛⲙⲙⲏⲧⲛ Q 25,8–9

III. Coptic Words

ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁ-, ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲱ⸗ preposition after – ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁ PB 99, col. B,1 – ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲱⲥ PB fr 9F, col. B,1–2 ⲙⲛⲧ‑ nominal abstract – see ἀπόστολος, ⲉⲣⲟ, ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ, ⲙⲛⲧⲣⲉ, ⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ, ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲙⲛⲧⲣⲉ m. witness PB 108, col. B, 30; S 7r; Q 26,8; Q 29,2 – ⲙⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲣⲉ PB 108, col. B,32; PB 110, col. A,1; Q 26,7–8; Q 29,1 (ⲙⲟⲩⲣ) bind – ⲙⲏⲣ† PB 97, col. B,30 ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ let us go! PB 98, col. B,15 (ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ) m. beloved – ⲙⲉⲣⲁⲧⲉ PB 102, col. B,7; PB fr 14H,13 ⲙⲧⲟ (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) in face of PB 100, col. B,7 ⲙⲏⲧⲉ f. midst PB 107, col. B,27, 31; Q 25,5, 9 ⲙⲧⲟⲛ rest PB 108, col. B,26; PB fr 19F,4 (ⲙⲁⲩ) adverb there – ⲙⲙⲁⲩ PB 97, col. B,31; PB fr 14H,6 ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁ⸗ alone, only – ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ PB 98, col. B,25, 26–27 ⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ think PB 99, col. B,3; PB 100, col. B,15; PB fr 19H,3–4; S 5v,18 ⲙⲟⲟⲩ m. water PB fr 19F,6 ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲧ kill PB 102, col. A,4; PB fr 25H,4 ⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ m. crowd PB fr 9H,5; S 5r,4 ⲙⲓϣⲉ fight PB 108, col. A,11, 26 ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ PB 108, col. A,21 ⲙⲉϩ‑ ordinal prefix – see ⲥⲁϣϥⲉ, ⲥⲟⲡ, ⲥⲛⲁⲩ, ϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ, ϥⲧⲟ ⲙⲟⲩϩ to fill – ⲙⲟⲩϩ PB 110, col. A,26; – ⲙⲉϩ Q 28,6 – ⲙⲁϩⲕ PB 109, col. B,28; PB 110, col. A,21 ⲛ‑ encompassing negation PB 98, col. B,26; PB 102, col. B,32; PB 109, col. A,11

213

ⲛ‑ attributive – ⲛ PB 98, col. B,30; PB 99, col. B,1; PB 101, col. A,7, 8; PB 103, col. A,31; PB 106, col. B,28; PB 107, col. A,7; PB 110, col. B,7; S 6r,1; S 6v,2; S 5r,1; Q 25,6 – ⲙ PB 100, col. B,3, 24; PB 101, col. A,16; PB 108, col. A,21; Q 24,5 ⲛ‑ identity – ⲛ PB 107, col. A,27; – ⲙ PB 97, col. A,16; PB 99, col. A,11 ⲛ-, ⲙⲙⲟ⸗ preposition. direct object – ⲛ PB 99, col. A,5, 8, 14; PB 100, col. B,23; PB 104, col. B,30; S 6v,2, 3, 5 – ⲙ PB 97, col. A,26; PB 98, col. B,32; PB 99, col. A,17; PB 102, col. B,3; PB 107, col. A,17; PB 108, col. B,5; PB 109, col. A,12, 31; Q 24,12 – ⲙⲙⲟⲓ PB 99, col. A,16; PB 108, col. A,31; Q 25,12; Q 26,2 – ⲙⲙⲟⲕ PB 109, col. B,22 – ⲙⲙⲟⲥ PB 102, col. A,27; PB fr 14F,8; S 5v,10; Q 24,9 ⲛ-, ⲙⲙⲟ⸗ preposition. relation – ⲛ‑ PB 97, col. A, 10, 13, 18, 27; PB 100, col. B,2; PB 101, col. A,5, 9, 11; col. B,14; PB 102, col. B,4; PB 107, col. A,7; col. B,28; PB 108, col. B,22, 27; PB 111,6; PB fr 9H,3, 4 – ⲙ‑ PB 97, col. A,12, 20, 30; PB 99, col. A,2; PB 100, col. B,7; PB 101, col. B,2, 8, 9; PB 102, col. A,26; col. B,12; PB 103, col. A,30; PB 105, col. B,29, 30, 31; PB 107, col. B,16; PB 108, col. A,8, 19; S 5r,1, 9, 18; Q 24,3 – ⲙⲙⲟⲓ PB 98, col. B,19; PB 107, col. B,15; PB 108, col. A,14–15, 31; S 7v – ⲙⲙⲟⲕ PB 110, col. B,31–32; S 7r; B 7v; Q 29,11 – ⲙⲙⲟϥ PB 110, col. B,21; Q 24,5–6 – ⲙⲙⲱⲧⲛ PB 97, col. A,15; PB 98, col. A,29; PB 107, col. A,26; PB 108, col. B,2–3; PB fr 19F,4–5 – ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ PB 97, col. B,26–27; S 5r,11 ⲛ-, ⲛⲁ⸗ preposition. dative – ⲙ PB 102, col. A,22

214

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

– ⲛⲁⲓ PB 102, col. B,16, 26; S 5r,9, 15; Q 31,2 – ⲛⲁⲕ PB 111,2; S 5r,5; Q 30,4, 7; Q 31,6 – ⲛⲁϥ PB 102, col. B,30; PB 107, col. A,4; PB 111,8; S 5r,2; S 5v,10 – ⲛⲁⲥ PB fr 24H,3 – ⲛⲁⲛ PB 100, col. A,2; PB 105, col. A,29; PB 107, col. B,26; PB fr 9F, col. A,4; PB fr 14H,9; S 6r,5; S 5v,3, 13; Q 25,4; Q 27,12 – ⲛⲏⲧⲛ PB 98, col. A,26; PB 108, col. B,4, 25; S 6r,1; S 5v,19 – ⲛⲁⲩ PB 110, col. A,2; S 7r; Q 26,8; Q 29,2 ⲛⲁ‑ instans PB 109, col. B,16 – see also IV. Conjugation Forms (I future, circumstantial future) (ⲛⲁⲉ‑), ⲛⲁⲁⲁ⸗ be great – ⲛⲁⲁⲁϥ PB 99, col. A,12 ⲛⲟⲃⲉ m. sin PB 106, col. A,2; A 108, col. A,7–8 ⲛⲁⲓ̈ⲁⲧ⸗ be blessed – ⲛⲁⲓ̈ⲁⲧϥ PB 97, col. A,15 – ⲛⲁⲓ̈ⲁⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB fr 9F, col. A,6–7 ⲛⲓⲙ who? S 5r,17, 19, 21; Q 32,1,6 ⲛⲓⲙ every PB 98, col. A,24, 30; PB 100, col. B,5; S 6v,1; Q 32,13 ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩ-, ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩ⸗ be good – ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ PB 99, col. A,4 ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ-, ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ⸗ preposition behind – ⲛⲥⲁ PB 100, col. B,4–5, 9–10; Q 30,5 – ⲛⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ S 5v,21 – ⲛⲥⲱ PB 109, col. A,18 – ⲛⲥⲱⲓ PB 108, col. A,3–4; S 5v,20; Q 25,2; Q 28,5 – ⲛⲥⲱϥ Q 27,3–4, 11 – ⲛⲥⲱⲛ PB 99, col. B,4 – ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ PB fr 20F,6 ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ m. God PB 99, col. A,19; PB 107, col. B,3, 4; S 5v,12; Q 33,11 – ⲙⲛⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ S 6v,2–3; Q 30,9 ⲛⲧⲟϥ limitable PB 107, col. A,31; PB 108, col. B,7, 12; PB 110, col. A,11; PB fr 21F,4; S 5v,15; Q 26,12

ⲛⲁⲩ see PB 100, col. B,8, 17; PB 101, col. A,13; PB 107, col. A,1, 3, 21, 29; PB 108, col. B,29; PB 110, col. B,6; S 7v ⲛⲏⲩ† come PB 110, col. A,12; PB 112,5 ⲛⲉϩⲡⲉ lament PB 110, col. B,12 (ⲛⲁϩⲣⲛ‑), ⲛⲁϩⲣⲁ⸗ – ⲛⲛⲁϩⲣⲁⲛ PB 101, col. A,6 ⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ throw PB 101, col. B,6 ⲛϭⲓ preposition (lexical subject) PB 97, col. A,31; PB 98, col. B,17–18; PB 99, col. A,2; PB 105, col. A,29; PB 107, col. A,10; col. B,22; PB 108, col. A,2; PB 109, col. B,12–13; PB fr 9H,5; B 5v,4; S 7r; Q 24,5 ⲟⲉⲓⲕ m. bread PB 108, col. A,24; Q 27,8 (ⲟⲉⲓϣ) shout – ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ preach PB fr 22F,3 ⲟⲛ again PB 97, col. B,27; PB 102, col. A,24; PB 110, col. B,7; S 7v; Q 27,13; Q 28,7 ⲟϩⲉ m. flock PB 99, col. A,2–3 ⲡⲉ f. heaven – ⲡⲉ PB 100, col. B,24; PB 101, col. A,16; PB 106, col. B,30; PB 109, col. B,23; S 7r – ⲡⲏⲩⲉ PB 97, col. A, 14, 18; PB 100, col. B,8, 19; PB 101, col. A,1, 23 ⲡⲏⲟⲩⲉ PB 97, col. A, 10–11; PB 101, col. A,9–10 ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ change PB 107, col. A,17 ⲡⲱⲣϣ spread PB 112,6 ⲡⲁⲧ f. knee PB 101, col. B,14; PB 102, col. A,25 ⲡⲱⲧ flee PB 98, col. B,21, 24; PB 100, col. B,14; PB fr 20H,4; S 5v,20, 21 ⲡⲱϩ reach PB 101, col. A,15 ⲡⲱϩⲧ bend – ⲡⲱϩⲧ PB 102, col. B,2 – ⲡⲁϩⲧϥ PB 101, col. B,13; PB 102, col. A,25

III. Coptic Words

– ⲡⲁϩⲧⲟⲩ PB 101, col. A,26, 28 ⲡⲉϫⲉ-, ⲡⲉϫⲁ⸗ say – ⲡⲉϫⲉ PB 102, col. B,30; PB fr 20H,5 – ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ PB 97, col. A,32; PB 100, col. A,2; PB 105, col. A,28–29; PB 107, col. A,11; col. B,25, 29; PB fr 14H,8–9; PB fr 14F,11; S 5v,3, 13; Q 25,4, 7; Q 27,12 – ⲡⲉϫⲁⲛ PB 107, col. A,4; PB fr 9F, col. A,4 ⲣⲱ (particle) PB 108, col. B,8 ⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ watch PB 100, col. B,11; S 5v,8 ⲣⲕⲣⲓⲕⲉ nodding PB 97, col. A,24–25 ⲣⲱⲕϩ burn PB 107, col. B,9 ⲣⲓⲙⲉ cry PB 101, col. B,22; PB 102, col. B,6; PB 108, col. B,11; PB 110, col. A,9; col. B,11; S 5v,10; Q 26,10–11 ⲣⲱⲙⲉ m. man PB 98, col. A,31; PB 99, col. A,15, 19; PB 102, col. B,5; PB 108, col. B,2 ⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ m. rich – ⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ PB 109, col. B,27; PB 110, col. A,20; Q 26,4; Q 29,12 – ⲙⲛⲧⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ PB 109, col. B,29; PB 110, col. A,22; Q 29,12 ⲣⲙⲣⲁϣ n. gentle PB 110, col. A,13–14 ⲣⲙϩⲉ f. free person PB 108, col. B,18, 20 ⲣⲁⲛ m. name PB 112,3 ⲣ̄ⲡⲉ m. temple PB 101, col. B,2 ⲣ̄ⲣⲟ m. king – ⲣⲣⲟ PB 108, col. A,17, 19; S 5r,13 – ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ PB 97, col. A,9–10, 13, 17–18, 27–28; S 5r,9, 21, 23; Q 31,3–32,1, 3 (ⲣⲁⲧ⸗) foot ⲉⲣⲁⲧ⸗ – ⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ PB 107, col. B,23 – ⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ PB 102, col. B,11 ⲣⲟⲟⲩⲧ† be glad S 5v,6 ⲣⲁϣⲉ rejoice PB 98, col. A,27, 30–31; PB 102, col. B,1; PB 108, col. A,9, 15–16;

215

col. B,5, 12; PB 110, col. A,10–11; col. B,10; S 5v,22; S 7v; Q 26,12 ⲣⲉϥ‑ (agent prefix) PB 102, col. A,11 ⲣⲱϩⲧ strike PB 98, col. B,32 ⲥⲁ m. side PB 100, col. B,5, 14 ⲥⲉⲓ be satisfied PB 108, col. A,25; C 27,10 ⲥⲱⲃⲉ laugh PB 110, col. B,6, 9; B 7v (ⲥⲙⲟⲩ) bless – ⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ PB 100, col. A,5–6 (ⲥⲙⲓⲛⲉ) establish – ⲥⲙⲛⲧϥ PB fr 9F, col. A,3 ⲥⲙⲟⲧ form PB 107, col. A,7 (ⲥⲓⲛⲉ) to pass – ⲥⲁⲁⲧ PB 102, col. A,9; col. B,29 ⲥⲛⲁⲩ two – ⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ Q 27,5 – ⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲧⲉ PB 110, col. A,16 – ⲙⲉϩⲥⲉⲡⲥⲛⲁⲩ PB 102, col. B,31; ⲥⲛⲟϥ m. blood PB 97, col. A,29; PB 102, col. B,3; PB 109, col. A,13 ⲥⲟⲡ m. occasion, time – ⲥⲟⲡ PB 103, col. A,31; Q 28,4 – ⲙⲉϩⲥⲉⲡⲥⲛⲁⲩ PB 102, col. B,31 ⲥⲡⲓⲣ m. rib PB 108, col. B,28 ⲥⲱⲧⲙ listen Q 30,5; 33,10 ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ know – ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ PB 98, col. A,27–28 – ⲥⲟⲩⲛ PB 110, col. A,11 – ⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ PB 111,5; S 5r,1 – ⲥⲟⲩⲛⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 108, col. A,12 ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲧⲛ be straight – ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲱⲛ PB 108, col. A,22 ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ gather PB 107, col. B,17; Q 24,7, 10; Q 27,13 (ⲥⲁϣϥ) seven – ⲙⲉϩⲥⲁϣϥⲉ PB 100, col. B,24; PB 101, col. A,15–16 ⲥϩⲁⲓ write – ⲥϩⲁⲓ PB 112,3 – ⲥⲏϩ PB 98, col. B,31

216

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ f. woman PB fr 19H,5; PB fr 20F,2 ϯ give PB 97, col. A,26; PB 109, col. A,31; PB 111,7; PB fr 19F,2, 3; PB fr 24F,2; S 6v,4; S 5r,2; Q 28,9; Q 29,9; Q 33,11 – ⲧⲁⲁϥ PB 102, col. B,25 – ⲙⲁ S 5r,5 (ⲧⲁⲓⲟ), ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ honoured – ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ Q 37,7 ⲧⲁⲗⲉ mount PB 109, col. B,30 ⲧⲁⲙⲟ inform – ⲧⲁⲙⲟⲕ fr. – ⲧⲁⲙⲱⲧⲛ S 6r2 – ⲙⲁⲧⲁⲙⲟⲛ PB 107, col. A,9 ⲧⲱⲛ where? whence? S 5r,24; Q 32,4, 10 ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ postpositive now PB 97, col. B,31–32; PB 98, col. B,10; PB 107, col. B,17; PB 108, col. A,6; col. B,11; PB fr 25H,5; PB fr 25F,2; Q 25,10–11 ⲧⲛⲛⲟⲟⲩ send PB 99, col. B,3–4 – ⲧⲛⲛⲟⲟⲩϥ Q 32,7 ⲧⲛϩ m. wing PB 101, col. A,31 (ⲧⲣⲟ) make – ⲧⲣⲉϥ PB 109, col. A,9 ⲧⲏⲣ⸗ augens whole – ⲧⲏⲣϥ PB 100, col. B,6; PB 102, col. A,23; PB 107, col. A,16; PB 110, col. A,32; PB fr 9H,5; PB fr 22F,5; S 6r2; S 6v,3; S 5v,2; Q 30,7 – ⲧⲏⲣⲥ PB 101, col. B,25; PB fr 24H,5; S 6r,3; – ⲧⲏⲣⲛ Q 24,6–7; Q 27,4 – ⲧⲏⲣⲧⲛ PB 98, col. B,21, 24 – ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ PB 100, col. B,16–17, 19; PB 101, col. A,2, 10; col. B,10; PB 105, col. A,2; S 5v,19 ⲧⲏⲣ⸗ (ⲡ)ⲧⲏⲣϥ whole, totality – ⲧⲏⲣϥ PB 106, col. A,32–col. B,1; PB fr 9H, col. A,5 (ⲧⲱⲣⲉ), ⲧⲟⲟⲧ⸗ – ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲛ PB 107, col. A,22 – ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲥ PB fr 20F,5 ⲧⲥⲟ make to drink – ⲧⲥⲟⲓ PB 108, col. B,22

(ⲧⲥⲁⲃⲟ) instruct – ⲧⲥⲁⲃⲉⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 106, col. B,31 ⲧⲟⲟⲩ m. mountain PB 100, col. B,1, 21–22; PB 6r,8; Q 24,3 ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ arise PB 98, col. B, 15; PB 100, col. A,6; PB 109, col. B,19–20, 20; PB 110, col. A,29; S 7r; Q 25,12–13, 13 ‑ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ (suffix pronoun) PB 97, col. A,26; PB 99, col. A,7; PB 106, col. B,29, 31; PB 108, col. A,10, 13, 27, 28, 32–col B,1, 19–20; PB fr 9F, col. A,8; PB fr 22H,3 ⲑⲃⲃⲓⲟ humiliate – ⲑⲃⲃⲓⲟ S 5r,12 – ⲑⲃⲃⲓⲏⲩ PB 110, col. A,14–15 (ⲧⲁϫⲣⲟ) firm – ⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲩ† PB 100, col. B,21; PB fr 12F,2 ⲟⲩ-, ϩⲉⲛ‑ indefinite article – ⲟⲩ PB 98, col. A,24, 27, 30, 32; PB 101, col. B,10; PB 102, col. B,1; PB 108, col. A,4; col. B,23, 27, 31; PB 109, col. A,14, 32; col. B,27; PB 110, col. A,13, 18, 20; PB fr 9H,5; S 5r,4; S 5v,7; Q 24,1; Q 25,3; Q 26,4, 7; Q 29,1, 8; Q 30,4 – ϩⲉⲛ PB 110, col. B,17, 18, 19; S 7v ⲟⲩ what? PB 101, col. B,21; PB 108, col. B,2; Q 32,9, 10 ⲟⲩⲁ one – ⲟⲩⲁ PB 98, col. B, 30; PB 107, col. B,8; PB 110, col. B,9, 10; PB fr 22H,6; S 7v – ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲉ PB fr 19F,3 ⲟⲩⲉ be distant – ⲟⲩⲏⲩ† PB 107, col. B,14, 15–16; PB 110, col. B,31, 32; S 7v ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓ rush PB 109, col. A,31; Q 28,10 ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ m. light. PB 97, col. A,22; S 6v,8; Q 28,7, 8–9; Q 29,9–10 ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ m. time, occasion PB 99, col. B, 1–2; Q 32,13 ⲟⲩⲱⲙ eat PB 97, col. A,16; PB 108, col. B,25; Q 27,9

III. Coptic Words

ⲟⲩⲛ‑ there is (affirmative existential) PB 98, col. A,28; PB 102, col. A,7; col. B,28; S 7v ⲟⲩⲱⲛ open – ⲟⲩⲱⲛ PB 100, col. B,4, 9; Q 30,10 – ⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛ Q 30,10 ⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ f. right hand – ⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ PB fr 17F,4–5 – ⲛⲥⲁⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ PB 97, col. A,14; – ϩⲓⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ PB 109, col. B,13; S 7r ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ reveal – ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ PB 111,4; S 6r,1 – ⲟⲩⲟⲛϩⲕ PB 107, col. A,6, 13, 14–15 ⲟⲩⲟⲡ being pure, holy – ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ† PB 100, col. A,4; PB 101, col. B,9–10; PB 107, col. B,19; PB fr 9F, col. A,6; S 7r; Q 24,10; Q 26,1–2; Q 28,1 ⲟⲩⲏⲣ how much? PB 99, col. B,1 ⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ f. foot PB 100, col. B,20 ⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ brought to naught S 5r,16–17; Q 31, 7, 10 ⲟⲩⲱⲧ alone, same PB 98, col. B,30 (ⲟⲩⲱⲧⲃ) surpass – ⲟⲩⲟⲧⲃ† PB 105, col. A,30–31 ⲟⲩⲱϣ desire PB 99, col. A,18; PB 102, col. A,32; PB 108, col. A,2, 32; col. B,4; PB 109, col. B,24 ⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ answer PB 97, col. A,31; PB 101, col. B,26; PB 103, col. A,29; PB 107, col. A,10, 24; col. B,32; PB 109, col. A,17; S 5v,13; Q 24,8; Q 25,1–2; Q 27,3, 11; Q 28,4 ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ m. salvation PB 102, col. A,21 ⲱⲛϩ live PB 107, col. B,16; PB 108, col. B,25; A PB fr 19H,2–3; PB fr 19F,6; Q 27,7 ⲱⲣϫ be firm PB 98, col. A,24–25 ϣ‑ to able PB 107, col. A,19 (ϣ‑) in ⲟⲩⲛ-/ⲙⲛ-ϣ-ϭⲟⲙ PB 98, col. A,28; PB 102, col. A,8; col. B,28

217

ϣⲁ-, ϣⲁⲣⲟ⸗ preposition to, until – ϣⲁ PB 107, col. B,1; PB 110, col. A,8; Q 32,7; Q 33,9, 13 – ϣⲁⲣⲟⲕ PB 99, col. B,6–7; PB 110, col. A,13 – ϣⲁⲣⲟⲟⲩ PB 104, col. B,32 ϣⲉ m. wood PB 105, col. B,29, 30, 31, 32; PB 106, col. A,1, 2; PB 109, col. B,19; PB fr 9H,3, 4; S 5r,10, 14, 24; Q 31,4; Q 32,5 (ϣⲃⲏⲣ) m. companion – ϣⲃⲉⲉⲣ PB 99, col. A,9 ϣⲗⲏⲗ m. prayer PB 100, col. A,8 ϣⲏⲙ small PB 107, col. B,28 ϣⲙⲙⲟ m. stranger PB 108, col. A,4–5; PB 109, col. A,14; PB 110, col. B,19; PB 111,7; S 5r,2; S 7v ϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ m. three PB 103, col. A,30; PB 106, col. B,28; ⲙⲉϩϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ Q 28,3 ϣⲏⲛ tree PB 111,2 ϣⲓⲡⲉ be ashamed PB 112,2 ϣⲱⲡ acquire – ϣⲟⲡⲧ PB 110, col. A,2–3; Q 26,8–9; Q 29,2; Q 30,2 – ϣⲟⲡϥ PB 97, col. A,29 ϣⲱⲡⲉ to be, to happen – ϣⲱⲡⲉ PB 101, col. A,4–5; PB 102, col. A,22; PB fr 19H,7; PB fr 22H,4; PB fr 25H,6; Q 24,1 – ϣⲟⲟⲡ PB 98, col. B,12, 28; S 5r,23, 24; S 7r; Q 25,8; Q 32,3–4, 5; Q 32,12 ϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ f. wonder PB fr 14F,14–15 ϣⲏⲣⲉ m. son PB 101, col. B,13; PB 102, col. A,24; col. B,32; PB 103, col. A,29; PB 107, col. B,28; PB 108, col. A,19; PB fr 19H,7; S 5r,22; S 5v,8, 11–12; Q 25,6; Q 31,12; Q 32,2 ϣⲟⲣⲡ first – ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ PB 109, col. A,19 (ϣⲱⲣⲡ) be early – ϣⲟⲣⲡⲧ PB 110, col. B,15 – ϣⲟⲣⲡⲕ PB 110, col. B,13

218

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

ϣⲱⲥ shepherd PB 98, co. B,32; PB 99, col. A,4 (ϣⲱⲱⲧ) cut, slay – ϣⲁⲁⲧ PB 110, col. A,24 ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ disturb PB 100, col. B,12; PB 101, col. A,23– 24; col. B,25–26; PB 107, col. A,2 ϣϣⲉ it is fitting PB 97, col. B,27, 32 (ϣⲁϫⲉ) speak – ⲁⲧϣⲁϫⲉ Q 33,6, 6 ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ take counsel PB 108, col. A,1; PB fr 25H,3; Q 25,10 ϥⲓ carry, take PB 107, col. A,19, 25 ϥⲧⲟ f. four – ⲙⲉϩϥⲧⲟ Q 29,6 ϩⲁ-, ϩⲁⲣⲟ⸗ under, for – ϩⲁ PB 99, col. A,8; PB 101, col. A.29; PB 107, col. A,23; PB fr 21 – ϩⲁⲣⲟⲕ PB 109, col. B,12; S 7r – ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ PB 107, col. A,19–20 – ϩⲁⲣⲱⲧⲛ PB 99, col. A,6 ϩⲉ fall PB 110, col. A,29 ϩⲉ f. manner – ⲑⲉ PB 100, col. B,2; PB 101, col. A,6 – ⲛⲑⲉ PB 101, col. A,5; PB 107, col. B,27; Q 25,6 – ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ PB 101, col. A,27 (ϩⲏ) f. fore part – ϩⲓⲑⲏ PB 101, col. B,8 ϩⲏⲧ⸗ preposition in front of – ϩⲏⲧⲕ PB 110, col. B,8; S 7v – ϩⲏⲧⲥ PB 107, col. A,28 ϩⲓ-, ϩⲓⲱⲱ⸗ preposition on – ϩⲓ PB 101, col. B,7; PB 102, col. B,13 – ϩⲓⲱⲱⲛ PB 101, col. A,12–13; S 6v,4 – ϩⲓⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 97, col. A,26 ϩⲓⲏ f. way PB 108, col. A,21; Q 27,7 ϩⲟ m. face PB 101, col. A,27 ϩⲱⲱ⸗ augens – ϩⲱ PB 98, col. A,25; PB 108, col. A,31; PB 109, col. A,7, 9; PB 110, col. B,14 – ϩⲱⲱⲛ PB 100, col. B,2 – ϩⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 99, col. A,7; PB 108, col. A,28; col. B,19–20

ϩⲏⲃⲉ f. mourning PB 110, col. B,11 ϩⲱⲃ f. thing, work PB 98, col. A,24, 30; PB 108, col. A,16 ϩⲃⲟⲩⲣ f. left – ϩⲓϩⲃⲟⲩⲣ PB 109, col. B,14; S 7r ϩⲁⲓⲃⲉⲥ f. shadow PB 106, col. A,31; PB 109, col. B,12; PB fr 21H,3; S 7r ϩⲏⲕⲉ m. poor PB 110, col. A,19; Q 29,8 ϩⲗⲟϭ be sweet Q 30,7 ϩⲙⲟⲩ m. salt PB 97, col. A,19 ϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ sit PB 101, col. B,4–5; PB 102, col. B,13; PB fr 17 4; Q 24,2 ϩⲙϫ m. vinegar PB 108, col. B,23 ϩⲛ-, ⲛϩⲏⲧ⸗ preposition in (etc.) – ϩⲛ PB 97, col. A,17; PB 98, col. A,24, 26, 30; PB 101, col. A,1, 7; PB 102, col. B,1; PB 107, col. A,8; col. B,26, 30; PB 109, col. B,23, 28; PB 110, col. A,21; PB 111,6; PB fr 25F,3, 4; S 5r,1; S 7r; Q 25,5; Q 29,12 – ϩⲙ PB 97, col. A,29; col. B,30; PB 98, col. B,12, 16; PB 99, col. B,5; PB 102, col. B,11; PB 107, col. A,15; PB 108, col. A,11; col. B,18; PB fr 22F,4; S 5r,12; S 6v,1; S 5r,10, 14, 24; Q 31,3; Q 32,5, 11 – ⲛϩⲏⲧ PB 98, col. B,23 – ⲛϩⲏⲧⲥ S 5v,16–17 (ϩⲟⲩⲛ) m. inside – ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ PB 98, col. B,17; PB 107, col. B,8, 12, 13; PB 108, col. B,9; PB 109, col. A,31; PB fr 20H,4; PB fr 21H,2; S 5v,4; Q 28,10 ϩⲱⲛ approach – ϩⲱⲛ PB 98, col. B,17; PB 107, col. B,8; S 5v,4 – ϩⲏⲛ† PB 107, col. B,11, 13 ϩⲓⲛⲏⲃ sleep PB 97, col. A,23 ϩⲁⲡ m. judgment, law PB 102, col. B,12, 14

III. Coptic Words

ϩⲣⲁⲓ m. upper part – ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ PB 100, col. B,9; PB 107, col. A,32–col. B,1; PB 109, col. B,20, 30; PB fr 25F,5; S 7r; Q 25,13; Q 26,5; Q 28,12–29,1; Q 30,1–2 (ϩⲏⲧ) m. heart – ⲛϩⲏⲧ PB 101, col. B,23; PB 102, col. A,3; S 5v,15 ϩⲟⲧⲉ f. fear – ⲑⲟⲧⲉ PB 107, col. A,23, – ϩⲟⲧⲉ PB 100, col. B,13; PB 107, col. A,27–28; PB 109, col. B,26; S 5v,14 ϩⲓⲧⲛ-, ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧ⸗ preposition through, from – ϩⲓⲧⲛ PB 102, col. A,10; PB fr 19F,5; S 5r,19 – ϩⲓⲧⲙ PB 97, col. A,12; PB 102, col. A,5; PB fr 14F,6; S 5r,3, 17, 20; Q 31,8, 10–11 ϩⲟⲧϩⲧ examine PB fr 18H,2 (ϩⲟⲩⲟ) m. greater – ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ S 5v,17; Q 27,1 ϩⲏⲩ m. profit PB 108, col. A,14 ϩⲟⲟⲩ m. day PB 102, col. B,12; PB 106, col. B,28– 29; Q 24,1 ϩⲁϩ m. many, much PB 110, col. B,7; S 7v ϩⲓϫⲛ-, ϩⲓϫⲱ⸗ preposition upon – ϩⲓϫⲙ PB 102, col. B,26; PB fr 6F,1; PB fr 15F,5; Q 24,2–3 ϫⲉ conjunction – discourse PB 97, col. A,32; PB 98, col. A,28; col. B,31; PB 100, col. A,2; col. B,15; PB 101, col. B,27; PB 102, col. A,27; col. B,16, 32; PB 103, col. A,31; PB 105, col. A,30; PB 107, col. A,5, 12, 25; col. B,26, 29, 32; PB 109, col. A,18; PB fr 9F, col. A,5; PB fr 14H,7, 9; PB fr 14F,8, 11; S 5v,11, 14; Q 24,9; Q 25,4, 7; Q 27,4, 11, 13; Q 28,5; Q 30,4 – causative PB 98, col. B,27; PB 99, col. A,11, 16, 18; PB 101, col. A,23; PB 108, col. A,4, 10; PB 110, col. A,13; PB 111,4; PB fr 9F, col. A,7; S 5v,4, 20, 22; S 7r – final PB 102, col. B,10

219

ϫⲓ take PB 97, col. A,24; PB 101, col. B,10; PB 108, col. A,1; col. B,24; PB 109, col. A,12; col. B,12; PB fr 25H,3; S 5r,8; S 7r; Q 25,10; Q 31,2 – ϫⲓⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 106, col. B,28 ϫⲱ say, speak – ϫⲱ PB 102, col. A,26; PB fr 14F,8; PB 24,9; S 5v,10 – ϫⲟⲟⲥ PB 102, col. B,16 (ϫⲱ) preposition upon – ⲉϫⲛ PB 101, col. B,14; PB 102, col. A,25 – ⲉϫⲛⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 108, col. A,27 – ⲉϫⲙ PB 100, col. B,1, 21; PB 101, col. A,26; PB 102, col. B,3–4; PB 108, col. A,16; col. B,5; S 5r,8 – ⲉϫⲱⲕ PB 109, col. B,30–31; Q 26,5, 7; Q 29,1; Q 30,2 ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ m. lord PB 97, col. A,32–col. B,1; PB 98, col. B,9–10, 14; PB 107, col. A,5, 12; col. B,5, 6; PB 110, col. A,12 – ⲙⲛⲧϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ S 6v,4 ϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ complete, finish – ϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ PB 99, col. A,17; PB 104, col. B,30; PB 109, col. A,16; PB 110, col. A,32–col. B,1; PB fr 9H, col. B,8; S 5v,1; Q 27,2 – ϫⲱⲕ PB 110, col. A,25 ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ in order that – ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ S 5r,5 – ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ PB 99, col. A,9–10; PB 107, col. A,18–19, 28; PB 108, col. A,13; Q 30,12 ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ m. book PB fr 19H,2 (ϫⲛⲟⲩ) question – ϫⲛⲉ PB fr 14H,6 – ϫⲛⲟⲩϥ PB fr 14F,7 ϫⲓⲛ from PB 108, col. B,11; Q 32,12, 13 ϫⲡⲟ produce PB 108, col. B,4 ϫⲣⲟ be victorious PB 108, col. B,13, 16; S 5v,22 ϫⲉⲣⲟ blaze PB 107, col. B,11 ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ scatter PB 99, col. A,1

220

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

(ϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ) be stong – ⲙⲛⲧϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ PB 106, col. A,1 ϫⲓⲥⲉ lift – ϫⲓⲥⲉ PB 109, col. B,21, 23; S 7r; Q 26,2 – ϫⲟⲥⲉ PB 105, col. A,32 ϫⲟⲉⲓⲧ olive Q 24,3 ϫⲱⲧⲉ pierce PB 100, col. B,18, 23; PB 101, col. A,9; S 6v,1 ϫⲟⲟⲩ send – ϫⲟⲟⲩ PB 108, col. A,30 – ϫⲉⲩⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ PB 108, col. A,32–col. B,1 ϫⲱϩ touch PB 107, col. A,31 ϫⲁϫⲉ m. enemy S 5r,15, 16; Q 31,5, 7 ϭⲉ adversative PB 97, col. B,32; PB 98, col. B,10; PB 99, col. A,3; PB 107, col. A,2; col. B,17; PB 108, col. A,6, 13; PB fr 25H,5; PB fr 25F,2; S 5r,5; S 5v,1, 22

(ϭⲱ) remain, wait – ϭⲉ S 5v,8 – ϭⲉⲉⲧ PB 98, col. B,26 (ϭⲃⲃⲉ) be feeble – ϭⲁⲃ PB fr 20H,3, 7 (ϭⲱⲱⲗⲉ) cover – ϭⲟⲟⲗⲉϥ PB 101, col. B,12 ϭⲱⲗⲡ uncover, reveal PB 98, col. A,26; PB 100, col. B,6; PB 110, col. A,4; Q 29,4 ϭⲟⲙ f. power PB 101, col. A,11; S 6r,3, 11; S 6v,5 (ϭⲟⲙ) after ⲟⲩⲛ-/ⲙⲛ-(ϣ‑) PB 98, col. A,29; PB 102, col. A,8; col. B,28 ϭⲣⲏⲡⲉ f. diadem S 5r,9, 10; Q 31,2 ϭⲱϣⲧ look PB 110, col. B,8; S 7v ϭⲓϫ f. hand PB fr 18F,2 (ϭⲱϫⲃ) be small – ϭⲟϫⲃ PB 110, col. A,26

IV. Conjugation Forms I Present – ϯ PB 98, col. A,27; col. B,26; PB 102, col. A,32; PB 108, col. A,6, 9, 26, 31; col. B,3 – ϥ PB 98, col. B,31; Q 32,12 – ⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 98, col. B,11 – ⲥⲉ PB 99, col. A,1; PB 108, col. A,1, 30; Q 25,10 Circumstantial Present – ⲉⲣⲉ PB 100, col. B,20, 22; PB 101, col. A,8; PB 101, col. A,10; PB fr 14; S 5r,22; Q 24,2; Q 32,3 – ⲉⲓ PB 102, col. A,2; PB 107, col. B,30; Q 30,12 – ⲉⲕ PB 101, col. B,22; PB fr 17 – ⲉϥ PB 102, col. A,26; PB 105, col. A,32; PB 107, col. B,12, 15; PB 110, col. A,12, 14; PB 110, col. B,9, 10, 11, 12; PB fr 20; Q 24,8 – ⲉⲥ S 5r,24; Q 32,4 – ⲉⲛ PB 107, col. B, 24 – ⲉⲩ PB 110, col. A,1; PB 112,4, 5

Relative Present – ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 106, col. B,32; PB 107, col. A,27 – ⲉⲧ‑ rectus PB 97, col. A,22; col. B,30, 31; PB 100, col. A,3, 5; col. B,10; PB 101, col. A,7; col. B,9–10; PB 107, col. B,11, 14, 19; PB 108, col. A,2, 22; PB 109, col. B,13, 14; PB 110, col. A,24, 26; col. B,31; PB fr 9H, col. B,6; PB fr 9F,5; Q 24,10; Q 26,1 II Present – ⲉⲓ PB 102, col. B,5; PB 107, col. B,26; PB 110, col. B,6; Q 25,5, 8 – ⲉⲕ PB 101, col. B,21–22 – ⲉϥ PB 110, col. B,32 First Future – ϯⲛⲁ PB 98, col. A,25; col. B,31; PB 99, col. A,5; PB 106, col. B,29; PB 107, col. A,25; PB 109, col. A,6, 9, 30–31; col. B,27, 29–30; PB 110, col. A,20; col. B,15; Q 26,4–5; Q 28,9, 12; Q 29,10; Q 30,1; Q 31,4

IV. Conjugation Forms

– ⲕⲛⲁ PB fr 13H,1; S 5r,14 – ϥⲛⲁ PB 107, col. B,9 – ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁ PB 98, col. B,20, 23 – ⲥⲉⲛⲁ PB 102, col. B,10, 15; PB 108, col. B,22, 27; PB 109, col. B,11, 32; PB fr 9; Q 26,6 – ⲛⲁ PB 102, col. A,22; PB 109, col. B,16; S 5r,19; Q 31,7, 10 Circumstantial Future – ⲉⲣⲉ PB 102, col. A,21 – ⲉⲓⲛⲁ PB 102, col. B,12–13 – ⲉⲕⲛⲁ PB 107, col. A,13; PB 107, col. A,5, 7–8 – ⲉϥⲛⲁ S 5r,16; Q 28,8 – ⲉⲥⲛⲁ S 5r,7 – ⲉⲩⲛⲁ PB 100, col. B,15–16; PB 111,5 Relative Future – ⲉⲧⲛⲁ‑ rectus PB 97, col. A,16; PB 98, col. B,18; PB 109, col. A,4–5; PB fr 9H, col. B,6 Affirmative Perfect – ⲁ PB 100, col. B,4, 5, 12; PB 101, col. A,4, 23, 24, 30, 32; col. B,9, 12; PB 102, col. A,24; PB 103, col. A,29; PB fr 9F, col. A,7 – ⲁⲓ PB 97, col. B,26; PB 99, col. A,17, 19; PB 106, col. B,20; PB 108, col. B,13, 17; PB fr 18; S 5r,8, 13; S 5v,22, 23; Q 31,1 – ⲁⲕ Q 30,4 – ⲁϥ PB 97, col. A,30; PB 98, col. B,16; PB 101, col. B,26; PB 104, col. B,29; PB 107, col. A,10, 24; col. B,21, 23; PB fr 10; S 6v,4; S 5v,3, 13; Q 24,8 – ⲁⲥ S 5v,4; Q 24,1 – ⲁⲛ PB 100, col. B,2, 8, 17; PB 101, col. A,6, 13; col. B,3; PB 107, col. B,31; PB 109, col. A,17; PB fr 14H, col. A,6; S 6v,1; S 6v,2; S 5v,9; Q 24,7; Q 25,2, 3; Q 27,3; Q 33,11 – ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 108, col. A,10 – ⲁⲩ PB 100, col. B,11, 13; PB 101, col. B,6; PB 105, col. B,3; PB 110, col. B,7; PB 111,3; S 5v,20 – Circumstantial – ⲉⲁϥ PB 100, col. B,18 – Relative – ⲉⲛⲧⲁ PB 111,3 – ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓ PB 97, col. A,28

221

– ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥ PB 108, col. B,29; PB 109, col. A,7–8; PB 110, col. A,28–29; Q 32,6 – Focalization (Second Perfect) – ⲛⲧⲁⲩ PB 102, col. B,25 – ϫⲓⲛⲧⲁⲓ PB 109, col. B,9 – ϫⲓⲛ PB fr 14F,13 Negative Perfect – circumstantial – ⲉⲙⲡⲉⲧⲛ PB 108, col. B,8–9 Negative Completive – ⲙⲡⲁⲧⲟⲩ Q 24,4 Affirmative III Future – ⲉⲛⲉ PB 107, col. A,19 – ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉ PB 99, col. A,10; PB 108, col. A,14 Negative III Future – ⲛⲛⲉⲩ PB fr 19H, col. A,3 Negative Imperative – ⲙⲡⲣ PB 97, col. A,23, 24; PB 107, col. A,2, 14, 31; PB 108, col. B,10–11; PB 109, col. B,26; PB 110, col. A,4, 9; S 5v,14; Q 25,11; Q 26,10; Q 29,4 Affirmative Imperative – ⲙⲁⲣⲉ PB 102, col. A,8; PB 102, col. B,28 – ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥ PB 108, col. B,29–30 – ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩ PB 102, col. A,9 Negative Imperative Causative – ⲙⲡⲣⲧⲣⲉ‑ PB 98, col. B,13; PB 108, col. B,15 Infinitive Causative – ⲧⲣⲉ S 5r,14; Q 31,5 – ⲧⲣⲁ PB 99, col. A,13 Conjunctive – ⲛⲧⲉ PB 101, col. B,24; PB 110, col. A,24, 25, 28, 31 – ⲛⲅ PB 99, col. B,2, 3, 4; PB 109, col. B,22; PB 110, col. A,11; PB fr 15+17H, col. A,2; Q 26,2 – ⲛⲧⲛ PB 99, col. B,7; PB 107, col. A,20–21, 21 – ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 98, col. B,21–22, 24–25; PB 107, col. A,29, 29–30; col. B,20; PB 108, col. A,25; PB fr 22H,2; S 6r,4; S 5v,8; Q 25,1, 9; Q 27,9–10; Q 28,4 – ⲛⲥⲉ PB 98, col. B,32; PB 111,7; S 5r,2 – ⲧⲁ PB 102, col. B,2, 14

222

Index of Greek and Coptic Words in the Edition

Causative Conjunctive – ⲧⲁ PB 106, col. B,30; PB 108, col. A,15; S 6r2; Q 24,11 Temporal – ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ PB 101, col. A,14–15; PB 109, col. A,15; PB fr 9H, col. B,8; S 5v,1; Q 27,1 – ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛ Q 33,10 – ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩ PB 101, col. B,12

Limitative – ϣⲁⲛϯ PB 107, col. A,32 – ϣⲁⲛⲧϥ PB 104, col. B,31–32 – ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 97, col. A,25 Conditional – ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛ PB 107, col. B,7 – ⲉⲕϣⲁⲛ PB 107, col. A,12 – ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϣⲁⲛ PB 107, col. A,3 – ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛ PB 102, col. A,12

V. Pronominal PTN Demonstrative Pronoun I – ⲡⲁⲓ PB 97, col. A,28; PB 100, col. B,14; PB 109, col. A,13; col. B,25; PB fr 21H,5; S 7r; Q 33,12 – ⲧⲁⲓ PB 99, col. A,13; PB 107, col. A,27; PB fr 14H,9; PB fr 14F,12 – ⲛⲁⲓ PB 102, col. B,8; PB fr 9F, col. B,4; Q 33,11 Demonstrative article I – ⲡⲉⲓ PB 98, col. A,16; PB 101, col. A,4; PB 102, col. A,1, 8; col. B,29; PB fr 14F,9 – ⲧⲉⲓ PB fr 14H,8 – ⲛⲉⲓ Q 25,6 Demonstrative article II – ⲡⲓ PB 100, col. B,14; – ⲛⲓ PB 100, col. B,3; PB 101, col. A,5; PB 107, col. B,28 Subject Pronoun – ⲡⲉ PB 97, col. A,19, 21; PB 99, col. A,3; PB 107, col. B,2, 4, 6, 10, 30; PB 108, col. A,17, 18, 20, 23; PB 109, col. A,14; col. B,24; PB 110, col. A,14, 23, 27, 30; PB fr 21H,6; S 5v,6; Q 25,8; Q 27,6, 8; Q 32,8, 9, 10, 11; Q 33,2, 6, 12 – ⲧⲉ PB 108, col. B,31; PB fr 14H,8; S 5r,21, 22; Q 32,1, 2 – ⲛⲉ PB 102, col. B,8; PB fr 9F, col. B,4 Definite Article – ⲡ PB 97, col. A,12, 20, 22, 27, 30; col. B,25, 30; PB 98, col. A,31; col. B,12, 32; PB 99, col. A,2, 4; col. B,5; PB 100, col. A,1; col. B,1, 5, 21; PB 101, col. B,1, 2, 9, 12; PB 102, col. A,5, 6, 13, 21, 22, 24; col. B,4,

12, 15, 24, 30, 31; PB 103, col. A,29, 30; PB 105, col. A,3, 29; col. B,29, 30, 31, 32; PB 106, col. A,1, 2, 32; PB 107, col. A,5, 12; col. B,10, 13, 16, 22; PB 108, col. A,3, 8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22; col. B,5, 7, 14, 16, 18; PB 109, col. B,19; PB fr 9H,3, 4, 5; S 6r,3, 8; S 6v,2, 3; S 5r,10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24; S 5v,12, 18, 22; Q 24,2, 3; Q 27,7, 8; Q 28,3, 8; Q 29,9; Q 30,6, 8; Q 31,4, 7, 9, 11; Q 32,2, 5, 6; Q 33,1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 – ⲧ PB 97, col. A,13, 17, 21, 27; PB 100, col. B,24; PB 101, col. A,11, 15; PB 104, col. B,31; PB 106, col. B,30; PB fr 9H,3; S 6v,5; S 5r, 9, 21; S 5v,7, 17; Q 24,2; Q 30,9; Q 31,3, 12; Q 33,1, 4, 6 – ⲑ PB 98, col. B,13; PB 100, col. B,2; PB 101, col. A,6; PB 107, col. A,23; PB fr 14H,10 – ⲛ PB 97, col. B,29; PB 99, col. A,2; PB 100, col. B,12; PB 101, col. A,3, 7, 24, 25, 30; PB 102, col. B,4; PB 108, col. A,7; PB 111,6; S 6v,1; S 5r,1; S 5v,9; Q 24,3, 5; – ⲙ PB 97, col. A,10, 13, 18; PB 100, col. B,8, 11, 19; PB 101, col. A,1, 9, 23; col. B,14; PB 102, col. A,25; PB fr 9F, col. B,2 – ⲡⲉ PB 97, col. A,19, 29; PB 101, col. B,8; PB 102, col. B,11; PB 106, col. B,3, 21; PB 108, col. B,26; PB 109, col. B,15, 21, 31; PB 110, col. A,3, 23, 27, 30, 31; col. B,13, 17, 30; S 5r,8, 17; S 5v,6; Q 24,12; Q 25,12; Q 26,1, 3, 6,

V. Pronominal PTN

9, 11; Q 27,6; Q 28,6, 11; Q 29,3, 7, 8; Q 30,3, 7; Q 31,1, 8, 9; Q 32,9, 11 – ⲧⲉ S 5r,9; S 5v,7; Q 27,7; Q 31,2 – ⲛⲉ PB 101, col. A,27; col. B,3; PB 111,6; PB fr 9F,3; S 5r,1 – Before Relative – ⲡ PB 97, col. A,16; col. B,32; PB 98, col. B,18; PB 107, col. B,11, 14; PB 108, col. B,29; PB 109, col. A,7, 11; PB 110, col. A,24, 26, 28; col. B,31; A fr 9F, col. B,4 – ⲛ PB 100, col. B,10; PB 108, col. A,2; PB 109, col. B,13, 14; Possessive Pronoun – ⲛⲁ PB 97, col. B,25 – ⲡⲱϥ Q 33,12 – ⲡⲱⲧⲛ PB 105, col. A,31; col. B,1 Possessive Article – ⲡⲁ PB 97, col. A,32; PB 98, col. B,27, 29; PB 99, col. A,11, 16; PB 102, col. A,6, 27; col. B,3, 13, 27; 32; PB 103, col. A,31; PB 107, col. B,1, 3, 5; PB 108, col. B,28; PB 109, col. A,12, 13, 31; PB 110, col. A,4; PB fr 9F, col. A,7; PB fr 25F,2; S 5r,6, 14; Q 28,10 – ⲡⲉⲕ PB 107, col. A,15, 17; PB 109, col. B,24; PB 110, col. A,12; PB fr 17F,6; S 6r,1; Q 29,5; Q 30,5, 11

223

– ⲡⲉϥ PB 99, col. A,17; PB 101, col. A,29; col. B,14; PB 102, col. A,26; PB 111,3; S 5r,3 – ⲡⲉⲛ PB 99, col. B,3; PB 100, col. B,7, 17; PB 101, col. A,14 – ⲡⲉⲧⲛ PB 107, col. B,2, 4, 6; PB 108, col. A,16 – ⲡⲉⲩ PB 101, col. A,27 – ⲧⲁ PB 99, col. A,5, 14; PB 109, col. B,28; PB 110, col. A,21; Q 29,12 – ⲧⲉⲕ Q 30,10 – ⲧⲉϥ PB 100, col. B,23; PB 108, col. B,31; PB 109, col. A,16; PB fr 10F, col. A,3; S 6v,2, 3; S 5r,5, 23; Q 32,3 – ⲧⲉⲥ PB fr 24H,4 – ⲧⲉⲛ PB 101, col. A,11; S 6v,5 – ⲧⲉⲧⲛ PB 107, col. B,27, 31; Q 25,5 – ⲛⲁ PB 100, col. A,3, 4; PB 102, col. B,7; PB 107, col. B,18; PB fr 9F, col. A,5; S 5r,15; Q 24,9; Q 28,1; Q 31,5 – ⲛⲉϥ PB 100, col. B,20 – ⲛⲉⲛ PB 100, col. B,4; PB 101, col. A,8 – ⲛⲉⲧⲛ PB 99, col. A,9; PB 112,3, 4 – ⲛⲉⲧⲙ PB 99, col. A,8 – ⲛⲉⲩ PB 100, col. B,10; PB 101, col. A,31; col. B,5, 6

Index of Sources Biblical Texts Genesis 49:11 170

49, 170 26:46 27:51 172

2 Kingdoms 23:34 7

Mark 1:34 170 14:26 54 14:27 171 14:28 55 14:33–34 16 14:34 179 14:38 179 49, 170 14:42 15:23 174 15:38 172

2 Chronicles 36:9 7 Psalms 32:6 38 23, 132–137, 174 71:1 133, 178, 180, 181 95:10 107:7 59, 174 131:4 170

Isaiah 61:9 171 65:23 171

Luke 11:53 124 14:15 170 16:19–31 125 173, 180 22:27 22:30 170 172, 173 22:42 23:45 172 24:31 171

Matthew 1:11 7 5:13–15 170 11:29 175 20:21 48 26:29 170 26:30 54 37, 171 26:31 26:37–38 16 26:38 179 50, 172, 173 26:39 55, 179 26:41 26:42 172, 173

John 1:29 174 174, 180 6:35 6:54 174 6:56 174 173, 180 7:33 10:11 171 24, 92, 171 10:30 173, 180 13:33 59, 174, 180 14:6 14:31 170 15:13 171 15:20 179

Proverbs 59, 174 2:13 2:16 59, 174 6:4 170

225

Index of Sources

16:20 174 16:22 174 16:32 171 174, 179 16:33 17:18 174 19:34–35 174 20:8 173 52, 54, 173 20:17 20:21 174 21:24 174

1 Timothy 6:12 120

Acts 6:5 130 12:12 73

2 Peter 2:15

Romans 8:17 118 12:3–5 108 1 Corinthians 6:15 108 12:12–31 108 15:14 171 15:56 178, 181 Ephesians 4:25 108 5:30 108

2 Timothy 4:7 120 Hebrews 4:14 172 5:7 16 11:13 175 59, 174

1 John 5:12 173 Revelation 4 49 4:10 172 7:11 172 7:13 172 7:14 170 92, 126 9:11 22:13 181

Ancient Texts 2 Enoch

46

Acts of Pilate

Acts of Andrew

19, 20, 48

Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) 94, 108, 112–114

136 Acts of John 30 136 61 136 94 60 94–95 24 94–96 54 110 136 Acts of John (Ps.-Prochorus) 67, 130 Acts of Peter and Andrew 93

86

Apollinaris of Laodicea Fragmenta in Psalmos 134 Apostolic Constitutions 106, 107 Archelaos of Neapolis On the Archangel Gabriel 6–9, 71, 89–90, 106, 111, 121, 129

226

Index of Sources

Athanasius of Alexandria

Constantine of Assiut

Apocalypse of Athanasius 113

Encomium on St. Claudius of Antioch 1 94, 95

Expositions of the Psalms 134

Encomium on St. Claudius of Antioch 2 94, 95

Letter Horsiesius and Theodore 28–29

Cyriacus of Behnesa

On the Archangel Michael 28 On Love and Temperance 117 On Luke 11:5–9

28

Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 92 Unidentified texts 28, 29 Bachios of Maiuma On the Apostles

77, 112, 174

On the Three Children in the Fiery ­Furnace 6–7, 71, 77, 78, 129 Bala’izah apostolic memoir 6, 73, 110, 125 Basil of Caesarea On the Building of the Church of the Virgin 6, 71, 88, 121–122, 129, 172 Book of Bartholomew 6, 19, 20, 46, 47, 50, 52, 72, 74, 77, 86, 96, 99–101, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 122, 127, 135, 170, 171 Book of the Cock 86 Cave of Treasures 79 Celestinus of Rome Encomium on the Archangel Gabriel 131

On the Dormition of the Virgin 6, 71, 84, 88, 121, 127, 129, 130 On the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt 6, 71, 86, 129 Lament of Mary

6, 71, 85–87, 122, 128, 129, 170, 172

Martyrdom on Pilate 6, 71, 86–88, 112, 128, 129, 170, 172 Cyril of Alexandria First Letter to Succensus 16–17 On the Apocalypse of John 127 On the Dormition of the Virgin 6, 72, 129 Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Orations 75 On the Cross

10, 131

On the Dormition of the Virgin 6, 71, 79–80, 83, 129, 130, 131 On the Life and the Passion of Christ 6, 7, 71, 76–77, 78, 80, 101, 124, 128, 172, 174 On the Life of the Virgin 6, 71, 79, 129 On Mary Magdalene 6, 71, 78, 121, 128, 129, 172 On the Passion 1 10, 53–54

227

Index of Sources

On the Passion 2 10 On the Passion A 10

3.22 102 3.36.2 102

On the Passion B 10

Evodius of Rome

On the Virgin 136

On the Dormition of the Virgin 6, 73, 102–105, 105, 110, 111, 122–123, 129, 132, 170

Decretum Gelasianum 19, 20, 100 Didymus the Blind Commentary on the Psalms 52, 53 Discourse of the Savior (the Stauros-text) 6, 8, 9, 43, 45, 72, 96, 97, 105, 109, 115, 118, 172

On the Passion 1 6, 29, 73, 102–104, 106, 123–124, 171, 172 On the Passion 2 6, 73, 102–103, 104, 111, 120, 122, 128, 170, 171 Gospel of Andrew 3, 19, 20

Dormition of John 136

Gospel of Bartholomew 19, 20, 99, 100, 101

Enthronement of Gabriel 6, 8, 9, 72, 94, 96, 98, 99, 109, 115, 120, 171

Gospel of the Ebionites 3

Enthronement of Michael 6, 8, 9, 72, 94, 96–98, 106, 109, 115, 118, 120, 124, 135, 174 Ephrem

Gospel of the Egyptians 3, 17 Gospel of Gamaliel 74, 88 Gospel of Judas

14, 17

Gospel of Mary

17

Epiphanius of Salamis

Gospel of Peter

3, 17–19, 105

List of Apostles and Disciples 102

Gospel of Philip 17

Commentary on the Gospel Parables 52, 53

On the Burial of Christ 101 Epistula apostolorum 107 Euchologion

136, 137

Gospel of Thomas 13, 17, 52, 53 Gospel of Truth

17

Gospel of the Twelve 3, 21, 23, 34, 74, 88, 104, 105, 108

Eusebius of Caesarea

Gregory of Nazianzus

Ecclesiastical History 102

On the Devil and the Archangel Michael 124–125

228

Index of Sources

Ḥaṣurä mäsqäl (Rampart of the Cross) 45 History of Joseph the Carpenter 6, 72, 94–96, 109–111, 116, 120, 122, 127, 132 History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria 94 Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Ephesians 108 Epistle tot he Trallians 108 Jerome Preface to the Gospel of Matthew 99–100 John Chrysostom

On John the Baptist 6, 72, 81–82, 94, 170 On Joseph the Patriarch 41 On the Resurrection and the Apostles 10 On Susanna 41 Revelation on the Mount of Olives, 40 Days after the Resurrection 6, 72, 131 John of Parallos Against Apocryphal Books 98, 124 John Rufus Plerophories 76 Kitāb al-īḍāḥ 9

1, 125, 126

In venerabilem crucem sermo 44, 45

Life of Moses of Abydos 29

On the Archangel Gabriel 36

Liturgy of Basil

On the Archangel Michael 6, 71, 121 On the Archangel Michael (ed. Depuydt, Homiletica) 72 On the Archangel Michael and the Good Thief 72 On David and Saul III 41 On the Gospel of John, hom. 26 134 On the Epistle to the Hebrews 38 On the Epistle to the Romans 29 On the Four Bodiless Creatures 6–9, 71, 80, 105, 109, 110, 115, 121, 125, 126, 127

130

Liturgy of Gregory 131 Liturgy of Mark/Cyril 131 Macarius-Symeon Spiritual Homilies 135 135 Homily 26 Martyrdom of Cosmas and Damian 116–117 Martyrdom of James Intercissus 129 Martyrdom of Shenoufe 115–116, 118, 136 Miaphysite Christological extract 6, 73, 110, 130–131 (ed. Hedrick) Mysteries of John 6, 72, 96, 99, 171

229

Index of Sources

On Stephen the Protomartyr 131

Testament of Adam

Origen

Testament of Isaac

Commentary on the Gospel of John 23, 133–134 Homily in Jeremiah 3.3 52 Selecta in Psalmos 134 Pachomius Against a Spiteful Monk 117 Panegyric on the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace 131 Papohe Life of Phib 118 Peter of Alexandria On Riches 102 Pistis Sophia 67 Questions of Bartholomew 20 Severian of Gabala Encomium on the Twelve Apostles 10 Shenoute of Atripe And We Will Also Reveal Something Else 22, 132 De iudicio supremo 133 On Christian Behavior 126 Testament of Abraham 92, 93

Testament of Jacob

93 92, 93, 94 92, 93, 94

Testament of Job 93 Theodore of Antioch, On Theodore Stratelates 29 Theodoret of Cyrus Interpretatio in Psalmos 134 Theodosius of Alexandria On the Dormition of the Virgin 6, 72, 90, 91, 106, 109, 112, 119, 121, 129, 172 On John the Baptist 28 Theodosius of Jerusalem On Stephen the Protomartyr 29 Theophilus of Alexandria On the Cross and the Good Thief 50–51 Timothy Aelurus On the Archangel Michael 6, 72, 121, 130, 170, 172 On Abbaton

6–9, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 109, 110, 115, 121, 122, 125–127, 170, 172

Zostrianos

67

230

Index of Sources

Manuscripts Coptic Aswan, Nubian Museum Special Number 168 (olim Coptic M ­ useum inv. no. 6566) 42–43 Berlin, Papyrussammlung P. Berol. 22220 1, 2, 4, 12–19, 21, 22, 24, 26–31, 32–36, 40, 43, 49, 50–52, 55, 56, 58–64, 66–68, 70, 77, 81, 92, 98, 101, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 119, 120, 132, 135, 139, 140, 141–160, 170–177 Cairo, Coptic Museum Nag Hammadi Codex VIII 67 Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale 117 Inv. no. 77 Inv. no. 186–187 78 Inv. no. 190–197 78 Dublin, Chester Beatty Library 32–33, 34 MS Copt. 814 Heidelberg, Institut für Papyrologie P. Heid. inv. kopt. 450 75 P. Heid. inv. kopt. 267 75 P. Heid. inv. kopt. 268 75 Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities Insinger no. 62 38 29 F 1976/4.1 29 F 1976/4.2 F 1976/4.4 29 29 F 1976/4.5, 8 28 F 1976/4.26 F 1976/4.27 28 29 F 1976/4.28

F 1976/4.31 F 1976/4.33

29 29

London, British Library 107 Or. 1320 Or. 3581B, f. 26 111 Or. 5000 38 47 Or. 6780 136 Or. 6784 Or. 6799 47 46 Or. 6804 113 Or. 6806A Or. 6954(44)–(45) 101 113 Or. 7023 81, 82 Or. 7024 Or. 7026 99 86 Or. 7027 47 Or. 7028 Or. 8802, ff. 1–4 117 Manchester, John Rylands Library 32 Coptic Frag. 7 96 Coptic no. 39 Montserrat Abbey P. Monts Roca II 10 32, 33 P. Monts Roca II 12 32, 33 P. Monts Roca 735 32, 33 Naples, National Library IB.13, f. 60 112 New York, Morgan Library & Museum 51 M 575 M 576 67–68 93 M 577 89, 111 M 583 127 M 591 M 592 72 97, 98 M 593 36, 54 M 595 M 597 136 76 M 610 97 M 614 M 633 118 27–28 M 910

Index of Sources

Paris, National Library Copte 12917, ff. 37–38 85 Copte 1311, f. 41 72 Copte 1314, f. 154 126

Arabic

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology E 16262 76

Paris, National Library 80, 121, 131 Arabe 150

Strasbourg, National and University Library Copte inv. no. 5–7 2–4, 21, 39–41, 43, 55–58, 64–70, 161–164, 178–179 Vatican, Apostolic Library Borg. copt. 109, cass. 25, fasc. 113 111 Borg. copt. 109, cass. 25, fasc. 121 111 Vat. copt. 59 89 90 Vat. copt. 66 88 Vat. copt. 67 Vat. copt. 111, ff. 119–122 29 Venice, Marciana National Library 38 192, f. 79 Vienna, National Library K 351 36 126 K 9295 113 K 9653 K 9670 36 White Monastery Codices MONB.CM 98 MONB.CR 38 MONB.CU 89 MONB.DB 82 MONB.DE 134 MONB.DU 126 100, 101 MONB.EZ MONB.FD 136 MONB.FP 100 MONB.GA 111 MONB.NW 112 MONB.ZM 126

231

Cairo, Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies MS 213 103

Vatican, Apostolic Library 90, 112, 119 Vat. arab. 698 Vat. arab. 170 127

Ethiopic Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library 83 EMML 569 EMML 570 83 83 EMML 646 89 EMML 1311 EMML 1433 83, 84 81 EMML 1960 88 EMML 2044 EMML 2107 89 88 EMML 2461 89 EMML 3142 EMML 3527 89 89 EMML 3986 89 EMML 4147 EMML 4355 88 89 EMML 4510 89 EMML 4545 EMML 4633 97 London, British Library 81 Or. 687 Paris, National Library 92, 93 Abb. 107 Vatican, Apostolic Library Vat. Eth. 82 83

Greek Bodmer Papyrus XIV 126 P. Oxy. 840 2

Name Index ‘Abd al-Masih, Yassa ​29, 131 Abercrombie, Lloyd ​43 Abraha, Tedros ​87 Allberry, Charles R. C. ​54 Altaner, Berthold ​44 Amélineau, Émile ​83, 116, 119 Aranda, Gonzalo ​76, 90, 103 Arras, Victor ​84, 127 Assefa, Daniel ​87 Assfalg, Julius ​28 Atiya, Aziz S. ​77, 85, 102, 106, 116, 129 Baehrens, Wilhelm Adolf ​52 Bagatti, Bellarmino ​96 Balestri, Giuseppe ​129 Barns, John Wintour Baldwin ​115, 116, 118, 136 Barry, Catherine ​67 Basset, René ​97, 121, 127 Battista, Antonio ​96 Bauckham, Richard ​16 Baumstark, Anton ​74, 88, 106 Bausi, Alessandro ​84, 85, 87 Beard-Shouse, Melody Gabrielle ​54 Behlmer, Heike ​119, 133 Bellet, Paulino ​73, 75, 87, 90 Bertrand, Daniel ​39, 140 Bethge, Hans Gebhard ​2, 13, 139 Beylot, Robert ​85, 87, 112, 128 Bick, Josef ​107 Bilabel, Friedrich ​75 Blanc, Cécile ​23, 134 Boccaccini, Gabriele ​46 Boeser, Pieter Adriaan Aart ​38 Bombeck, Stefan ​84, 88, 136 Bosson, Nathalie ​70 Boud’hors, Anne ​35, 70, 81, 170 Bouriant, Urbain ​107 Boutros, Ramez W. ​127 Bovon, François ​39, 81, 107, 140

Bowe, Barbara E. ​54 Brakke, David ​118, 120, 126 Breckenridge, James D. ​87 Bremmer, Jan N. ​113 Browne, Gerald M. ​44, 81, 97, 98, 115 Budge, E. A. Wallis ​38, 46, 59, 68, 81, 82, 83, 91, 92, 94, 99, 100, 109, 113, 115, 117, 131, 136, 170, 171 Budka, Julia ​43 Bull, Christian ​43 Bumazhnov, Dmitrij ​93 Burke, Tony ​7, 8, 78, 81 Burrell, Barbara ​89 Burtea, Bogdan ​45 Buzi, Paola ​101, 112 Cadbury, Henry Joel ​126 Campagnano, Antonella ​29, 118, 119, 136 Camplani, Alberto ​101 Casey, Robert P. ​114 Cavallo, Guglielmo ​31 Cerulli, Enrico ​87, 128 Chaîne, Marius ​86, 88, 90, 91, 119 Chapman, Paul ​102, 124 Chassinat, Émile ​126 Chauleur, Sylvestre ​78 Cherix, Pierre ​20, 100 Clackson, Sarah J. ​28 Clivaz, Claire ​15, 16 Conti Rossini, Carlo ​93 Contreras, Enrique ​117 Copeland, Kirsti Barrett ​113 Coquin, René-Georges ​78, 79, 85, 97, 106, 118 Cowley, Roger W. ​86, 87 Cramer, Maria ​32, 51 Crum, Walter E. ​3, 13, 32, 39, 72, 73, 88, 90, 99, 100, 107, 110, 111, 128, 140 Czachesz, István ​113

Name Index

David, Joseph ​134 DeConick, April ​15 De Lagarde, Paul ​96, 103, 107, 110, 111, 120 Delhez, Julien ​89 Depuydt, Leo ​7–10, 28, 72, 78, 81, 89, 98, 102, 104, 106, 110, 115, 124, 125, 127, 171 De Rustafjaell, Robert ​46, 100 De Santos Otero, Aurelio ​96 De Vis, Henri ​7, 8, 89, 111, 131 De Vogüé, Adalbert ​117 Devos, Paul ​1, 87, 129 Dewey, Arthur J. ​17, 54 Dib, Pierre ​86, 116 Dilley, Paul C. ​8, 9, 43, 54 DiTommaso, Lorenzo ​52 Dochhorn, Jan ​93 Dolbeau, François ​102 Dörries, Hermann ​135 Downey, Glanville ​102 Egan, George A. ​52, 53 Ehrman, Bart ​4, 14, 15, 43, 96, 97, 107, 122, 132 Elliott, James Keith ​35 Emmel, Stephen ​2, 3, 12, 16, 18–23, 29, 35–37, 39, 40, 41, 47, 52, 55, 56, 59, 66, 67, 69, 76, 98, 101, 105, 109, 132, 135, 139 Engberding, Hieronymus ​136–137 Erbetta, Mario ​90, 96, 104 Erho, Ted ​92 Evelyn White, Hugh G. ​68, 90, 99, 103 Evetts, Basil Thomas Alfred ​94 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. ​126 Flinders Petrie, William Matthew ​73, 110 Foat, Michael E. ​10 Forget, Jacques ​96 Förster, Hans ​36, 100 Frey, Jörg ​3, 11, 16, 20, 53, 87, 140 Funk, Franz Xaver ​106 Funk, Wolf-Peter ​22, 38, 67 Gabra, Gawdat ​42, 127 Galtier, Émile ​87 Gardner, Iain ​100, 101 Garitte, Gérard ​94, 95

233

Geoltrain, Pierre ​39, 81, 86, 96, 102, 104, 107, 140 Godlewski, Włodzimierz ​97 Godron, Gérard ​78, 94, 95 Goehring, James E. ​103 Gonzáles Casado, Pilar ​80, 85 Gounelle, Rémi ​86 Graf, Georg ​81, 83, 85, 86, 89, 92, 98, 113 Granfield, Patrick ​53 Grébaut, Sylvain ​45, 107 Gregory, Caspar René ​36, 46, 66 Griffith, Francis Llewellyn ​44, 97 Grober, Kendrick ​126 Guerrier, Louis ​107 Guidi, Ignazio ​92, 111 Gundacker, Roman ​43 Győry, Hedvig ​43 Haase, Felix ​88 Hagen, Joost ​11, 23, 46, 70, 77, 80, 84, 90, 101, 109, 121 Hall, Robert G. ​97 Hallock, Frank H. ​75 Hannick, Christian ​45 Hartenstein, Judith ​18 Hatch, William H.  P. ​68 Hebbelynck, Adolphe ​90 Hedrick, Charles W. ​1, 2, 4, 12–14, 17–19, 22, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 48, 55, 73, 108, 110, 119, 130, 131, 139 Heide, Martin ​92 Henin, Gerges ​86 Hennecke, Edgar ​4 Hingot, Georges ​42 Hofmann, Jürgen ​27 Hoogendijk, Francisca A.  J. ​101 Horn, Jürgen ​115 Horner, George ​107 Hubai, Péter ​2, 21, 43, 45, 47, 54, 97, 109, 115, 118, 140 Hughes, George R. ​42, 140 Husson, Pierre ​52 Hyvernat, Henri ​68, 129, 136 Iles Johnston, Sarah ​15 Immerzeel, Mat ​23, 91

234

Name Index

Jacoby, Adolf ​2, 3, 39, 40, 41, 55, 140 Jakab, Attila ​43 James, Montague Rhodes ​83, 88, 96, 114 Janssens, Bart ​7 Jaspert, Bernd ​43 Jenkins, Philip ​17 Joest, Christoph ​117 Johnston, Jay ​100 Jones, Timothy Paul ​17 Jungmann, Josef Andreas ​53 Junod, Eric ​130 Kaestli, Jean-Daniel ​20, 54, 86, 96, 100, 102, 104, 130 Kahle, Paul E. ​73, 110 Kaiser, Werner ​27 Kasser, Rodolphe ​126 Khater, Antoine ​99, 131 Khs-Burmester, Oswald Hugh Ewart ​99 King, Karen L. ​15 Klameth, Gustav ​96 Klauck, Hans-Josef ​17 Kloppenborg, John S. ​17 Klostermann, Erich ​135 Knox, Sanka ​42 Koch, Guntram ​115 Kraus, Thomas J. ​18 Krause, Martin ​51 Kroeger, Matthias ​135 Kropp, Angelicus ​100 Kruger, Frederic ​89 Kruger, Michael ​2 Kruit, Nico ​28 Kuhn, Karl Heinz ​28, 93, 126 Lacau, Pierre ​86, 88, 100, 104 Ladeuze, Paulin ​74, 88 Lafontaine, Guy ​124 Łajtar, Adam ​94 Lake, Kirsopp ​102, 107 Lamacraft, Charles T. ​33 Lanchantin, Ève ​85, 87, 128, 170 Landau, Brent ​7, 8, 78, 81 Lanne, Emmanuel ​136, 137 Layton, Bentley ​32, 46, 47, 52, 88, 91, 99, 113, 117, 118 Lefort, Louis-Théophile ​32, 33, 93, 96, 106, 111, 117, 118, 125–127 Lietzmann, Hans ​136 Lifchitz, Déborah ​45

Leipoldt, Johannes ​107 Lipsius, Richard Adelbert ​130 Louis, Catherine ​78, 97, 117 Lucchesi, Enzo ​1, 36, 79, 80, 87, 95, 100–104, 113, 120, 126, 128, 133 Luckritz Marquis, Christine ​78, 128 Luisier, Philippe ​85, 86, 87, 88, 128 Lundhaug, Hugo ​76, 133 Lusini, Gianfrancesco ​81 MacCoull, Leslie S. B. ​35 MacDermot, Violet ​67 Macomber, William F. ​88, 90, 103 Maloney, George A. ​135 Marjanen, Antti ​113 Martin, Victor ​126 Malan 68, Salomon Caesar ​68 Markschies, Christoph ​3, 4, 34, 105 Marrassini, Paolo ​83 McGuckin, John A. ​17 Menapace, Daniel ​117 Metzger, Marcel ​106, 107 Michaelides, George ​28 Mina, Togo ​116 Miner, Dorothy ​31 Mingana, Alphonse ​85, 87, 112, 170 Mingarelli, Giovanni Luigi ​38 Mirecki, Paul ​A. 2, 4, 12–15, 17–19, 22, 26, 27, 30, 32, 37, 38, 48, 55, 108, 112, 119, 139 Möger, Karl Johan ​27, 28, 29 Moraldi, Luigi ​104 Morard, Françoise ​77, 104, 112, 120, 128, 129, 170, 171, 174 Morenz, Siegfried ​96 Mühlenberg, Ekkehard ​52, 134 Muhs, Brian Paul ​101 Müller, Caspar Detlef Gustav ​8, 9, 83, 89, 94, 97–99, 115, 120, 136, 171, 174 Müller, Matthias ​89 Munier, Henri ​115 Nagel, Peter ​13, 14, 22, 23, 29, 34, 43, 44, 53, 66, 67, 75, 93, 114, 125, 132 Nagel, Titus ​20 Nakano, Chièmi ​136 Nestle, Eberhard ​128 Nautin, Pierre ​52 Nicklas, Tobias ​18

Name Index

Obłuski, Artur ​94 Orlandi, Tito ​3, 22, 25, 32, 41, 70, 75–77, 79, 90, 94, 101–103, 112, 116, 118, 119, 127, 129 Orlov, Andrei A. ​46 Outtier, Bernard ​53 Pearson, Birger A. ​17, 102 Pérès, Jacques-Noël ​107, 128 Perkins, Pheme ​17 Petersen, Theodore ​31 Piankoff, Alexandre ​170 Pieke, Gabriele ​43 Piovanelli, Pierluigi ​5, 14, 24, 52, 54, 74, 86, 92, 114 Pleše, Zlatko ​4, 10, 43, 96, 97, 122, 132 Pleyte, Willem ​38 Plisch, Uwe-Karsten ​3, 18, 19, 27, 105, 140 Poirier, Paul-Hubert ​43, 67, 79 Prieur, Jean-Marc ​48 Proverbio, Delio Vania ​29, 45 Pulver, Max ​54 Quecke, Hans ​32, 126 Quibell, James E. ​33 Reitzenstein, Richard ​39 Renaudot, Eusèbe ​131 Revillout, Eugène ​3, 19, 20, 54, 74, 86, 88, 96, 104, 111, 140 Reymond, Eve Anne Elizabeth ​115, 116, 118, 136 Richter, Tonio Sebastian ​35 Rietz, Henry W. Leathem ​14 Righi, Davide ​10 Robinson, Forbes ​79, 90, 96, 103, 104, 111, 112, 119, 136 Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro ​113 Rondeau, Marie-Josèphe ​52 Rosenstiehl, Jean-Marie ​114, 124 Rossi, Francesco ​41, 102, 133 Royse, James R. ​126 Samir Khalil ​44, 117 Satzinger, Helmut ​26, 27 Sauget, Joseph-Marie ​44, 102 Saweros, Ibrahim ​7–9, 91, 92, 122, 125, 127 Scanlon, George ​42

235

Schenke, Gesa ​93 Schenke, Hans-Martin ​3, 4, 17, 18, 55, 105, 139 Scholer, David M. ​15 Schmidt, Carl ​3, 40, 41, 44, 55, 56, 67, 74, 75, 100, 107, 140 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm ​4, 39, 108 Schneider, Paul G. ​54 Schröter, Jens ​3, 4, 11, 53, 87 Seele, Keith C. ​42 Sethe, Kurt ​115 Sheridan, Mark ​91, 95, 103 Shier, Louise A. ​33 Shisha-Halevy, Ariel ​133 Shoemaker, Stephen ​91, 102, 103, 105, 106, 110, 123, 132, 170 Simon, Jean ​72 Skeat, Theodore Cressy ​35 Smith Lewis, Agnes ​68 Speyer, Wolfgang ​83 Spiegelberg, Wilhelm ​39, 40, 103 Stegemann, Viktor ​35 Stern, Ludwig ​96 Suciu, Alin ​7–9, 29, 45, 51, 76, 86, 91–94, 96, 100, 101, 103, 111, 112, 122, 125, 127, 133, 137 Su-Min Ri, ​Andreas 79 Swanson, Mark ​91 Tamburrino, Pio ​117 Ten Hacken, Clara ​29 Thomassen, Einar ​43 Thompson, Herbert ​32, 33 Tibet, David ​97 Till, Walter C. ​82, 107 Timbie, Janet A. ​103 Tisserant, Eugène ​19, 20 Tite, Philip ​81, 82 Torallas Tovar, Sofía ​32, 33 Trigg, Joseph W. ​134 Troupeau, Gérard ​80 Tsakos, Alexandros ​43, 98 Turcescu, Lucian ​52 Turner, Eric G. ​35 Turner, John D. ​67 Uhlig Siegbert ​45 Vaillant, André ​101 Van den Berg-Onstwedder, Gonnie ​101

236

Name Index

Van den Broek, Roelof ​10, 76, 77, 88, 103, 124, 174 Van den Oudenrijn, Marcus-Antonius ​85, 87, 88, 112 Van der Vliet, Jacques ​23, 28, 91, 113 Van Lantschoot, Arnold ​24, 46, 47, 84, 90, 92, 98, 117, 124 Van Unnik, Cornelius Willem ​54 Vilders, Monique ​28 Vivian, Tim ​102, 118 Voicu, Sever ​10, 44 Volkoff, Oleg V. ​128 Von Harnack, Adolf ​74, 100 Von Lemm, Oskar ​100 Vossen, Tom ​29 Wallin, Georg ​96 Walters, Colin C. ​127 Wansink, Craig S. ​125 Warren, David H. ​77 Weninger, Stefan ​85 Wessely, Carl 2, ​100

Westerhoff, Matthias ​50, 52, 77, 100, 109, 113, 116, 118, 127, 135, 170, 171 Wietheger, Cäcilia ​33 Wilmart, André ​19, 20, 44 Winstedt, Eric O. ​82 Wipszycka, Ewa ​94 Wisse, Frederik ​32 Witakowski, Witold ​45 Witkam, Jan Just ​28 Worrell, William Hoyt ​33, 59, 131 Wright, William ​83 Yingling, Erik ​60, 140 Zahn, Theodor ​3, 130 Zanetti, Ugo ​7, 72, 77, 78, 81, 88, 129, 131 Zentgraf, Käte ​137 Zikri, Antoine ​100 Zoega, Georg ​111, 112 Zych, Iwona ​94

General Index Abbaton, the Angel of Death ​5, 8, 9, 91, 92, 109, 110, 115, 121–123, 125–127, 170, 172 Abraham ​92–94, 172, 176 Abuna Salama II ​24 Adam ​98, 99, 122, 74, 93 Agraphon of the Fire ​52–53 Akhmimic ​38, 107 Alexandria ​6, 16, 24, 28, 50, 71–73, 83–85, 90–92, 94, 102, 106, 109, 112, 117, 119, 121, 125, 127–129, 131, 133, 134, 170, 172 Ananias, Azarias, Misael (see also Three Children in the Fiery Furnace) ​7, 78 Anaphora ​33, 45, 50, 51, 85, 100, 121, 131, 136, 137 Anastasius, emperor ​94 Anastasius ​95 Andrew, apostle ​3, 19, 20, 48, 93, 106, 170 Antioch ​29, 89, 94, 102 Apocrypha ​1, –5, 10, 14, 15, 23, 25, 67, 70, 73–77, 80, 82, 86, 88, 91, 95, 96, 98–101, 104, 105, 108, 110, 114, 121–125, 137 Apollinaris of Laodicea ​134 Apollo of Bawit ​118 Apostles ​1, 5, 7–11, 18, 19, 21, 23–25, 34, 43, 44, 48–50, 52, 54, 55, 60, 67– 70, 73, 76, 77, 79–89, 91, 92, 97–122, 124, 125, 129, 130, 135, 138, 170–172, 174, 178, 179 Arabic ​5, 10, 11, 24, 44, 45, 68, 70–73, 78–81, 83–93, 96, 97, 99, 101–103, 105, 112, 113, 115, 117–119, 121, 125, 127, 130, 131 Archelaos of Neapolis ​6–9, 71, 84, 88–90, 106, 111, 121, 129 Arian ​22, 132 Armenian ​45, 48, 52, 53, 101

Ascalon ​77 Ascension ​7, 15, 43, 49, 50, 77, 101 Ascetic ​32, 118, 119, 120 Assumption of the Virgin ​79, 80, 83, 90, 91, 106, 121, 123, 129 Aswan ​42, 43 Athanasius of Alexandria ​28, 84, 85, 92, 113, 117, 134 Athens ​81, 84, 88 Augustine ​44, Babylon ​7 Babylonian ​78 Bachios ​6, 7, 71, 77, 78, 112, 129, 174 Bala’izah ​6, 73, 110, 125 Bartholomew, apostle ​6, 19, 20, 46, 47, 50, 52, 70, 72, 74, 77, 86, 96, 99–101, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 122, 127, 130, 135, 170, 171 Basil of Caesarea ​6, 71, 73, 88, 95, 121, 128–130, 172 Bawit ​118 Berlin ​1–5, 12–14, 16–21, 24, 26–28, 32, 33, 35, 38, 40, 44, 48, 51, 54, 55, 56, 59–61, 65, 67–70, 74, 89, 101 Bible ​13, 20, 22, 59, 123–125 Bibros (see also Verus) ​136 Bimodular script ​31 Bohairic ​7, 8, 10, 68, 71–73, 88–90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 110–112, 119, 122, 129, 131 Canon, canonical ​2, 12–15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 100, 121 Cappadocia ​95 Celestinus of Rome ​131 Cerinthos ​107 Chalcedonian ​4, 5, 11, 73, 83, 90, 96, 120, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 137, 138 Cherubs ​7, 81, 99, 113, 172

238

General Index

Christology ​6, 11, 16, 22–24, 73, 74, 83, 92, 130–133, 135–137 Claudius of Antioch, martyr ​94, 95 Cleopas ​102 Codex Askew ​67 Codex Tchacos ​14 Codicology ​4, 20, 21, 29, 35–38, 45, 93, 112, 113 Colophon ​33, 46 Constantine of Assiut ​94, 95 Constantine the Great ​84 Coptic apostolic memoirs ​5–11, 21, 23–24, 52, 70–75, 79, 82, 84, 86–92, 94–95, 98, 100–102, 105–106, 108– 112, 114–131, 133, 135, 137, 170–172, 174 Coptic church 5, 11, 71, 83, 91, 96, 98, 107, 120, 121, 123–125, 127–129, 131, 132 Coptic literature ​1, 4, 10, 23, 24, 70, 74, 83, 85, 105, 108, 117, 126, 128, 133, 135, 137, 138, 170 Copyist (see also scribe) ​30, 31, 34 Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari (CMCL) ​3, 4, 41, 100 Cosmas and Damian ​116, 117 Council of Chalcedon ​11, 129, 130, 137 Council of Ephesus ​129 Cross ​1, 2, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57–66, 82, 83, 91, 95, 97, 130, 131, 173, 175, 178–181 Cyriacus of Behnesa ​6, 71, 84–89, 95, 112, 121–122, 127–130, 170, 172 Cyril of Alexandria 6, 16, 72, 127, 131 Cyril of Jerusalem 6, 7, 10, 54, 71, 73, 75–80, 83, 87, 88, 101, 112, 121, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 172, 174 Dähnä 89 Damian of Alexandria 94, 98 Dance of the Cross 1, 2, 24, 54, 59–63, 65, 108, 173–175, 180 Daniel ​7 David ​41, 13 Davidic ​7, 13 Demetrius of Alexandria ​84 Demotic ​28 Dǝrsanä Gäbrǝʾel ​89 Dǝrsanä Mikaʾel ​83

Descensus ad inferos ​18, 49, 127, 170 Didymus the Blind ​52, 53 Diocletian ​115 Docetism ​107 Dormition of John ​136 Dormition of the Virgin ​6, 71, 72, 73, 79, 80, 84–86, 88, 91, 102–104, 106, 109–112, 119, 122, 123, 127, 129, 130, 131, 170, 172 Edfu ​46, 47, 81, 86, 91, 99, 100, 113, 117, 118 Egypt ​6, 10–12, 22, 27–29, 39, 41, 42, 71, 75, 86, 96, 100, 106, 107, 110, 119–121, 123, 125, 126, 129 Egyptian ​5, 7, 10, 11, 24–28, 41, 45, 70, 71, 73, 75, 78, 83, 95, 101, 107, 109, 115–117, 119, 120–126, 128, 129, 132, 137 Emaus ​102 Eons ​8, 172 Ephesus ​129 Ephrem ​52, 53 Esna ​46 Ethiopic (see also Falasha, Gǝʿǝz) ​5, 24, 45, 68, 71, 81, 83–89, 92, 105, 107, 112, 127, 128 Eucharist ​22, 137, 174 Eusebius of Caesarea ​102 Eve ​99 Evodius of Rome ​6, 29, 70, 73, 102–106, 110, 111, 120, 122–124, 128, 129, 132, 170–172 Falasha ​92 Faras ​42 Fayyum ​51, 97, 98, 127 Fayyumic ​72, 97, 98 Four Bodiless Creatures ​5–9, 49, 71, 80, 105, 109, 110, 115, 121, 125, 126, 127 Free will ​49, 119, 170 Gabriel, archangel ​5–9, 36, 71, 72, 79, 89, 94, 96, 98, 99, 106, 109, 111, 115, 120, 121, 123, 129, 131, 171 Gamaliel ​5, 70, 74, 86–88, 112, 128 Garšūnī ​85, 117 Gǝʿǝz ​5, 68, 71, 72, 81, 88, 92, 93, 97 Georgian ​101

General Index

Gethsemane ​16, 24, 50, 67, 132 Gregory of Nazianzus ​124, 125, 131 Gregory rule ​36, 46, 66 Gnostic ​14, 15, 74, 119 Naassene Gnostics ​82 Gnosticism ​15 Greek ​2, 4, 13, 14, 28, 34, 45, 46, 48, 49, 72, 92, 93, 97, 98, 105–108, 112, 116, 126, 130, 134, 135 Hagiography ​1, 5, 94, 95, 126, 128 Helen, queen ​84 Hippolytus ​82 Horsiesius ​28 Hymn ​45, 51, 54, 100, 121, 135–137 Hymn of the Cross ​1, 2, 5, 21, 24, 43–45, 48, 54–62, 65, 66, 69, 121, 179, 180 Ignatius of Antioch ​102, 108 Irā ​89 Irenaeus ​88 Isaac ​92–94, 172, 176 Israel ​16, 172 Israelite ​7 Jacob ​92–94, 172, 176 James the Just ​70, 81, 82 James Intercissus ​129 Jechonias ​7, 78 Jehoshaphat, valley of ​44 Jerome ​21, 34, 52, 99 Jerusalem ​5–7, 10, 25, 29, 54, 71, 73, 75–79, 81–84, 86–91, 95, 97, 101, 105, 112, 121, 124, 127–131, 136, 172, 174, 176 Jewish ​15, 16 Jewish-Christian ​15 Joachaz ​7 John the Baptist ​28, 41, 72, 81, 82, 94, 170 John Chrysostom ​6–10, 29, 36, 38, 41, 44, 70–73, 80–82, 94, 95, 105, 109, 110, 115, 121, 124–128, 131, 134, 170 John Mark ​73, 76, 80, 81, 84, 88, 105 John of Parallos ​98, 124 John Rufus ​76 John, apostle ​18, 20, 23, 24, 32, 52, 54, 68, 70, 72, 73, 79, 80, 82–85, 89, 91, 93, 96, 97, 99, 106, 123, 130, 131, 133, 134, 136, 171, 173

239

Joseph of Arimathea ​128 Joseph the Carpenter ​6, 86, 94–97, 109–111, 116, 120, 122, 123, 127, 132 Joseph, patriarch ​41 Josephus ​88 Judas Cyriacus ​86 Judas Iscariot ​14, 15, 17, 176 Julian the Apostate ​86 Julius of Aqfahs ​116 Justin ​33 Justinian ​33 Last Judgment ​21, 44, 97, 172, 174 Latin ​4, 20, 41, 44, 52, 84, 97, 107, 130 Liturgy ​10, 121, 130, 131, 137 Liturgical ​10, 25, 33, 35, 71, 121–125, 136, 137 Luke the Evangelist ​79, 88, 121, 124, 125 Macarius-Symeon ​135 Maiuma ​6, 71, 77, 129, 174 Manichaean ​54 Mariamne, sister of Philip ​82 Mark the Evangelist ​84, 90, 113, 131 Mary Magdalene ​5, 6, 52, 54, 71, 78, 79, 87, 121, 128, 129, 172 Mary, mother of John Mark ​73, 76, 80, 81, 82, 84, 88, 105 Mastema ​124 Matthew, apostle ​18, 20, 24, 29, 32, 37, 100 Maurice Tiberius ​33 Miaphysite ​6, 11, 73, 90, 91, 128, 130, 131, 137 Michael, archangel ​5, 6, 8, 9, 28, 51, 71, 72, 83, 94, 96–98, 106, 109, 115, 118, 120–124, 130, 135, 170, 172, 174 Monastery of Apa Apollo (Bala’izah) ​6, 110 Monastery of Apa Apollo (Bawit) ​118 Monastery of Apa Jeremias (Saqqara) ​33 Monastery of Apa Shenoute (= White Monastery) ​22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 72, 76, 81, 82, 85, 89, 96, 98, 100, 103, 111, 133, 134, 136 Monastery of the Archangel Michael ​51, 97, 98 Monastery of John the Baptist (Tin) ​41 Monastery of Pamin ​118 Monastery at Qasr el-Wizz ​42

240

General Index

Monastery of St. Macarius ​72, 99, 131 Monastery of St. Mercurius ​81, 86, 91, 99, 100, 113, 117, 118 Monastery of St. Romanos ​89, 129 Monastery of the Syrians ​28 Morgan Library & Museum ​27, 28, 36, 51, 54, 67, 68, 72, 76, 78, 79, 89, 93, 97, 98, 102, 111, 118, 127, 136 Moses ​74, 176 Moses of Abydos ​29 Mount Gerizim ​89 Mount of Olives ​6–8, 25, 43, 49, 50, 54, 61, 65, 67, 72, 77, 81, 89, 96, 97, 99, 104, 110, 113, 131, 135, 171, 180 Muriel ​92 Nablus ​89 Nag Hammadi ​15, 67 Nebuchadnezzar ​7 Nestorian ​23, 131, 133 Neves (see also Nineve) ​126 New Testament ​5, 10, 12, 14, 22, 49, 52, 92, 102, 104 Nicodemus ​86, 88, 128 Nineve (see also Neves) ​125, 126 Noli me tangere ​52 Nubia ​2, 42, 46, 98 Nubian ​24, 42, 44–46, 71, 72, 81, 97, 98, 115 Origen ​21, 23, 34, 52, 53, 133–135, 134 Oxyrhynchus ​2 Paleography ​27, 29, 30–34, 41, 46–47 Pamin ​118 Papohe ​118 Papyrus ​2, 21, 26–29, 39–41, 55, 56, 66, 67, 75, 76, 89, 93, 98, 99, 102, 118, 126, 133 Parchment ​1–3, 12, 16, 19, 21, 26–28, 30, 33–36, 40, 42, 50, 56, 60, 65, 66, 72, 76, 83, 85, 97, 98, 102, 107, 110, 113, 130, 133 Passion of Christ ​1, 6, 7, 10, 25, 29, 49, 50, 53, 55, 67, 68, 71, 73, 76–78, 80, 86, 100–104, 106, 111, 120, 122–124, 128, 170–172, 174 Patmos ​68

Peter, apostle ​3, 7–9, 17–19, 43, 70, 77, 91, 93, 102–106, 113, 122, 131, 136, 171 Peter of Alexandria ​102 Peter the Iberian ​129 Phib the anchorite ​118, 119 Philip, apostle ​17, 82 Pilate ​5, 6, 71, 86–88, 112, 128, 129, 170, 172 Prochorus, disciple of John the Evangelist ​ 67, 68, 70, 73, 79, 80, 83–86, 89, 130, 131 Proclus, disciple of John the Evangelist ​ 83 Qasr el-Wizz ​2, 4, 5, 20, 21, 24, 42–47, 55–65, 96, 97, 109, 115, 139, 140, 165, 180 Resurrection of Christ ​5, 6, 8, 10, 18, 25, 51–55, 67, 68, 72, 81, 82, 84, 87, 99, 100, 104, 106, 121, 131 Resurrection of Lazarus ​104 Romanos ​89, 90, 129 Rome ​3, 29, 102, 103, 106, 110, 111, 131 Rufus of Shotep ​95 Sahidic ​1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 32, 33, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, 67, 68, 71–83, 85–100, 102, 103, 107, 109–114, 116–118, 124–127, 129, 134, 136, 137, 171 Saqqara ​33 Saracens ​131 Satan ​98, 124 Scetis ​84, 99 Scribal ​34, 66, 68 Scribe (see also copyist) ​31, 32, 34, 36, 38–40, 46, 49, 50, 88, 98, 137, 139 Serra East ​44, 45, 98 Severian of Gabala ​10 Severus of Antioch ​89 Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʿ ​91 Shenoufe ​115–116, 118, 136 Shenoute of Atripe ​22, 23, 29, 96, 98, 100, 103, 119, 126, 132, 133, 135 Simon the Eunuch ​79 Simon Magus ​107 Slavonic ​45, 101 Sohag ​29

General Index

Stephen the Protomartyr ​29, 70, 98, 131 Strasbourg ​2–4, 6, 20, 21, 24, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 55–58, 61–70, 73, 77, 132, 161, 162, 178, 183 Syriac ​15, 28, 44, 52, 78, 79, 101 Tebtunis ​126 Theodore, Pachomian monk ​28 Theodore of Antioch ​29 Theodore Stratelates ​29 Theodoret of Cyrus ​134 Theodosius of Alexandria ​6, 28, 72, 73, 90, 91, 106, 109, 112, 119, 121, 128, 129, 172 Theodosius the Deacon ​76 Theodosius of Jerusalem ​29 Theophilus ​79 Theophilus of Alexandria ​50, 51, 91, 125

241

Thomas, apostle ​8, 9, 13, 17, 52, 53, 104 Three Children in the Fiery Furnace (see also Ananias, Azarias, Misael) ​6–7, 71, 77, 78, 129, 131 Timothy ​113 Timothy I of Alexandria ​83 Timothy Aelurus ​6–9, 72, 73, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 109, 110, 113, 115, 121, 122, 125–128, 130, 170, 172 Twenty-four elders ​49, 172 Unimodular script ​31 Verus (see also Bibros) ​135 Virgin Mary ​6, 54, 71–73, 76, 79, 80, 83–88, 90, 91, 102–106, 109–112, 119, 121–123, 127–132, 136, 170, 172 Zebedee ​48, 80