Saturday, February 08, 2025

Coptic Versions (Southern/Sahadic and Northern/Boharic)

George William Horner (1849-1930) is a bright light in the field of Coptic textual criticism. His two most notable contributions are:

The Coptic version of the New Testament in the northern dialect, otherwise called Memphitic and Bohairic (apparently published by Horner from 1898-1905); and
The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version (apparently published by Horner from 1911-24)

The Coptic translations have the benefit of being presumed to have been made directly from the Greek (and at a very early century), often including what appear (to me) to be Greek loan words and using an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet.

Unfortunately for us, there are always limitations in the use of translations. Even if we literally back-translate using formal equivalency principles, we are not guaranteed that the original translator was using those same principles.

Bohairic

The Bohairic version is in the "northern" dialect of what is today Egypt, and is associated with the area near Memphis (Egypt, not Tennessee) (I sometimes see "Bohairic" spelled as "Boharic," but it seems that former is the correct spelling).

(pp. 540-41, image 553/612)

(p. 540, image 553/612)

(p. 541, image 553/612)

The Arabic gloss "مر القدوس" (mar al-Quddūs) apparently means "Sahidic, The Holy One". The Arabic word (based on machines) seems to mean "passed," but I understand that weakness of computer-based translation.

It is difficult to know whether the Coptic Boharic should be viewed as a witness to a Vorlage that lacked hosios, or whether the translator combined "righteous and holy" to just "righteous" in his translation. Even assuming that it suggests an original without hosios, it does not suggest the substitution proposed by Beza, as there is no "shall being one" in the Coptic.

Sahidic

The Sahidic version is in the "southern" dialect of what is today Egypt, and is associated with the area near Thebes (Egypt).

(Volume 1: Matthew and Mark)

(Volume 2: Luke)

(Volume 3: John)

(Volume 4: Paul's Epistles)

(Volume 5: Paul's Epistles Continued)

(Volume 6: Acts of the Apostles)

(Volume 7: Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse)

(pp. 438-39, image 446/578)

(p. 438, image 446/578)

(p. 439, image 446/578)

It is difficult to know whether the Coptic Sahidic should be viewed as a witness to a Vorlage that lacked dikaios, or whether the translator combined "righteous and holy" to just "holy" in his translation. I should point out that it is interesting that one of the two Coptic branches seem to have dropped one word as redundant, and the other dropped the other word as redundant.

For our purposes, this version seems to favor the majority Greek reading here, and utterly fails to support Beza's substitution.

I also located a separate work on Sahidic Apocalypse from 1906 by Louis Delaporte (1874-1944) I have not checked whether (as I would hope is the case) Horner incorporated the work of Delaporte.

(p. XIV)

(p. XI)

(pp. XII-XIII)

(unnumbered, image 74/98)

This version seems to have an identical text of Revelation 16:5 to Horner's, except that "akrine" in Delaporte's version is "akkrine" in Horner's version.

Both versions seem to have ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ, which (on its face) appears to be a cognate word for the Greek word δίκαιος (dikaios), "righteous."

Middle Egyptian & Nubian

There are also "Middle Egypt" Biblical manuscripts, but very few, and only of Matthew, Acts, and John.

Likewise, there are Paleo-Nubian manuscripts, even some including parts of Revelation, but none of Revelation 16:5 (at least according to this work).

Crum

W. E. Crum's "A Coptic Dictionary" is regarded as the standard. I think there have been updates since 1939, but I resorted to that edition for convenience. The Greek word index highlights the places where Coptic words are mapped to Greek words. As we are interested hosios and dikaios, I have focused on those two words.

(p. 919, 950/992)

(p. 893, 924/992)

Conclusion

The Coptic broadly supports the majority Greek text and is inconsistent with Beza's emendation of the text. However, the Coptic falls short of specifically and strongly demonstrating precisely the text of Revelation 16:5 as it is found in the Greek manuscripts. So, for example, none of the Coptic evidence could be used to settle the variant readings found in the Greek manuscripts.

Old Church Slavonic - Revelation 16:5

The OCS Apocalypse apparently goes back to Methodius' translation in 885 (link to source), however the oldest manuscripts may only be from the 14th century (link to source).

I was able to find a printed OCS text beautifully typeset, which had the following text:

(p. 2683/2696)

My own translation is this:

And I heard the angel of the waters say: righteous you are, O Lord, [the] being [one] and which was, and holy, because thus judged you:

(both instances of "you" are singular)

A corresponding transliteration of the OCS to modern Russian (Cyrillic) letters is this:

И слышах Ангела воднаго глаголюща: праведен еси, Господи, сый и Иже бе, и преподобн, яко сия судил еси: (source)(Step Bible offers here as the 1757 Church Slavonic Elizabeth Bible)

The word "преподобн" is an OCS word used to translate hosios. So, in terms of being an additional confirmation of the pre-Bezean form of the text, the OCS seems to be fairly mainstream. Unfortunately, however, I do not know how critical this printed text is, and whether, as Metzger (p. 430) suggests, it was influenced by Latin at an early (9th or 10th century) stage. It is even possible that the printed OCS text I located was amended to align with an early printed Greek text.

H.T. "Base form dictionary"

H.T. Slavonic Titlo

H.T. Slavonic conjugation of "to be"

H.T. Dictionary of the Oldest Old Church Slavonic Manuscripts:

прѣподобьнѣ

прѣподобьнъ

правьдьнъ

Wednesday, February 05, 2025

Armenian version at Revelation 16:5

The Armenian alphabet was apparently invented in AD 405 by Mesrop Mashtots and Isaac of Armenia for the purpose of having a written language into which to translate Scripture. The translation was apparently initially made from Syriac and then subsequently retranslated Greek. (The Heritage of Armenian Literature) (further thoughts on the Armenian version here)

In 1907, the Text and Translation Society published Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare's critical edition of the Armenian translated into English. Below, I've transcribed the text he offers (as well as his marginal readings), followed by images of the transcribed text and images of the explanation of the apparatus.

For us, Conybeare's work is useful, even despite

5 And I heard from the angel of the waters that he said, Righteous is he which exists and holy. For thus he hath judged.

5 of the waters] 2 4——that he] who a——Righteous art thou, the existent, thy existent, thou holy, for this hast thou judged 4——exists and which is, holy 2: exists and is and holy 3 (holy over a rasura of alone): exists and is and holy in his works a.

5 Եւ լուայ ի հրեշտակէն զի ասէր, արդար է որ էնն և սբ. զի այն. պէս դատեցաւ։

Proposed

Եւ (yev) – "And"
լուայ (luay) – "I heard"
ի հրեշտակէն (i hreshdaken) – "from the angel"
զի (zi) – "that" (introducing indirect speech)
ասէր (aser) – "he said" (imperfect)
արդար է (ardar e) – "righteous is"
որ (vor) – "who"
էնն (enn) – "is" (a form of "to be")
և (yev) – "and"
սբ. (sb.) – "holy" (abbreviation for "սուրբ")
զի (zi) – "because"
այն. (ayn.) – "thus" (possibly an abbreviation for "այնպէս")
պէս դատեցաւ (pes datets’av) – "thus was judged" (passive form of "judge")

My main conclusions from this are as follows. The Armenian is opposed to Beza's emendation of the text. Additionally, it seems that the Armenian translators struggled in how to accurately capture the meaning of "the being one and the has been." As an interesting point, the text (at least as presented by Conybeare) seems to employ an abbreviation of the word for holy. This is only interesting by way of coincidence in view of the 21st century theory that "holy" may itself have been intended as an abbreviation for something else.

(The Armenian version of Revelation, p. 41)

(The Armenian version of Revelation, p. 1)

(The Armenian version of Revelation, p. 2)

(The Armenian version of Revelation, p. 24 - 256 of the pdf)

Monday, February 03, 2025

Revelation 22:16-22 in the various editions of Erasmus

The last six verses of Revelation 22 have been the topic of criticism (or praise) of Erasmus' work because apparently Erasmus' only manuscript of Revelation (GA 2814) was missing the last six verses (see the discussion from Pastor Jeffrey Stivason, here).

The usual explanation is that Erasmus, being knowledgeable in Greek, back translated the final six verse of Revelation 22 from the Vulgate Latin.

I plan to update this page as time permits. However, for now I want to provide the five editions of Erasmus (including Greek and Latin) for the passage in question, as well as the four editions of Stephanus (only one of which includes Latin).