the foot of some of the pages. In a most brief and meagre preface (twenty-one lines only) Boetticher tells his readers that Schwartze left nothing behind at his death which was available for the continuation of his Memphitic New Testament, except a collation of two MSS. in this country, one of which he calls Curetonianus, the other Tattamianus (but without mentioning where they are deposited, or giving a description by which they could be identified). Boetticher then says that he used this collation, and one which had been made (by himself or another we are not informed) of two Parisian MSS., which, as to place of deposit, mark, or number, are equally undescribed.

Boetticher then states his reason for not giving a collation of the Memphitic with the Greek Text. "I have in this place abstained from a verbal comparison with the Greek, since I am soon going to publish my own book, edited on the authority of the oriental versions." For this, then, must critical students wait before they can employ Boetticher's labours with even the same degree of exactitude and facility with which they can avail themselves of the work of his predecessor. The Epistles of the New Testament have since been published by the same editor.

Thus there is much which still remains to be done, even after all that was accomplished by Schwartze, before this version will be available in a wholly satisfactory state. We want

1st. An accurate list and description of the Memphitic MSS., 80 as to know which of them are worthy, on the grounds of antiquity or internal character, of a collation as complete as that of the Berlin MSS. made by Schwartze.

2nd. An edition, containing the various readings of these MSS. subjoined to a carefully edited text, together with references to Greek MSS., as supporting the readings of the Memphitic version. Until these points have been attained, critics will not be able to make full use of this version in such a manner as its importance deserves, as being a witness of the highest order to the text of the New Testament as found in the most ancient documents.

It may be inquired whether there is any proof of the identity of this Memphitic version with any that was in use in the third or fourth century. On this point little can be said beyond pointing to the general fact that the character of the version itself connects it with the text current in that age; and that it is wholly gratuitous to assume that what we now have has been substituted for the version of the days of Antonius and Palladius.

There should also be mentioned in this place a magnificent edition of the Memphitic New Testament published by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge for the use of the Coptic churches. This edition was superintended by the Rev. R. T. Lieder of Cairo, who did not follow the text of Wilkins, but employed MS. authorities for himself. The Gospels of this edition appeared in 1848, and the rest of the volume subsequently. By the side of the Memphitic text, there is a column in Arabic, in order that what is read ecclesiastically may not be wholly unintelligible to those who read. An

US

account of the MSS. used by Mr. Lieder would be a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the subject.

It has already been mentioned that readings from the Memphitic were given by Mill on the authority of Marshall. Subsequent editors have employed these, together with the far greater stock of materials obtained from Wilkins. Bengel inserted others in his Apparatus Criticus, which he had received on the very competent authority of La Croze. The labours of Schwartze have been as yet but little employed by editors, and those of Boetticher not at all.

Perhaps at some future time we may possess full materials for investigating the origin of this version in all its parts; for with regard to these ancient translations in general, it is an interesting inquiry, whether all was executed at the same time, or whether the version was a gradual accretion of parts. As to the Memphitic in particular, we should be glad if we had full data for drawing a certain conclusion whether the Apocalypse belongs to the same age as the rest of the version: this may perhaps be doubted on the internal ground of some of its readings (at least as they have been edited and translated into Latin by Wilkins), and also because it is doubtful whether the influence of Dionysius of Alexandria was not sufficient to exclude the Apocalypse from ecclesiastical use in Egypt at the time when the Memphitic version was executed.1

Münter, Hug, and others have endeavoured to analyse the text of the version, so as to discriminate between its different parts, and to show their various affinities with particular Greek codices. In this they have not been very successful; partly from their having been too much influenced by theories of classification, to which they tried to reduce all documents. In a few words, it may be said that the Memphitic text of the Gospels presents a general agreement with the Alexandrian Greek MSS., that it is very free from the accretions which were introduced in early times by copyists, and the amplifications from parallel passages. In the Epistles the Memphitic text commonly agrees with some of the ancient MSS.; but it appears doubtful whether it can there be considered so Alexandrian as are the Gospels. Even in the state in which we have the text at present we can use it with as much certainty as the Latin Vulgate could be employed before there had been any critical examination of MSS.

From its general agreement with the other ancient authorities, this version was charged with Latinizing at the time when all the documents of the older character were considered obnoxious to this accusation. Had it been more carefully examined even then, it might have aided in freeing other documents as well as itself from this sweeping charge; for it would have suggested that there is a class of readings throughout the New Testament which differ alike from the common Greek text and from the Latin.

Some Memphitic MSS. which contain the rest of the N. Test. do omit the Apocalypse. See Simon," Histoire Critique des Versions du Nouveau Testament." ch. xvi. p. 191. It may, however, be said that this is also the case with regard to Greek MSS.

CHAP. XXIX.

THE THEBAIC VERSION.

ARABIC writers have divided the language spoken by the aboriginal people of Egypt into three dialects; the Upper Egyptian, which they term Sahidi, from Sa-hid, their name for that region; the lower "Egyptian or Bahiri, language of the coast; and that which has been termed Bashmuri, the precise location of which has been a subject for discussion. The Bahiri, indeed, belongs in fact but little to the sea-coast; and its province was probably the interior of the country round the ancient Memphis.

بشموري

بخبري

When it was found that there was an Egyptian translation of the New Testament in another dialect besides that of Lower Egypt, the Arabian term Sahidic was adopted to denote it; although (as has been already intimated) Copto-Thebaic or Thebaic was a far more suitable name. No apology is needed for now casting aside a term as incongruous as it would be to apply the name of French to the speech of the ancient Gauls, and for reverting to the proper and suitable designation of Thebaic. Those who introduced the name Sahidic ought in consistency to have called the Copto-Memphitic Bahiric.

The first who paid much attention to the Thebaic version was Woide, who communicated readings which he had collected from MSS. to Cramer, by whom they were published in 1779. The first who edited any part of the text of this version was Mingarelli in his account of the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library 2, in which he not only described the MSS., but edited their text with annotations. The portions of the New Testament contained in this work are Matt. xviii. 27-xxi. 15, and John ix. 17-xiii. 1.3 The material on which these portions were written is vellum; and on palæographic grounds it may well be supposed that they belong to a period not later than the sixth century.

In 1789, Giorgi published at Rome the Greek and Thebaic fragment of St. John described above amongst the uncial Greek codices. (p. 180.) In this the Thebaic text contains vi. 21—58., ver. 68viii. 23. The probable date of this MS. is the fifth century, though the editor claimed for it a higher antiquity by a whole age.

Münter, who in 1787 had published a fragment of Daniel in this

1 Copto-Thebaic is the name applied by Giorgi to the portion of this version published by him in 1789.

2 Ægyptiorum Codicum reliquiæ, Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatæ. Bononiæ, 1785. (Fasciculus I. Fasciculus alter. The third part was commenced five years afterwards; but it was never completed.)

These portions have been sometimes misstated: but this is the correct notation, See Mingarelli, vii.-lx.

Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis Græco-Copto-Thebaicum Sæculi rv. etc. ex Veliterno Museo Borgiano nunc prodeunt. . . . Opera et studio F. Augustini Georgii, eremitæ Augustiniani. Romæ, 1789.

version at Rome, edited in 1789 some portions of the two Epistles to Timothy, together with readings which he had gathered from other parts of the New Testament, out of MSS. in the Borgian Library, then at Velitri': in the introduction he gives more information than could have been then easily obtained elsewhere on the subject of the version itself.

Mingarelli, in 1790, commenced a third part of his account of the Nanian MSS., the owner of that library having procured additions from Egypt. In this he printed the following portion of the New Testament, Mark xi. 29-xv. 22., from a very ancient vellum MS., in which however a more recent hand had introduced other readings, such apparently as were current at a later age.2

Woide, meanwhile, was busily endeavouring to procure fragments of the Thebaic version for the purpose of editing the whole of the New Testament; a prospectus of which was issued in 1778. The accomplishment of this object was frustrated by his death. And then, after some delay, Ford undertook the charge of the multifarious Harv. Coll. contents of the Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus, which appeared Libr. at Oxford in 1799. In this all Woide's fragments of the Thebaic version appeared with a Latin translation; but though Woide had inserted the portions of St. Matthew and St. John from Mingarelli's first Fasciculus, Ford entirely passed by all that had been given by Giorgi, by Münter, and afterwards by Mingarelli. It is difficult to suppose that he rightly apprehended what these scholars had communicated to the literary commonwealth; also he might have enlarged his collection of fragments by noticing what were mentioned by Münter; as contained in the Borgian collection, of which he had made transcripts.

This edition of Ford is the only one which has ever appeared of fragments throughout the New Testament; the greater part of which is found in some form or other. How much it might be

1 M. Frederici Münteri. . . Commentatio de indole versionis Novi Testamenti Sahidicæ. Adcedunt Fragmenta Epistolarum Paulli ad Timotheum ex Membranis Sahidicis Musei Borgiani Velitris. Hafniæ. 1789. 2 The third part of Mingarelli's work seems to have been little circulated: he died leaving it unfinished, and the copies which were sold were issued as far as it was printed in his life without any termination being given to the last sentence. A leaf is added, headed Lectori Monitum, giving the information that after the death of Mingarelli no papers of his were found relating to the work; and what is more to be deplored, the Egyptian fragments which the Cavaliere Nani had sent him from Venice to be edited and described, were not to be found, and could not be recovered.

This third part of Mingarelli's work, scarce as it seems to be, is important as containing this portion of St. Mark; the other Thebaic fragments, so far as they have been described and edited, being very defective in that Gospel: and as the fragments were not returned to Nani (their value not having been known apparently by those into whose hands Mingarelli's effects fell), this unfinished third part is probably the only place in which this portion of text can be found. It seems to have been so little known that it has been utterly neglected hitherto by critical editors of the Greek N. Test. In "Introductions this portion seems to be equally unnoticed, even when lists of the Thebaic fragments are given.

How long it was before Biblical scholars in foreign countries made any use of Woide and Ford's edition may be seen from the following statement of Eichhorn relative to Woide's edition, made in 1827:-"Man erwartete die Vollendung von D. Ford; sie ist aber nicht erschienen." Einleitung, v. 13. foot-note.

amplified from unpublished sources is shown by Zoega's Catalogue of the Borgian Egyptian MSS. published in 1810. The materials have been long pointed out, but no one has come forward to use them for the reconstruction of this shattered monument of early Egyptian Christianity. Schwartze severely criticised both Woide and Ford, for what he considered to be want of editorial competency.

The first who made a critical use of this version was Griesbach, who drew mostly, if not entirely, from the readings which Cramer had received from Woide, and from those published by Münter, and Giorgi's fragment. He appears not to have even seen the Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus.' In the use of this version, Griesbach's references have mostly been followed by others; although much more might have been done through Ford's edition. Schwartze, in his edition of the Memphitic Gospels, has compared the Thebaic text also with the Greek, wherever it is given by Woide and Ford, but he too has passed by unnoticed the portion of St. Mark edited by Mingarelli.

This version is wholly independent of the Memphitic; its readings belong more to the class (or sub-class) which Griesbach would have called western; i. e. it abounds with readings in which there is some amplification or other feature resembling the old Latin in many respects. In such points there is not unfrequently a resemblance to readings found in Origen. In many parts this version would rather coincide with Griesbach's Alexandrian family.

Readings have been pointed out in which the Memphitic and Thebaic agree, as though an affinity between them could be thus established; but examination shows that such coincidences of reading rather belong to what both have in common with other ancient authorities, than to any peculiarity of these versions.

It is difficult to give a judgment with regard to these two versions which is the more important; if the Memphitic exhibits the readings of a purer text current at Alexandria, and if it is nearer to the genuine copies of the Greek, still the Thebaic contains what is far freer from all suspicion of having received any critical emendation or recension; and thus its testimony is worth much in the places where it does accord precisely with other good authorities. And in much of this version we may be quite certain that we possess it in its ancient form; for the MSS. edited by Giorgi and Mingarelli, and some of the fragments used by Woide, are of a very high antiquity.

The age of the Egyptian versions in relation to each other has been discussed, as well as the peculiarities of the dialects in which they are found, by those scholars who have been acquainted with the dialects themselves. Münter and Woide considered that the Thebaic belonged to the second century. This opinion seems in part to depend on two things, (i.) the antiquity of a book in the Thebaic dialect containing the doctrinal statements of some of the early heretics; and (ii.) whether this version is quoted in it or not.

1 He could have availed himself of this in his second volume; the first had been previously published.