SSCN Voumes 1-10, 1994-2004

St. Shenouda Coptic Newsletter

 neglecting the use of the nomina sacra in favor of a full spelling of the word. This led to erroneous spelling of sum of these words. Related Fragments: The only other fragment of this manuscript is the one cataloged by Crum as BMC 740. This included pages 1 and 2 of this manuscript. They were later edited in Hebbelynck. Other Manuscripts: Fragments from other manuscripts of the same type were identified by Tischendorf and White in their visits to St. Macarius Monastery. These were Tischendorf xxvii, 8-15; and Cairo, no.36Add, 9 fragments (Cf. White xxxviiE, p.198-199). The later in part fills some of the lacunas in the text of this manuscript. Other fragments also from the same monastery are cataloged by Crum as BMC 914, which includes BL.Add.14740A f. 10, 11, 24 (Society's Library CML1693C) Conclusion: Thanks to Prof. Lagarde, we were introduced to this very important manuscript. However, based on his earlier track record with editing Coptic texts, the entire text needs to be collated against the original manuscript. This would be followed by a new edition of the text with an English translation to benefit both scholars and lay people, including a complete index of the Greek and Coptic vocabulary used. Then, hopefully, the text can be further studied

replace the n with an m , in front of p-sounding letters. A feature that is very prevalent in the Bohairic dialect. The other literary manuscripts are generally assumed to be direct translation from a Sahidic Original and it is safe to assume that this is the case for our manuscript. The Sahidic more likely was an abridgment of an earlier a single or multiple Greek originals. Comparison, on the basis of number of quotations, between the Greek CPG C112, C132, C140.4, C145; and this manuscript, listed as CPG C117, C127, C138, and C148, shows that these or similar ones may have served as the basis for the Sahidic translation. It is also very apparent that all the numerous quotations for Origen, found in these Greek manuscripts, were purposely excluded in the Coptic. Edition: The Coptic text of this codex was published by Paul de Lagarde in Göttingen 1886 under the title, Catenae in Evangelia Aegyptiacae Quae Supersunt . He also included an index of all the writers quoted whether they were the primary writers or quoted by them in the case of some of the heretics, like Arius, Nestorius, etc (pp. vi-vii). Further, he added an index at the end of all the passages that were quoted or discussed in the text. (Lagarde pp. 233-242). The Coptic text of a separate leaf, BMC 740, which belongs to the beginning of the codex, was edited with a French translation in Hebbelynck. Rev. George Horner in his monumental edition of the Bohairic New Testament listed all the exact passages found in the manuscript, volume 1: pp. cxxxii-cxxxix. And he used it in his critical apparatus under the designation of the Hebrew character Aleph. Lagarde's edition, though useful for

to determine its proper origin. Appendix A: Orthodox Writers Writer

Mt Mk Lk Jn

Athanasius of Alex. Basil of Caesaria Clement of Rome

3 3 5

-

- - -

-

1

2 1

-

St. Shenouda Coptic Newsletter ecclesiastical students, it contained some shortcomings. The most significant of these are as follows: Cyril of Alexandria 75 1 99 69 Cyril of Jerusalem - 2 - - Didymus - - - 2

Elder of the Desert

1 4 4 1 6

-

-

- - - -

 Absence of the headings in the manuscripts that distinguish the Gospel quotes from the commentaries.

Epiphanius Eusebius Evagrius

4

4

- - -

18 1

-

Gregory

3

5