No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2011
The fragments published in the present article were obtained during a visit to the Coptic monasteries in the Wâdi Naṭrûn, which was made in February, 1923. They are all of paper, and they are all in the Bohairic dialect. One of them (Fragment IV) was written in the thirteenth century, and the rest are of the fourteenth. Fragments I, II, III, V, and VI were once parts of lectionaries; and Fragment IV may also have belonged originally to a book of lessons, but in this case it is impossible to speak with certainty.
page 99 note 1 The booklet consists of seven leaves: three containing the New Testament fragments here published, one from a lost work on Dioscorus, and three from a Bohairic version of the Certamen Apostolorum. The leaf from the work on Dioscorus appeared in the Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, VI, pp. 108 ff., and in the Harvard Theological Review, XIX, pp. 377 ff. The three folia of the Certamen Apostolorum are part of the same manuscript to which the leaf discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 (Cambridge, University Library, Add. MS. 1886, 3) and the thirty-eight folia found by Hugh G. Evelyn White in 1920–1921 (Cairo, Coptic Museum, MSS. 5–6) belonged. These have been edited and translated into English by White, H. G. E. (The Monasteries of the Wadi 'n Natrun, New York, 1926, Part I, pp. 27 ff.)Google Scholar. With the exception of the Vatican Martyrdom of Luke (Cod. Vat. Copt. 68, 2) the codex of which the present leaves once formed part is the only known manuscript of the Certamen Apostolorum in Bohairic. I hope to publish all the extant folia of this manuscript later. For the text of Cod. Vat. Copt. 68, 2, see P. G. Balestri in Bessarione, Serie II, VIII, pp. 128 ff. Three Bohairic fragments in Leipzig (Codd. Tischendorf XXVII, 3; XXVI, A. 2; and XXVIII, 8) contain part of the story of Matthias in Bârtôs. But this legend is not found in the Arabic or the Ethiopic version of the Certamen Apostolorum, and therefore it does not seem to have been included in the Bohairic form of the work. On these fragments see W. E. Crum in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, XXIX, pp. 303 f.
page 102 note 1 is for and are not infrequently confounded on account of similarity in pronunciation.
page 107 note 1 The words are omitted by haplography, as in Homer's codex G2*.