No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Shortly before May 1961 two Coptic parchment codices in an excellent state of preservation were discovered. One contains the Gospel of Matthew on 238 sheets, the size of which is 12.5 × 10.5 cm, and is now in Schweinfurt. The other contains Acts i. I–XV. 3 on 107 sheets of the same size and is now kept at the Pierpont Morgan Library. Both were written—by some professional copyists—in a thus far little known Middle Egyptian dialect. The text of Acts, unlike the text of Matthew, shows the characteristics of the so-called ‘western’ text type. Microfilms and photographs of the two codices have been kindly put at the disposal of Professor Kurt Aland for the ‘Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung’ of the University in Münster/W. It was within the framework of, and in connection with, this institution that the present essay originated.
page 469 note 2 Cf Weigandt, P., ‘Koptologische Arbeitsvorhaben des Instituts für neutestamentliche Textforschung…’, in Koptologische Studien in der DDR (WZ Halle-Wittenberg, Sonderheft 1967) (in preparation); ox stands for ‘Middle Egyptian’.Google Scholar
page 470 note 1 CfHaenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 5 1965), pp. 666–9;Google ScholarMartini, C. M., ‘II problema della recensionalitàa del codice B alla luce del papiro Bodmer XIV’, Analecta Biblica, XXVI (Roma 1966), esp. pp. 149–52;Google ScholarAland, K., ‘Die Bedeutung des 75 für den Text des Neuen Testaments’, in Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes (ANTF 2, Berlin 1967), pp. 155–72.Google Scholar
page 470 note 2 Cf. E. Haenchen, op. cit. p. 107, n. 2.
page 471 note 1 As a rule, we give the Coptic text in the form of a retranslation into Greek. We believe that this is more helpful than a translation into Latin, or any modern language. Words in brackets may, but need not, have stood in the Greek text behind the Coptic translation (but cf. p. 480). In case of doubt, a possible alternative is given.
page 473 note 1 Cf. E. Haenchen, op.cit.p. 109, n. 2.
page 475 note 1 Edited by Fischer, B., ‘Ein neuer Zeuge zum westlichen Text der Apostelgeschichte’, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey (Freiburg 1963), pp. 33–63.Google Scholar
page 478 note 1 Noth, M., Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Darmstadt, 2 1960), p. 31.Google Scholar
page 479 note 1 The Chester Beatty manuscript B (= sa 16) has a similar size; cf. also KHS-Burmester, O. H. E., ‘New Fragments from the Gospel of Saint John in the Sa‘idic Dialect’, in Studia Orientalia Christiana IX (Cairo, 1964), 207–21, esp. p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 480 note 1 CfWeigandt, P., ‘Zwei griechisch-sahidische Acta-Bilinguen (41 und 0236)’, in Materialien zur neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde I, ed. by Aland, K. (ANTF 3, Berlin, 1968), §6 (in preparation).Google Scholar
page 480 note 2 R. Kasser's description of the initial stage (‘stade liminaire’), the so-called ‘oral stage’, of the Coptic Bible translations in L'Evangile selon saint Jean et les versions coptes (Neuchâtel, 1966), pp. 16 f., would characterize our text well and it might even support Petersen's thesis. On the other hand, Kasser's hypothesis, like Petersen's, rests on a weak basis: both fail to give convincing arguments. But—unfortunately—the textual evidence required for these arguments is entirely lacking.
page 481 note 1 Epp, E.J., Coptic Manuscript G 67 and the Rôle of Codex Bezae as a Western Witness in Acts, JBL 85 (1966), pp. 197–212, and The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTS Monograph Series 3, Cambridge University Press, 1966), pp. ix, 10 f., 29 f., etc.Google Scholar
page 481 note 2 Here we would like to draw attention to some faults in Petersen's report, before they find their way into learned literature on the subject, as has already happened twice, in Epp's two essays above mentioned.
iii. 12: ‘service of God’: the Coptic word thus translated by Petersen is an equivalent for ɛ⋯σ⋯βɛα and therefore not a variant of this reading;
vii. 35: ‘the taskmasters’ should be read instead of ‘their slave-labor’;
viii. 25: ‘Peter and John’ must, of course, stand for ‘Peter and Paul’;
xii. 1: the text has ‘Judaea’, not ‘Jerusalem’; this fault is also found in Epp's article ‘The Coptic Manuscript…’, p. 209;
xii. 9: instead of ‘drew him along before him, and came out with him’ must be read ‘went before him and led him out’
xiv. 6: ‘hearing of it’ must be crossed out; it is not in the text of the manuscript; the same error is found in Epp's article ‘The Theological Tendency…’, p. 139;
xiv. 6f.: the text at the end of v. 6 and the beginning of v. 7 must be translated ‘….Derbe. (7) And they preached in the whole country round about…’, not ‘…Derbe and the whole country round about, (7) they preached the gospel…’;
xiv. 15: ‘the good news of God’ is not exact and can at least be misunderstood; the correct translation is simply ‘God’.
Other faults have been tacitly corrected in the above-cited texts.