As it is well known, the Coptic Old Testament is a daughter translation of the Greek Septuagint.[1] Unlike the Sahidic Old Testament, which was completely translated (unfortunately it did not survive in its entirety), the Old Testament was only partially translated into Bohairic (only the Pentateuch, Job, Psalms, and the Prophets are complete). Other books are only attested as excerpts, mostly in liturgical books as pericopae.[2]

The Sahidic influence was already observed by Burmester in some excerpts of Bohairic Old Testament books,[3] which are not widely copied, or of minor liturgical importance, as for example the Wisdom of Solomon, or Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), which are attested only as pericopae in the Holy Week Lectionary.[4]

Working on Bohairic manuscripts of the Holy Week Lectionary in the framework of the DFG project Project AT 193/2–1 “Digitale Edition und wissenschaftliche Erschließung des koptischen Paschalektionars,” I came across many Old Testament pericopae – in addition to the ones from Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus – in which a Sahidic source is undeniably present. The following tables show a comparison between some words and sentences from these pericopae from the Sahidic Holy Week Lectionary sa 16L (before 1443 AD) and their parallels from the Bohairic Holy Week Lectionaries using two manuscripts which show Sahidic influences:

• bo 3005L = Vat. copt. 98 dated 1385 AD;
• bo 3014L = ICP Copte-Arabe (part I) 6 & bo 3015L = ICP Copte-Arabe 7 (part II) dated 1777 AD.[5]

In addition to the forms found in the manuscripts, the expected standard Bohairic forms are given. For the Bohairic forms in the Minor Prophets, I consulted Henry Tattam’s 1836 edition, but did not always follow it.

 

1. Phonological and orthographical peculiarities:

1.1. Aspiration

Aspiration is one of the main phonological phenomena that distinguish Bohairic from other Coptic dialects. Voiceless plosives (ⲡ, ⲕ, ⲧ, ϫ) become aspirated (ⲫ, ⲭ, ⲑ, ϭ) before sonorants and stressed syllables. The following table shows some examples, in which the scribe or the translator rendered the Sahidic words into Bohairic without considering the aspiration:

Table 1.1.1.	sa 16L, fol. 19r–19v	bo 3005L, fol. 115r–116r	bo 3014L, fol. 81r–81v	Standard Bohairic form
1Kgs 19:9	ⲁϥⲡⲱϩ	ⲁϥⲡⲓⲙϩⲧ (sic!)[6]	ⲁϥⲡ̀ⲱϩⲧ	ⲁϥⲫⲟϩ [7]
	ⲛⲧⲟⲕ	ⲛ̇ⲧⲱⲕ	ⲛ̀ⲧⲟⲕ	ⲛ̀ⲑⲟⲕ
1Kgs 19:10	ⲟⲩⲕⲱϩ ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲱϩ	ⲟⲩⲕⲟϩ ⲁⲓⲕⲟϩ	ⲟⲩⲕⲱϩ ⲁⲓⲕⲱϩ	ⲟⲩⲭⲟϩ ⲁⲓⲭⲟϩ
	ⲁⲩⲕⲁⲁⲕ	ⲁⲩⲕⲁⲕ	ⲁⲩⲕⲁⲕ	ⲁⲩⲭⲁⲕ
1Kgs 19:12	ⲧⲏⲩ	ⲧⲏⲩ	ⲧⲏⲟⲩ	ⲑⲏⲟⲩ

 

1.2. Hypercorrection

The following examples show unnecessary correction of some words: aspiration of ⲧ before the sonorant ⲣ in ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ and replacing ϩ with ϧ (very common).

Table 1.2.1.	sa 16L,  fol. 19r–19v	bo 3005L,  fol. 115v	bo 3014L,  fol. 81v	Standard Bohairic form
1Kgs 19:11	ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ	ⲡⲉⲑⲣⲁ	ⲡⲉⲑⲣⲁ	ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ

 

Table 1.2.2.	sa 16L, fol. 135r	bo 3005L, fol. 336v	bo 3015L, fol. 256r	Standard Bohairic form
Mic 2:1	ⲉ̇ϩ︤ⲛ︥ϩⲓ̈ⲥⲉ	ⲉϧⲟⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲓ (sic!)	ⲉ̀ϧⲉⲛϩⲓⲥⲓ	ⲉ̀ϩⲁⲛϧⲓⲥⲓ
	ϩ︤ⲛ︥ⲡⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ	ϧⲉⲛⲡⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ	ϧⲉⲛⲡⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ	ϩⲁⲛⲡⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ

 

1.3. Other Sahidic influences on the orthography

In the following examples, the scribe did not write the words in their standard Bohairic form:

Table 1.3.1.	sa 16L,  fol. 19r–19v	bo 3005L,  fol. 115r–116r	bo 3014L,  fol. 81r–81v	Standard Bohairic form
1Kgs 19:9	ⲉⲕⲣⲟⲩ	ⲉⲕⲣⲟⲩ	ⲉⲕⲣⲟ	ⲉⲕⲉⲣⲟⲩ
1Kgs 19:11	ⲉϥⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲩ	ⲉϥⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲟⲩ	ⲉϥⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲟⲩ	ⲉϥⲧⲁϫⲣⲏⲟⲩⲧ
1Kgs 19:13	ⲁϩⲣⲟⲕ	ⲁϩⲣⲟⲕ	ⲁ̀ϩⲁⲣⲟⲕ	ⲁϧⲣⲟⲕ

 

Table 1.3.2.	sa 16L,  fol. 135r	bo 3005L, fol. 336r	bo 3015L,  fol. 255v	Standard Bohairic form
Mic 1:15	ϩⲉⲉⲕⲉϫⲱ	ϩⲉⲕϫⲱ[8]	ϩⲉⲕⲉϫⲱ	ϧⲉⲕϫⲱ

 

2. Morphological and syntactical misinterpretation and misunderstanding:

Another indication of Sahidic influence is misanalysing Sahidic phrases. The Bohairic scribe or translator either copied them as they are or misinterpreted them resulting in ungrammatical phrases.

For example, the Sahidic definite article for plural ⲛ- is analyzed as the particle ⲛ- (1Kgs 19:10, Table 2.1.) and the genitive particle with the definite article for plural ⲛ- is analyzed as the possessive prefix (ⲛ︤ⲛ︥ϭⲟⲙ > ⲛⲉⲛϫⲟⲙ) (1Kgs 19:10, Table 2.1.). We can also find forms copied from Sahidic, for example, the Sahidic ⲛⲉⲣⲉ- instead of the Bohairic ⲛⲁⲣⲉ- (1Kgs 19:11, Table 2.1.), Greek Verbs without the auxiliary ⲉⲣ- (Mic 2:2 Table 2.2.), the use of the Sahidic Temporal ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉ- instead of its Bohairic counterpart ⲉⲧⲁ- (1Kgs 19:13, Table 2.1.) and the Sahidic forms of some words, for instance, ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓ̈ⲏ̇ (1Kgs 19:11, Table 2.1.) and ⲛⲁⲩ “to them” (Hos 7:13, Table 2.3.).

The most interesting, and maybe the most common phenomenon, is misinterpreting almost every consonant cluster ⲙⲛ as the conjunction/preposition ⲛⲉⲙ, for instance, ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ > ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛ̇ⲥⲁ (1Kgs 19:12, Table 2.1.); ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲧⲭⲏⲣⲁ > ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧ̀ⲭⲏⲣⲁ (Mic 1:16, Table 2.2.).

Table 2.1.	sa 16L, fol. 19r–19v	bo 3005L,  fol. 115r–116r	bo 3014L, fol. 81r–81v	Standard Bohairic form
1Kgs 19:10	ⲡ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ︤ⲛ︥ϭⲟⲙ	ⲫϯ ⲛⲉⲛϫⲟⲙ̇	ⲫϯ ⲛⲉⲛϫⲟⲙ	ⲫϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ⲛⲓϫⲟⲙ
	ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲛ̄ϣⲏⲣⲉ	ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲛ̇ϣⲏⲣⲓ	ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲛ̀ϣⲏⲣⲓ	ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲛⲓϣⲏⲣⲓ
1Kgs 19:11	ⲛ︤ⲅ︥ⲁ̇ϩⲉ ⲣⲁⲧ︤ⲕ︥	ⲛⲉⲅⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲕ	ⲛⲉⲅⲁϩⲉ̀ⲣⲁⲧⲕ	ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲕⲟ̀ϩⲓ ⲉ̀ⲣⲁⲧⲕ
	ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓ̈ⲏ̇	ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲟⲩⲉ̇ⲓⲏ̇	ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲟⲩⲉ̀ⲓ̀ⲏ̀	ⲛ̀ⲛⲓⲧⲱⲟⲩ
	ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓ̈ⲥ	ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲡ⳪︦	ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲡ⳪︦	ⲛⲁⲣⲉⲡ⳪︦
1Kgs 19:12	ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ	ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛ̇ⲥⲁ	ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛ̀ⲥⲁ	ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ
1Kgs 19:13	ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲉϩⲏⲗⲓ̈ⲁⲥ	ⲛ̇ⲧⲉⲣⲉⲏ̇ⲗⲓⲁⲥ	ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲣⲉⲏ̀ⲗⲓⲁⲥ	ⲉⲧⲁⲏⲗⲓⲁⲥ

 

Table 2.2.	sa 16L, fol. 135r	bo 3005L, fol. 336r–336v	bo 3015L, fol. 255v–256r	Standard Bohairic form
Mic 1:16	ⲧⲁϣⲟ  ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲧⲭⲏⲣⲁ	ⲧⲁϣⲟ ⲛ̀ⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲙ   ⲉⲧⲭⲏⲣⲁ (sic!)	ⲧⲁϣⲟ ⲛ̀ⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲙ   ⲧ̀ⲭⲏⲣⲁ (sic!)	ⲟⲩⲱϣⲥ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲙⲉⲧⲭⲏⲣⲁ
Mic 2:2	ⲁⲩⲉ̇ⲡⲉⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ̈	ⲁⲩⲉ̀ⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲓ	ⲁⲩⲉ̀ⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲓ	ⲁⲩⲉⲣⲉ̀ⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲓⲛ

 

Table 2.3.	sa 16L, fol. 160v–161r	bo 3005L, fol. 371v–372r	bo 3015L, fol. 283v	Standard Bohairic form
Hos 7:13	ⲛⲁⲩ	ⲛⲁⲩ	ⲛⲁ	ⲛⲱⲟⲩ
	ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲙ︤ⲛ︦ⲧ︥ⲉⲃⲓ̈ⲏⲛ	ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲉⲃⲓⲏⲛ	ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲏⲃⲛⲏⲓ	ϩⲁⲛⲉ̀ⲃⲓⲏⲛ[9]
	ⲟⲩⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲧⲛⲟⲩϫ	ϩⲁⲛⲛⲉⲙⲉⲧⲛⲟⲩϫ	ϩⲁⲛⲛⲉⲙⲉⲧⲛⲟϫ	ϩⲁⲛⲙⲉⲑⲛⲟⲩϫ
Hos 7:16	ⲙ̄ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲧⲁⲧⲥ̄ⲃⲱ	ⲙ̀ⲙⲉⲛⲧⲁϯⲥⲃⲱ	ⲙ̀ⲙⲉⲛⲧⲁϯⲥⲃⲱ	ϯⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲥⲃⲱ

 

Table 2.4.	sa 16L, fol. 171v	bo 3005L, fol. 387r	bo 3015L, fol. 296r	Standard Bohairic form
Josh 5:10	ϩ︤ⲛ︥ ⲥⲟⲩⲙⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ	ϧⲉⲛ ⲥⲟⲩⲛⲉⲙⲓ︤ⲇ︥ϯ ⲙ̀ⲡⲓⲁ̀ⲃⲟⲧ	ϧⲉⲛ ⲥⲟⲩⲛⲉⲙⲓ︤ⲇ︥ ⲙ̀ⲡⲓⲁ̀ⲃⲟⲧ	ϧⲉⲛ ⲥⲟⲩⲓ︤ⲇ︥ ⲙ̀ⲡⲓⲁ̀ⲃⲟⲧ

 

3. Lexical influences:

The Sahidic Vorlage influenced the Bohairic translation, not only on the morphophonological or syntactic level, but also on the lexical one.

3.1. Using Sahidic lexemes in the Bohairic translation that are usually not common in Bohairic:

Table 3.1.1.	sa 16L,  fol. 19r–19v	bo 3005L,  fol. 115v–116r	bo 3014L,  fol. 81r–81v	Standard Bohairic form
1Kgs 19:10	ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩ	ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩ	ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩ	ⲁⲩϧⲟⲑⲃⲟⲩ
1Kgs 19:12	ⲡⲕⲱϩⲧ	ⲡⲓⲕⲱϩⲧ	ⲡⲓⲕⲱϩⲧ	ⲡⲓⲭⲣⲱⲙ

 

Table 3.1.2.	sa 16L,  fol. 135r–135v	bo 3005L,  fol. 336r–337r	bo 3015L,  fol. 256r–256v	Standard Bohairic form
Mic 1:16	ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ	ⲛ̀ⲑⲉ	ⲛ̀ⲑⲉ	ⲙ̀ⲫⲣⲏϯ
Amos 2:7	ⲁⲩⲃⲱⲕ	ⲟⲩⲃⲱⲕ[10]	ⲁⲩⲃⲱⲕ	ⲛⲁⲩⲛⲁ

 

3.2. In some cases, the Bohairic text shows Greek words, where standard Bohairic texts (as the Bohairic NT) would use a word of Egyptian origin:

Table 3.2.1.	sa 16L, fol. 19r	bo 3005L, fol. 115v	bo 3014L, fol. 81r–81v	Standard Bohairic form
1Kgs 19:10	ⲛⲉⲕⲑⲩⲥⲓ̈ⲁⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓ̈ⲟⲛ	ⲛⲉⲕⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁ̀ⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ	ⲛⲉⲕⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁ̀ⲥ̀ⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ	ⲛⲉⲕⲙⲁ ⲛⲉⲣϣⲱⲟⲩϣⲓ[11]
1Kgs 19:11	ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ	ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ	ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ	ⲛⲁⲥⲓⲛⲓ

 

Table 3.2.2.	sa 16L,  fol. 135r	bo 3005L,  fol. 336v	bo 3015L,  fol. 256r	Standard Bohairic form
Mic 1:16	ⲁⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲥ	ⲁⲓⲧⲟⲥ	ⲁⲓⲧⲟⲥ	ⲁ̀ϧⲱⲙ[12]

 

These pericopae and many others that show influences from Sahidic are not attested in other Bohairic Holy Week Lectionaries.[13] The two parts of the Bohairic Holy Week Lectionary bo 3014L & bo 3015L were used in the White Monastery[14] in Upper Egypt where the Sahidic Holy Week Lectionaries were most probably kept.

The following observations can be made from the previous examples:

• The scribe (and/or the translator) did indeed have some basic background knowledge about the differences between Sahidic and Bohairic; for instance, S ⲙⲛ > B ⲛⲉⲙ, some Sahidic words with ϩ have ϧ in Bohairic, the atonic ⲉ at the end of a word in Sahidic is written ⲓ in Bohairic, and aspiration (cf. Table 1.1.1.).
• Nevertheless, the scribe (and/or the translator) was unable to understand some parts of the Sahidic texts. This is evident from his copying Sahidic words with/without a slight modification (according to the Bohairic orthographical and phonological rules) and incorrectly analyzing the texts (cf. Table 2.1.–2.4.).
• For these passages with Sahidic influences, the scribe seems most probably to have translated them directly from a Sahidic Vorlage and not to have used a copy of the Bohairic Bible, even if a Bohairic translation of the biblical book existed. Evidence for this is the pericope of Amos 3:1–10, which is read twice during the Holy Week according to bo 3005L and the second part of the 18th-century lectionary bo 3015L (once on Good Friday morning and once at the sixth hour of Maundy Thursday evening), and once according to the other witnesses (only at the sixth hour of Maundy Thursday evening). The one read on Maundy Thursday and witnessed in all manuscripts identified in the DFG project AT 193/2–1 shows no Sahidic influence, unlike the one read on Good Friday. What is the reason for such differences in the two versions of Amos 3:1–10? When did this difference emerge? Maybe the Amos pericope with the Sahidic influences emerged later and the scribe did not have access to a copy of the Bohairic Bible? We cannot be sure.

These observations raise questions concerning the linguistic situation at least in the White Monastery in the second millennium. It appears that Sahidic and Bohairic were not completely and mutually intelligible, and the knowledge of Coptic was in full decline. Even if Coptic was no longer understood, we can assume that these biblical passages were read aloud in Coptic; a habit that is still practiced today in the liturgy of the Coptic Church.

 

Bibliography

Böhlig, Alexander. 1954a. Die griechischen Lehnwörter im sahidischen und im bohairischen Neuen Testament, Studien zur Erforschung des christlichen Aegyptens, Heft 2, München.

________. 1954b. Register und Vergleichstabellen zu Heft 2, Studien zur Erforschung des christlichen Aegyptens, Heft 2A, München.

Burmester, Oswald Hugh Edward. 1934. “The Bohairic Pericopae of Wisdom and Sirach,” in: Biblica 15, 451–465.

________. 1935. “The Bohairic Pericopae of Wisdom and Sirach,” in: Biblica 16, 25–57, 141–174.

Feder, Frank. 2008. “The Coptic Version(s) of the Book of Jesus Sirach,” in: Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime'on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006, Leiden and Boston, 11–20.

________. 2020. “1.1.6 The Coptic Canon,” in: Frank Feder and Matthias Henze (eds.), Textual History of the Bible. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures, Vol. 2A: 1 Overview Articles, 1.1 The Canonicle Histories of the Deuterocanonical Texts, Leiden and Boston, 213a–239.

Lagarde, Paul de. 1879. Orientalia. Teil I: Die koptischen Handschriften der Göttinger Bibliothek. Bruchstücke der koptischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 24, Göttingen.

Lefort, Louis Théophile. 1925. S. Pachomii vita: Bohairice scripta, CSCO 89, Scriptores Coptici 7, Paris.

Tattam, Henry. 1836. ⲛⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲓ︤ⲃ︥ ⲛⲛⲓⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ϧⲉⲛ ϯⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ Duodecim prophetarum minorum libros in lingua Aegyptiaca vulgo Coptica seu Memphitica, Oxford.

The services of our project website have been enhanced with a new entry under "Digital Resources": Peter Nagel – Collected Biblica. Anyone who is interested in the history and transmission of the Coptic Bible has inevitably come accross the name of Peter Nagel. As Professor of Christian Near Eastern Studies in Halle (Saale) and Bonn he has influenced several generations of scholars. Peter Nagel is undoubtedly one of the most renowned scholars in the field of Coptic Studies. He has been honored with Festschriften on occasion of his 65th and his 80th birthday. The latter was also the first volume in our project's book series Texts and Studies on the Coptic Bible.

Since the 1980s he has been worked intensively on the edition of the Sahidic version of the Old Testament in particular. He was aware from the outset that only a systematic and comprehensive collection and documentation of the mostly dispersed and fragmented manuscript witnesses would make a complete edition a feasible project. Peter Nagel supported the planning of our project from the beginning. Thus, still during the process of applying for funding for the Complete Digital Edition and Translation of the Coptic–Sahidic Old Testament, an inaugural colloquium was held at the Coptic monastery in Brenkhausen to mark his 75th birthday in 2013. Two books that have appeared in our print publication series, Das Deuteronomium sahidisch and Der sahidische Psalter Editio Minor, are important preliminary text editions on the path towards the future complete digital edition of the Sahidic Old Testament.

The Collected Biblica make all the important articles and monographs on the Coptic Old Testament by Peter Nagel visible and, if the copyright has returned to the author, also accessible for download. With this online collection, we would like to thank Peter Nagel for his commitment to the study of the Coptic Bible and to our project. And, we hope to draw the attention of a public beyond the scholarly community to the seminal works that Peter Nagel has contributed to our field.

 

Further to our visit to the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in June and as announced in the first blog entry in July, here follow some on-site autopsy results of a few manuscripts I had the opportunity to consult during the visit. The information pertaining to the first manuscript described below can be found as Metadata in the Göttingen Virtual Manuscript Room. The information pertaining to the other manuscripts can be considered as draft entries of a catalogue of Coptic liturgical manuscripts, which is under construction.

sa 349L, 14–15th century[1]
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borg. Copt. 109, cass. XXIII, fasc. 98

Four extant folios originally belonging to a bilingual Sahidic–Arabic Holy Week lectionary of which another two folios are preserved at the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Written on unwatermarked Egyptian glossy ‘two-layered’ paper,[2] with apparent laid lines and non-distinguishable chain marks. Page dimensions 36.5x22.5 cm, text coverage 31x19 cm, lines per page 25 for the Sahidic text and 25 for the Arabic text, line width 11–13 cm for the Sahidic text and ca. 5 cm for the Arabic text, intercolumn ca.1 cm. 10 lines of text: 12 cm. Ornamented hanging capital letters in black, red, yellow, and green up to 7 cm in height at the beginning of pericopes. Hanging capital letters in black, red, and yellow at the beginning of paragraphs. The last two extant folios, which preserve the readings for the Synaxis on Holy Thursday with a pericope from the book of Isaiah, namely Isaiah 32,1–16, are the only known example with this reading at that hour, whereas all other Holy  Week lectionaries I have examined have another Isaiah reading at that same hour, usually from Isaiah 52–53.

Borg.copt.52, 18th century[3]

Bilingual Bohairic–Arabic Holy Week lectionary written on European paper with the tre lune watermark (in transmitted light, the paper reveals the distinctive originally Italian watermark tre lune,[4] (see fig. 1 below) three moon crescents in decreasing size, specifically created for the Levant),[5] 460 folios. Page dimensions 315x215 mm, written text dimensions 240x155 mm, lines per page 22–23, 10 lines height 10 cm, line width 10–11 cm for the Bohairic text, 4–4.5 cm for the Arabic text, intercolumn ca. 1 cm. The Bohairic columns end with catchwords. All alphas (ⲁ) at the beginning of a pericope are ornamented as birds, some surmounted by a cross (more than 70 occurrences). Begins with Palm Sunday Eve and ends with the Synaxis on Easter Sunday, includes the whole text of the Apocalypse. Colophon on folio 459v dated 2 of Tout 1492 A.M., 1189 A.H., corresponding to 1775 A.D. Scribe Dāwūd Mīnā Aljīzāwī (داوود مينا الجيزاوي), surnamed al-Muwaqaʿ (الموقع), deacon of the Coptic Catholic Church.

Fig. 1: Three crescents, watermark in Isl. Ms. 589 (Yemen 1660)[6]

Vat.copt.34, 16th–17th century[7]

Bohairic manuscript with Bohairic–Arabic rubrics, 299 folios, page dimensions 295x205 mm, 21 lines per page. Begins with Palm Sunday and ends with Easter Sunday. This manuscript was written by two different hands. The first hand wrote the first 90 pages (up unto folio 45v, line 7) and the second hand undertook the writing from folio 45v, line 8 up unto the end of the manuscript. Anonymous invocations to pray for the soul of the ‘unworthy scribe’ are written in Arabic at the bottom of the page on folios 21v, 62r, 66v, 158v and 219r.[8]

Vat.copt.90, 18th century[9]

Bohairic manuscript with Bohairic–Arabic rubrics, 298 folios, page dimensions 330x225 mm, 22–25 lines per page. Begins with Palm Sunday and ends with Easter Sunday. Arabic colophon on f. 297 written by the scribe Maqarios ibn ishm Allah, monk at the Baramous Monastery in the Nitrian Desert and dated 1440 A.M., 1724 A.D.

Vat.ar.15, 14th century

We wrongly assumed that this non-digitized Arabic codex was a Holy Week lectionary. It turned out to be a Gospel lectionary with an index of all the lections from the New Testament to be read during the prayers and the masses all days of the year.[10] The 138 folios are made of unwatermarked Egyptian paper. This Gospel lectionary features a colophon on folio 135, dated 1054 A.M., 1338 A.D.

Bibliography

- Atanassova, Diliana (2018). Neue Erkenntnisse bei der Erforschung der sahidischen Quellen für die Paschawoche, in: Heike Behlmer, Ute Pietruschka and Frank Feder (eds), Ägypten und der Christliche Orient. Peter Nagel zum 80. Geburtstag (Texte und Studien zur Koptischen Bibel 1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1–37.
- Briquet, Charles-Moise (1907). Les filigranes. Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600 avec 39 figures dans le texte et 16 112 fac-similés de filigranes, volume 2 (Ci-K), Paris : Alphonse Picard et Fils.
- Burmester, Oswald Hugh Edward (1933). Le Lectionnaire de la Semaine Sainte. Texte copte édité avec traduction française d’après le manuscrit Add. 5997 du British Museum, vol. I (Patrologia Orientalis, 24,2, Nr. 117). Paris: Firmin-Didot (Reprint Turnhout: Brepols 1985).
- Hebbelynck, Adolph/van Lantschoot Arnold (1937). Codices Coptici Vaticani Barberiniani Borgiani Rossiani, I: Codices Coptici Vaticani, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti. Rome: In Bibliotheca Vaticana.
- Humbert, Geneviève (2002), Le manuscrit arabe et ses papiers, in Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 99–100/2002, 55–77, 67. https://journals.openedition.org/remmm/1174.
- Kropf, Evyn. Watermark Wednesdays blog series. Beyond the Reading Room (2014–2016). 
https://blogs.lib.umich.edu/beyond-reading-room/watermark-wednesdays-three-crescents.
- Le Léannec-Bavavéas, Marie-Thérèse (1998). Les papiers non filigranés. État présent des recherches et perspectives d'avenir. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
- Karabacek, Joseph von, (1991). Joseph von Karabacek, Arab Paper 1887, translated by Don Baker and Suzy Dittmar with additional notes by Don Baker. London: Archetype Publications.
- Mai, Angelo (1831). Catalogus codicum bibliothecae Vaticanae Arabicorum, Persicorum, Turcicorum, Chaldaicorum, Aethiopicorum, Slavicorum, Indicorum, Copticorum, Armenicorum et Ibericorum, item ejus partis Hebraicorum et Syriacorum, quam Assernanni in editione praeternisserunt Catalogus Codicum Bibliothecae Vaticanae. Rome: Typis 
Vaticanis.
- Zanetti, Ugo (1986). Filigranes vénitiens en Égypte, in Studi Albanologici, Balcanici, Bizantini e Orientali, in onore di Giuseppe Valentini S.J., (= Studi albanologici. Studi e Testi, 6). Florence: Olschki, 437–499.

 

This blog post also serves as an opportunity for me to introduce myself!  My name is Leila Hyde and I am from a little town on the island of Oahu in Hawaii.  I earned my bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young University - Hawaii in History and then pursued a master’s degree at Indiana University in Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures with a focus in Egyptology.  I arrived in Göttingen in May to begin working as a Trainee with the project.

July 7th, 2023 allowed for the celebration of the life and work of Dr. Jürgen Horn.  As a newcomer to the Academy and the city of Göttingen, I was pleased to become acquainted with some of the individuals in attendance.  The presentations vividly reminded those in attendance of Jürgen Horn’s widespread scholarly interests, the numerous contributions he made to academia as well as the good friend he was to those he worked with. After a welcoming address by Heike Behlmer introducing Jürgen Horn as teacher, colleague, and friend, some special aspects of Horn’s research were highlighted. Frank Feder recalled their common work during the former Halle University project “Koptische Septuaginta” (1994-1999) and the important contribution which Jürgen Horn made to the reconstruction and edition of the Coptic Old Testament.

 

Sebastian Richter focused on Horn’s interest in the history of scholarship on Ancient Egypt and singled out the outstanding but unpublished introduction to a planned volume on Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1767-1835) essay “Ueber die coptische Sprache”. The Prussian diplomat and statesman, brother of the famous scientist and explorer Alexander, had a vivid interest in the Egyptian language. Matthias Müller reminded the audience of Jürgen Horn’s research on documentary sources and suggested the location of a newly discovered monastery in Western Thebes. Finally, the “Märtyrerhelden” presented by Gerald Moers not only connected the cult of the Christian martyrs in Late Antique Egypt with today’s, but also shed light on this central topic in Jürgen Horn’s research, the martyr accounts, on which he wrote his dissertation. 

 

 

Just before Anne Boud’hors gave her impressive evening lecture “Die Macht Gottes und die Milde des Propheten”, on the policy of quoting the books of the prophets in Coptic Literature, Diliana Atanassova and Frank Feder surprised Heike Behlmer with her birthday present, a copy of her Festschrift entitled: Pharaonen, Mönche und Gelehrte, comprising more than 1000 pages with articles by 58 contributors. 

 

Following the talks and presentation of the Festschrift, a delicious dinner was served which was prepared by many of the members of the Project.  This allowed many people to continue to talk with old friends and to make new acquaintances facilitating a good environment for networking and sharing ideas.

The investigation of the Coptic Holy Week Lectionary in Egypt is the primary objective of the DFG project AT 193/2–1 “Digital Edition and Critical Evaluation of the Coptic Holy Week Lectionary” currently pursued at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities of Lower Saxony. The on-site consultation of the manuscripts constituting the backbone of the project’s research is one of its milestones. During a 14-day visit of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, we were able to shed light on aspects up till then invisible on the digital reproductions of manuscript pages and to proceed to an autopsy of some non-digitized manuscripts. The Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana is home to two of our main Sahidic–Arabic Holy Week lectionaries (included in the digital collection of the Vatican library) and to three of the Bohairic–Arabic Holy Week lectionaries (not yet digitized by the Vatican library) used by Burmester in his “Le Lectionnaire de la Semaine Sainte”.[1] Besides the activities mentioned above, the visit also allowed us to exclude the codex Vat.ar.15, a non-digitized Arabic codex wrongly assumed to be a Holy Week lectionary. My colleague Diliana Atanassova was also there for an on-site autopsy of all Sahidic liturgical typika kept in BAV within the framework of her DFG project AT 193/1–1 “The Hymns in the Coptic Liturgy of the White Monastery in Upper Egypt”.

The autopsy results concerning the manuscript sa 16L are presented in what follows. Part II (forthcoming) will be dedicated to some other manuscripts.

sa 16L, end of the 14th century [2] 
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Borg. Copt. 109, cass. XXIII, fasc. 99

Bilingual Sahidic–Arabic Holy Week lectionary written on unwatermarked Egyptian brownish ‘two-layered’ paper,[3] with apparent laid lines and non-distinguishable chain marks, 189 surviving folios, page dimensions 36.5x26.5 cm, text coverage 25.5x19 cm, lines per page: 26–28 for the Sahidic text and 15–22 for the Arabic text, line width 11–13 cm for the Sahidic text and ca. 6 cm for the Arabic text, intercolumn almost non-existent. 10 lines of Coptic text: 9–9.5 cm, corresponding to 7 lines of Arabic text. Initial structure: 27 quaternions. Extant: 25 quaternions, three of which with missing folios. Last quire: Three folios and a stub before a last folio added at the end. In its current state, the lectionary begins with the ninth Hour of the Day on Holy Monday and ends with Holy Saturday. Six marginal notes, four in Arabic, one in Bohairic and one bilingual in Bohairic and Arabic. Four give us details about the owner family of the manuscript before it came to Rome, as for example the marginal note dated 1160 A.M. corresponding to 1443 A.D. that provides us with a terminus post quem non for the writing of the codex.[4] 

One of the aims of the autopsy was to identify the text on f. 187r of the codex. Water leak between f. 186v and 187r had resulted in a transfer of ink from one page to the other leading to the fading of the red ink on f. 187r or to its coverage by the black ink transferred from the previous page (fig. 1).

Detail, sa 16L, f. 187r
https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/community/modules/papyri/?site=INTF&image=620016/89052/2870/20/96

Using a magnifying glass with light as well as UV light helped identify parts of the damaged text and allowed for a tentative reconstruction.