Coptic manuscripts of Revelation - Hoskier on Coptic influence on Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

Administrator
David Aune
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT149

1689362890580.png

1689362919325.png

4. THE COPTIC VERSIONS (cop“ cop1”)
Of the various dialects of Coptic attested by literary remains (Sahidic, Bohairic,
Fayyumic, Achmimic, Sub-Achmimic, Middle Egyptian; see Metzger, Early Versions,
106), the Sahidic and Bohairic are of most significance for the textual criticism
of Revelation. The Sahidic version (cop-sa), in the dialect of Upper Egypt, was in
existence by the fourth, perhaps even the third, century a.d. (text in Horner,
Southern Dialed, vol. 7, 1924). Revelation was not denied canonical status in the
ancient Egyptian church. Though the Sahidic version of Revelation exists only in
fragments, Horner was able to piece together a translation lacking only pordons
of 1:1-8, though Lefort discovered a MS containing 1:1—2:1 with several omis-
sions. The weakness of this critical text, however, is precisely the fact that texts
from different periods and origins have been pieced together. Only a few MSS
preserve copies of Reveladon in the Bohairic version (cop60), the dialect of Lower
Egypt, or the delta region, and the liturgical language of the modern Copdc Or-
thodox Church (text in Horner, Northern Dialed, vol. 4,1905). The beginnings of
the Bohairic version probably date to the fourth century a.d.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Garrick Allen on Hoskier and the Coptic Revelation p. 20
https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/236515/2/236515.pdf


Concerning the Date of the Bohairic Version: Covering a Detailed Examina-
tion of the Text of the Apocalypse and a Review of the Some of the Writings of
the Egyptian Monks. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1911.46

This book represents both an explicit preview of Hoskier's argumentation in
Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse (sec below), but also another articula-
tion of his polyglot theory. He blends these concerns in his attempt to “exhibit
the coptic clement in x in the Apocalypse as an answer to those who think the
bohairic version is later than the time of X” (p. 1). In order for the text of Sinai-
ticus to have been influenced by the Coptic tradition, the Coptic translations
must antedate Sinaiticus.
Hoskier aims to show that both of these propositions
are correct and the weapon he wields in this debate is, once again, extensive
collation. Sinaiticus was copied from a Coptic-Gracco polyglot (p. 3), and even
corrected from a diglot (p. 7). The legion examples that Hoskier adduces to
prove this contention arc only convincing in aggregate, even though many of
the individual examples are easily explained by other routes beyond polyglot
linguistic interference, like mechanical errors in copying, inncr-Greck varia-
tion, or other less tendentious reasons. For example, few would hold that the
variant icxucev/ioxooav in Rev 12:8 is truly influenced by a parallel Coptic
reading (pp. 34-5).

1699022097305.png
 
Top