A forgotten Coptologist, Arthur des Rivières

Arthur des Rivières (d. Cairo 1849 [1]) was an early French Coptologist who copied by hand a number of Coptic texts.  Little seems to be known about him.  His handwritten copies are sometimes all that remains of early papyrus discoveries, where the originals are now lost.[2]

He saw the Coptic fragments in the Harris collection in 1845, which he describes in a letter dated 29 February 1848.[3] The letter has been printed.[4]  The editor indicates that Des Rivieres was publishing in the Spettatore egiziano, 29 Feb, 1848, and that the library of the Egyptian museum in Cairo possessed a handwritten translation by him of the Coptic grammar of Peyron. 

He is mentioned in the introduction to the Coptic gospel catena published by De Lagarde.[5]

In 1845 he was transcribing Coptic texts and at least some of his transcriptions as held as “ms. copt.” in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich.[6]  British Library Or. 7561 includes Coptic fragments plus two volumes of copies with Latin and French translations and notes made by him.[7]

He also worked on the collection of Coptic papyri brought to Turin in 1820 by Luigi Drovetti. [8]
Share
  1. [1]Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Volumes 21-22, p.384
  2. [2]W. E. Crum, Coptic texts relating to Dioscorus of Alexandria, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 25, p.267 f.: “What is printed here is however but the copy of a copy. The originals, no longer, I fear, traceable, were seen and transcribed, somewhere about 1845, by Arthur Des Rivieres; they were papyrus leaves, once in the celebrated Harris collection. These transcripts were subsequently acquired by the Royal Library at Munich, where they are numbered “MS. Copt. No. 3.” Des Rivieres gives no description of the leaves copied; and their relations one to another are indicated but vaguely when at all. A connection among the originals of those copies here in question may perhaps be inferred from the fact that their copyist has given them consecutive numbers in his portfolio.”
  3. [3]Frederick W. Weidmann, Polycarp and John: The Harris fragments and their challenge to the literary traditions, 1999, which provides a translation of a little known Coptic text about Polycarp.  On p.9: “So far as I can determine based on the written record, the literary fragments of the Harris collection were first described by Arthur Des Rivieres in a letter to Mr. Harris dated 29 February 1848.44 Though little is known about Mr. Des …
  4. [4]Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Volumes 5-6, 1903, p.88. This, it seems, is the letter to A. C. Harris, discussing the 156 fragments.  Five of these relate to the martyrdom of Polycarp.
  5. [5]De Lagarde, Catenae in evangelia aegyptiacae quae supersunt, Gottingae, 1886, p.iv: “After the last page of Matthew, the bookbinder inserted a sheet of European paper, on which is read the subscription, reproduced by a hand experienced in inscribing Egyptian [characters] —and its final letters … are given in full, with the addition of this translation… Whether I am right to believe that this was written by Arthur des Rivières, let those who can compare in person the Munich mss. written by Arthur des Rivières (1 4, 100 101 of the catalogue) with this Parhamian page decide.” The reference is to Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, Tomi Primi Pars Quarta, Codices orientales, 1875, p.100.
  6. [6]Journal Asiatique, series 10, tome 11 (1903), p.181.
  7. [7]Orientalia 48, p.149.
  8. [8]Jean Claude Fredouille, R.-Michel Roberge, La documentation patristique: bilan et prospective,.  Tito Orlandi, La documentation patristique copte, 127-148. On p.135, after discussing the work of Paul de Lagarde and Eugene Revillout, who were working and publishing literary texts from the collection of papyri in Turin brought there in 1820 by Luigi Drovetti: “Among these above all deserving of mention are the fragments of 22 papyrus codices, in Sahidic, bought in 1846 at Thebes by the English collector Anthony Charles Harris, and transcribed by Arthur des Rivieres.  They contain biblical, liturgical, homiletic and hagiographical texts, which for the most part still await a critical edition.”

An interesting overview of Coptic Patristic literature in the Cambridge Ancient History

Quite by accident today I stumbled over a rather interesting overview of Coptic Patristic literature in a Google books preview of a volume of the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XIII, The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425, ed. Averil Cameron &c, (1998) p.725 f. here.  It is quite difficult for the non-professional to get an orientation in this sort of field, and these couple of pages fill the bill admirably. 

It comes from section 7, pp.720-735, by Mark Smith of Oxford University.  Dr. Smith divides his topic into six sections:

  1. Magical texts
  2. The bible and apocrypha
  3. Patristic and homiletic works
  4. Monastic texts and martyrologies
  5. The Nag Hammadi library and related tractates
  6. Manichaean writings.

All are extremely interesting and well-referenced: here is the section on patristics.

Patristic literature in Coptic, at least for the period A.D. 337—425, consisted chiefly if not entirely of works translated from Greek. There is no evidence that any of the Fathers of the church, even those such as Athanasius or Cyril of Alexandria, who lived in Egypt and had extensive dealings with Egyptian monks, ever wrote in the language of that country.[42] According to a tradition preserved by Epiphanius,[43] a certain Hieracas (c. 270-3 60) was the first to write commentaries and other treatises in Coptic. No trace of his work has survived, unless it be an Akhmimic MS. of fourth-century date containing psalms or hymns which some have attributed to him.[44] This being the case, it is difficult to evaluate the tradition critically. For the purposes of the present discussion, Coptic patristic literature may be divided into two categories: works preserved in manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries, and those preserved in manuscripts of later date. Only a few texts fall into the first category. The treatise on the Pascha by Melito of Sardis is attested by three early manuscripts, one Akhmimic and two Sa’idic, as well as a few fragments.[45] One of the Sa`idic MSS., which also contains Jonah, 1 Peter, an extract from 2 Maccabees, and an Easter homily, was written at the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century. The other Sa`idic MS. and its Akhmimic counterpart are certainly  of fourth-century date. The translation of this work into Coptic has been seen as further evidence for a connection between Asiatic Christianity and certain Christian circles within Egypt.[46] Among other texts, the Shepherd of Hermas is preserved in an Akhmimic manuscript of the fourth century[47] and a Sa`idic one of the fifth century.48 Coeval with the latter is a Middle Egyptian version of the Didache.[49] The First Epistle of Clement is attested by two Akhmimic codices, one dating to the fourth century,[50] the other to the fifth.[51] The latter contains the Gospel of John and the Episde of James as well. There are, in addition, miscellaneous letters and sermons preserved in MSS. of fourth- or fifth-century date. These are mainly fragments and their authors have yet to be identified.[52]

Thus far, matters are relatively straightforward. For various reasons, however, the second category of texts is more problematic. A number of genuine patristic writings are preserved in Coptic MSS. which postdate the fifth century. Full lists of these have been compiled by Krause[53] and Orlandi.[54] Among the authors attested are Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Cappadocians, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, there is no way of knowing when the works of these writers were first translated and, consequently, it is impossible to say whether Coptic versions of them were in circulation during the fourth and fifth centuries. The point is well illustrated by the four discourses of Gregory of Nazianzus preserved in Sa`idic and Bohairic MSS. of the eighth—eleventh centuries.[55] These may have been translated as early as the fifth century, as the editor of two of them has suggested,[56] but firm evidence that they were is lacking.

The picture is further complicated by a number of late MSS. containing works that are falsely attributed to one or another of the church Fathers. Some are genuine patristic writings that have been credited to the wrong authors. Others are totally spurious, having been composed in Coptic long after the end of the period under discussion. Examples in the first category include a homily of John Chrysostom on the Canaanite woman, wrongly attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea,[57] and an exegesis of a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans, written by Basil but credited to Athanasius.[58] Both are preserved in a Sa`idic codex of seventh-century date. A good exemplar of the second category is the cycle of homilies ascribed to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria from 385 to 412.[59] Works of this type will not be taken into consideration here.

In general, it can be said that the translators of patristic literature into Coptic were not interested in theological questions as such. Rather, they were influenced by practical concerns. Texts were selected for translation either because they were valuable for liturgical purposes, or capable of providing moral instruction or spiritual edification.[60]

42 Arguments to the contrary are unconvincing, e.g. Lefort (1953a); cf. Draguet (1980) 111*—12*.
43 Haer. LXVII. 1.2—3.
44 Lefort (1939) 1-6; Peterson (1947).
45 See Goehring (1984); Crum and Bell (1922) 47-9 .
46 Orlandi (1986) 59.
47 Lefort (1952) ii-iv and 1-18.
48 Ibid. viii-ix and 25-6.
49 Ibid. ix-xv and 32-4.
50 Schmidt (1908).
51 Rosch (1910) 1-88.
52 E.g. Crum (1905) nos . 269, 279 , 285, 521, 1220; Till (1931).
53 Krause (1980) columns 707, 710-11.
54 Orlandi (1970) 69-88, 115-24. Cf. idem (1973), (1984).
55 For bibliography on the editions of the MSS. in question, see Lafontaine (1981) 38-40.
56 Ibid. 43. The same writer expresses a more cautious view at Lafontaine (1980b) 39 and (1980a) 201.
57 Mercati (1907).
58 Orlandi (1975) 52—3.
59 Orlandi (1985) 103-4; cf. idem (1973). 
60 Orlandi (1986) 71-2.

The abbreviated references point to the back of the book, where they are given in full: a system full of peril to the reader, if the editor fails to ensure that every volume does actually get included in the bibliography. 

Footnotes 53 and 54, containing lists of Patristic works in Coptic, are worth expanding here.  What a pity neither is in English or French!

Krause, M. (1980) ‘Koptische Literatur’, in W. Helck and W Westendorf (eds.), Lexicon der Agyptologie Vol. 3 (Wiesbaden) columns 694-728
Orlandi, T. (1970) Elementi di lingua e letteratura copta. Milan
Orlandi, T. (1973) ‘Patristica copta e patristica greca’, Vetera Christianorum 10: 327-41

The same volume also contains a useful article on Syriac.  It is a reminder not to neglect this series, which is a useful entry point to the literature.

In my teens I used to buy volumes of the CAH, saving up money from birthdays to do so.  Unfortunately I started at the beginning, rather than in the historical section, and ended up with 4 volumes of mainly dry archaeology reports.  Naturally my interest waned, and I stopped buying them.  In retrospect, if I had had a friend who could advise me, he would probably have told me to start in the Principate, with the early Caesars, and I might well have read through the series.  The auto-didact faces many problems, of course.   Those who receive reading lists at university are rarely grateful enough for them!

Share

From my diary

The sales figures for September for my book — Eusebius of Caesarea, Gospel Problems and Solutions.  Text and translation.  Get yours from Amazon now! — have arrived and are acceptable.  For a change most of the sales were in the UK.  More acceptable still is the first chunk of payments.  Lightning Source, the distributor, delay these for three months, so this is the first money that I have seen from Amazon.

A correspondent from Germany interested in Coptic studies has emailed me the Arabic text of the life of Samuel of Kalamoun, in PDF form.   This is Anthony Alcock’s publication, The Arabic Life of Anba Samawi’l of Qalamun, Le Museon 109 (1996), p.321-345.  The text was edited from a manuscript written on … 29th September 1945 AD!  We forget, I suspect, that hand-copying texts is something that goes on even today, and was certainly going on in the Arab world until the photocopier era.  It was printed from the mss. of the Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies in Muski in Cairo.

The editor remarks that this vita survives in Coptic, and also in Ethiopic.   The Arabic version is closer to the Ethiopic, naturally enough, as the Ethiopic probably derives from an Arabic version.

I got the PDF’s on Tuesday, but only today realised that this included an English translation!  Wonderful!

Share

More Coptica at the British Museum

I tried searching their new database for “codex”.  The results were interesting.  You have to get past some tosh about Mexican materials first.

Here is a parchment sheet from a codex, with two columns of Coptic on either side.  It is largely complete, and should certainly be readable to those with the language skills (are you listening, Alin Suciu?)

Then there are several leaves, which look to me as if they all come from one codex, here, here, here and here and here.

Papyrus codex leaf bearing Sahidic script on recto and verso. The text contains a narration of miracles attributed to Shenoute.

Interestingly the first one does NOT appear if you tick “images”.

I then did a search on Syriac.  This did not bring up such interesting items for primary research, but did provide a bust of William Cureton!

Revd William Cureton, Assistant Keeper of Oriental Manuscripts at the British Library

Cureton was in charge of the oriental manuscripts when the manuscripts from the Nitrian desert arrived.  It is melancholy to record that he promptly allocated the publication of those he thought most interesting to himself, thereby forcing scholars to wait 15 years to access them.  I doubt his modern successors at the British Library would do differently, sadly.

Share

Idiot of the week award goes to …

…, erm, <cough>, me.

“Why so?” I hear you cry.  (At least, I hope that’s what you’re saying.)  Well, it’s like this.

I’m interested in the Coptic catena on the Gospels, published without a translation by Paul De Lagarde back in the 1850’s-ish.  I knew that an Arabic translation exists of that catena, and that the Arabic version is more complete.  For the sole surviving Coptic manuscript has lost many of its pages in the years.  But as far as anyone knew, the Arabic was unpublished.

Some time back I discovered that an edition with Italian Spanish translation existed of part of the Arabic catena, covering Matthew.  The Arabic was edited by Iturbe, around 50 years ago, and attracted no attention, and I only stumbled on it through my habit of compulsive reading of patrology bibliographies.  I wanted to include the Arabic fragments of Eusebius in my book.  So I got hold of a copy of Iturbe, in two volumes, and had the fragments included in my book.

Recently the translator of the Coptic fragments has told me that she and her team fancy doing more of the De Lagarde catena into English.  That’s very good news, of course, and I want to help.  Apparently they also have some Arabic skills, so are interested in the Arabic version.  I’ve offered to supply them with a copy of one of the manuscripts — because most of the Arabic catena is still unpublished.  So I thought I’d look in Iturbe and find out what mss. exist.

She was also asking for details about the Arabic catena.  Now I have a couple of PDF’s of selected pages, which I sent her, telling her that I borrowed the book.  That’s what it usually means, when I have a PDF of a few photocopied pages.

Just now, then, I was looking for stuff about Iturbe online, and came across my own post above.  It turns out that actually I did NOT borrow the book, contrary to my statements in several emails.  It seems that, erm, I bought the book.  In fact, once I realised this, I realised that I knew where they were as well.  Yup: that’s them on my shelf. 

Ah, what a fallible creature is man!  “Quick Watson, the straight-jacket!”

Share

The literary remains of Shenoute of Atripe

Coptic literature is an under-studied area for most of us.  But today I have been finding out that significant work has been done in the last decade on an important figure of the 4th century, Shenoute of Atripe, the leader of the White Monastery at Panopolis.

For this we have Stephen Emmel to thank.  It seems that he has undertaken the painstaking task of recovering the works of this central figure, and has revolutionised the field.  It is unfortunate that none of this is online; but this blurb to Stephen Emmel, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus, Peeters (2004), in 1006 pages (!) tells the story.

… Stephen Emmel’s reconstruction of the literary corpus of Shenoute, monastic leader in Upper Egypt from 385 until 465, and Coptic author par excellence, marks the beginning of a new era in Shenoute studies.

On the basis of about one hundred parchment codexes from the library of Shenoute’s monastery, pieced together from nearly two thousand fragments scattered among some two dozen collections, Emmel demonstrates that Shenoute’s corpus was transmitted in two multi-volume sets of collected works, nine volumes of Canons and eight volumes of Discourses.

At the core of his study is a description of each reconstructed codex, demonstrating the organization and coherence of the corpus as a whole, followed by a survey of its contents in which nearly 150 individual works are catalogued. A research-historical and methodological introduction, tables, concordances, and an extensive bibliography …

I can already see references to “volume 4 of the discourses”, etc, when sermons are referenced.  Effectively this acts as a clavis or index to Shenoute’s works.  The book is, unfortunately almost $200, so unaffordable to the rest of us.

It would be good, surely, to have a list of his works at least, online.

Share

From my diary

Oof!  A concerted effort, and I have just turned the last page of the massive tome that I got from the library and which I have been scanning all week.  I can’t afford to buy a copy — no-one could — and yet I need to consult it.  Solution: photocopy a library copy, or — in modern technology — create a PDF of the page images.  It’s hard, back-acheing work, tho.

Next I need to go through the images, check that they are all there, check that they are not skewed or with bits of flaked-off paper blocking the text.  Then I need to take a copy, and crop them all to a fixed size, with the text central.

Once I have a bunch of TIFF files, I can run a script (using ImageMagick) to add whitespace around them, so that they fit one of the standard sizes for Lulu.com (although why Lulu don’t just do this, if the pages are too small, I have never known).  And then I can create a PDF from the new images, upload it to Lulu, and get a perfect bound copy for my own use, to read, to scribble on, and to absorb.

It’s actually 700 pages.  I suspect it might be best to split it into two halves.  The Lulu books tend to be on the thick side, and I want something that doesn’t twist my wrist!  I want to actually read this thing.

But I shan’t be doing any more of that tonight!

While sitting at the scanner, mechanically turning the pages, I was surfing the web for “Old Coptic”.  There are sections in the 4th century Greek Magical Papyri written in Old Coptic, and I wanted to know more. 

I stumbled across The multilingual experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids, and p.76 on Google books gives us a lot of hard information.

Old Coptic turns out to be the version of ancient Egyptian adopted during the late Ptolemaic period.   There are various papyrus archives retrieved from the sands of Egypt which contain it. 

It forms part of the process by which the Egyptians moved from Demotic to Coptic.  The former was written in the difficult Demotic script, which consisted of hieroglyphic symbols given a wildly cursive form.  Vowels were not written in general, so the script was also a shorthand. 

When the Greeks gained control of Egypt under Alexander, and then his Ptolemaic successors, they found a well organised state with an official bureaucracy where the records of taxes and lawsuits were kept in Demotic.  But under the Ptolemys, little by little, Greek grew in importance.  A time arrived quite quickly at which Demotic documents had to be presented with a Greek transcription.  Soon after, Demotic documents were not acceptable by themselves as evidence, a step which marked the end of the importance of Demotic archives.  In addition there are signs that the scribes themselves are finding difficulty with demotic, and mixing Greek vowels into the script.

Old Coptic, then, is what we call ancient Egyptian written in Greek letters from this period.  The texts are entirely pagan, and entirely ancient Egyptian in nature.  It is a transitional form between demotic and Coptic, and appears extensively in papyri in the early centuries of the Christian era.  Coptic also is written in Greek letters, with a few characters borrowed from Demotic but given a Hellenistic twist to make them look more Greek.

In the process of learning this, I learned of Dioskoros of Aphrodito, author of one of the bilingual Greek and Coptic archives.  Leslie S. B. MacCoull’s book Dioscorus of Aphrodito: His Work and His World (1998) is actually online here.  It contains some fascinating material.

In 1901, during the reign of Khedive Abbas Hilmy and the proconsular administration of Lord Cromer, some villagers in Kom Ishgaw were digging a well. Their Upper Egyptian village lay on the left (west) bank of the Nile, four hundred miles south of Alexandria, south of the sizable and half-Christian city of Assiut, north of what had been Shenoute’s White Monastery at Sohag. As so often happens in Egypt when digging is done, they found not water but antiquities: in this case papyri, masses of them, the bundled tax archives of a city. Someone called the police, but before anyone in authority could arrive, many of the papyri had been burned by villagers anxious not to be caught with the goods. The surviving papyri were dispersed through middlemen and dealers, most to find their way to the British Museum and the University of Heidelberg. The science of papyrology was young then, and no scholar had ever seen anything like these voluminous tax codices written in thin, elegant, almost minuscule hands. Bell in England and Becker in Germany identified them as the records kept by Greek and Coptic scribes under the eighth-century Arab administration of a town called Aphrodito.

Four years later, in 1905, matters repeated themselves, again by sheer chance. During house-building operations in Kom Ishgaw, the mudbrick wall of an old house collapsed, revealing deep foundations that had covered over yet another massed find of papyri. The local grapevine alerted Gustave Lefebvre, the inspector of antiquities, who hurried to the spot. A few acts of destruction similar to the earlier burning had taken place, but this time most of the papyri were dispersed to dealers, and thence worldwide from Imperial Russia to the American Midwest, to libraries eager to participate in the new rebirth of Greek literature made possible by papyri. Among the papyri there was indeed a text of Menander; but the body of the find consisted of the private and public papers of the sixth-century owner of that text, the lawyer and poet who would become known as Dioscorus of Aphrodito.

The papyri that Lefebvre managed to keep from middlemen and traffickers he brought to the Museum at Cairo (then at Boulaq). He went back to Kom Ishgaw twice more, in 1906 and 1907, and succeeded in finding more sixth-century papyri on the site of the original find. A few had been bought by a M. Beaugé, of the railway inspectorate at Assiut. These documents also were brought safely to Cairo, and the whole lot was assigned to the editorship of Jean Maspero, a young classical scholar and son of the head of the Antiquities Service, Gaston Maspero. Before his death in battle in 1915, Jean Maspero managed to produce the three pioneering volumes of Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine, of which the first was published in 1911. Together with Bell’s 1917 edition of the sixth-century Aphrodito papyri that had been acquired by the British Museum (P.Lond. V), and Vitelli’s 1915 edition of those bought by the University of Florence (P.Flor. III), these texts constitute the bulk of what we know as the Dioscorus archive of sixth-century Aphrodito, the city that lay under Kom Ishgaw.

Our evidence for the life, work, and world of Dioscorus thus comes from one find (over time) from one place, in preservation widely dispersed, yet in intention forming a unity. The papers kept during a single human lifetime that spanned much of the sixth century reveal the background, activities, and interests of the person who chose to keep them. Numerous discoveries of Byzantine Egyptian remains at sites all along the Nile Valley, from the Fayum to Syene (Aswan), provide a perspective on the period broader than could be obtained from the archives of just one individual in one city. Most of these discoveries were made in the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, when the political climate still allowed exploration in the field of what was once Christian Egypt.

Isn’t that interesting?  Yet I for one had never heard of the man!  The Menander codex is known as the “Cairo Codex” of Menander and contained a bunch of his plays.  It was edited and translated in the 1921 Loeb edition of Menander, which is on Archive.org. 

Many of the Aphrodito papyri have not been edited, even, MacCoull says.  And he refers to clandestine digging in the 1930’s, the fruits of which are only now becoming known.

He continues:

Aphrodito stands on a hill. Unusual among Egyptian sites, which more often lie below the present ground level, the modern village of Kom Ishgaw perches atop a tell that must conceal remains of the Byzantine and Umayyad city (see Figure 2). Aphrodito has never been scientifically explored. The papyrus finds were made by accident, and Quibell and Lefebvre simply looked around the papyrus findspots to gather what they could in the way of artifacts—only a few carvings of wood and bone; the late period was of little interest at the beginning of this century. We do not know what Dioscorus’s house or the Apa Apollos monastery looked like. Until, in some better future, field archaeologists have found the physical remains of the Byzantine/Coptic environment:, we can try to reconstruct the city of Dioscorus from the documents, and view it in its own landscape.

Kom Ishgaw lies amid a network of irrigation canals in the wide cultivated belt west of the Nile’s edge (see Figure 3). South of Assiut, the road toward Kom Ishgaw goes by Sidfa with its Uniat school; Tima, largely Christian even today; the Uniat bishopric of Tahta; and Shotep, the ancient Hypselis, where the late sixth-century Coptic exegete Rufus wrote his extensive biblical commentaries. This is a Christian heartland of great antiquity. Some 45 miles to the south is Shenoute’s town, Sohag; across the river from that lies the Panopolis (Akhmim) that was the target of Shenoute’s attacks on paganism and gnosticism. East of these twin cities, up the river’s bend, is the Pachomian headquarters of Pbow (near Chenoboskion), where the monastic library once included Homer, the Bible, Menander, and the Vision of Dorotheos; in the same vicinity were deposited the texts that have become famous in our own time as the Nag Hammadi Codices. To the north, some 110 miles by river, lie the chief twin cities of Upper Egypt: Hermopolis on the west bank, and Antinoopolis (Antinoë), seat of the Duke of the Thebaid, directly across the Nile on the east. Around Aphrodito itself are the well-documented monastic sites of Bawit, Der Bala’izah, and Wadi Sarga. Dioscorus, the proud son of an elite family, was at home in a landscape of deeply rooted classical and Christian culture. This is the land of the wandering poets and of the founding fathers of the Coptic church.

Dioscorus was, as well, a citizen of no mean city. If buildings and amenities help to define a city, Aphrodito had its share. …

Doesn’t it make your fingers itch to go and find papyri?  It does mine!

On his blog, Alin Suciu of Heidelberg University has been reporting on his own efforts to analyse Coptic papyri.  He has found fragments of Cyril of Alexandria’s scholia, some new Chrysostom material, another leaf of the Ancoratus of Epiphanius, and much more.  All of this is lavishly illustrated on a blog which is a model of how to do this.

In the past I’ve found papyrologists rather off-putting.  But we do need, clearly, more people working professionally in this field.  When Coptic texts are unpublished for a century, then the Academy should feel something like shame.

Share

Books by the Coptic Pope Shenouda III at Google Books

I accidentally stumbled on a mass of English translations of works by the current Coptic Pope, Shenouda III, at Google books.  This search brings up a long list.  Some have preview; some are full view, and can be downloaded in PDF form.

The first one I saw was a hagiography of St. Mark, here.  The work is a modern composition in the traditional style, and references are on p.143 to sources like Eusebius HE, Jerome’s De viris illustribus, Severus ibn al-Mukaffa’s History of the Patriarchs, and other interesting-looking sources.

These books are an invaluable insight into modern Coptic church thinking.  It is very good to see them accessible.  For which of us could otherwise even know they existed?

Share

More on Persian Christian literature

There have been a number of further posts in the NASCAS forum on the subject of Persian Christian literature, all of considerable interest.

Thomas A. Carlson writes:

At one time there was a larger corpus of Persian Christian materials.  In Middle Persian there were some psalms, translations from Syriac Christian authors (including Abraham of Nathpar and Abraham of Kashkar, both translated by Job the Persian), a liturgy (mentioned by John of Dalyatha in a letter), and a law-book by Ishobokht of Rewardashir apparently composed in Persian, but which only survives in Syriac translation.  

In Sogdian some has survived, including parts of the Psalms and New Testament, some saints’ lives, and some monastic literature, an overview of which is provided at the end of Baum & Winkler, The Church of the East: A Concise History (London, 2003), 168-170.  

Dr. Pritula’s excellent work only concerns materials translated into neo-Persian, that is, Persian written in (modified) Arabic script.  Of this, if I remember correctly (it has been a while since I’ve looked at this!), almost all that survives from before the Jesuit missions c.1600 is biblical, although more was at one time written in Persian, for example the lost original travel account of Rabban Sauma’s trip to Europe, which the editor/translator mentioned at the end of the account of Rabban Sauma’s voyage in the Syriac “History of Mar Yahballaha and of Rabban Sauma” (edited by Bedjan, translated into English by Budge, recently re-edited by Pier Giorgio Borbone).

For my own reference, and possible future use, I am keeping a list of known (including lost) works in Christian Persian, so if others know of additional works I am very happy to hear of them!

Sasha Treiger draws attention to an article on the Chronology of Translations of the Bible in the Encyclopedia Iranica.  First it lists translations into Middle Persian, or evidence that such exist:

  •  
    • 4th century. Statement by John Chrysostom (Homily on John, in Migne, Patrologia Graecia LIX, col. 32) that doctrines of Christ had been translated into the languages of the Persians.
    • 5th century. Statement by Theodoret (Graecarum affect­ionum curatio IX.936, in Migne, PG LXXXIII, col. 1045c) that Persians regarded the Gospels as divine revelation.
    • 4th-6th centuries (?). Middle Persian translation from Syriac of Psalms 94-99, 119-136 (the “Pahlavi Psal­ter”); the extant manuscript contains canons written after ca. 550; Andreas-Barr, 1933.
    • ? centuries. Sogdian translations of the Gospels, Pauline epistles, and Psalms.
    • 9th century. Biblical quotations in the Zoroastrian text Škand-gumānīg wizār; Menasce, 1945, pp. 176ff., Asmussen and Paper, p. 5.

Then it continues with lists of translations of biblical texts into modern Persian.  This begins in the 13th century, is extensive and mainly from Syriac.

Further details appear in the next article, by Shaul Shaked, on Middle Persian Translations of the Bible:

  •  
    • The only extant Middle Persian Bible version is represented by fragments of a translation of the Psalms found at the ruin of the Nestorian monastery at Bulayïq near Turfan.   Most of Psalms 94-99, 118, and 121-36 are contained in these fragments. The script is an early form of the cursive Pahlavi script (see Nyberg, Manual I, p. 129).
    • Theodoret, in the fifth century, mentions a translation of the Bible into the language of the Persians alongside with those of the Romans, Egyptians, Armenians, Scythians, and Sauromatians (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 83, Paris, 1859, cols. 947f.; quoted by Munk, p. 65 n. 2; Asmussen and Paper, p. 5). The existence of Iranian language translations of the Book of Esther in use among Jews is indicated by a question which is raised in the Talmud as to whether it is permissible to recite the text of the Book of Esther on the festival of Purim in one of the following languages: Greek, Coptic, Elamite, or Median (Bavli Megilla 18a).

William Hume raises the question of Manichaean literature, in an interesting if somewhat rambling post, and points out:

Speaking of Middle-Persian-Script languages: let us all constantly keep in mind that the Dun Huang & Turfan materials are not fully excavated, and what has been excavated has not been fully described, much less catalogued.  Those materials have yielded plenty of Manichaean materials.  I have an extremely vague recollection that there were even Nestorian materials found, in Iranian-branch languages like Khotanese Saka, and so on.

He also adds:

May I add, as a sort of “marginal” consideration, my understanding that there is a fair amount of Manichaean literature that survives in Middle Persian? … Prof. Ludwig KOENEN of University of Michigan published the Coptic “Life of Mani”, in which it was made clear that Mani grew up as an Elkasite Gnostic…

I confess that this is news to me, and rather interesting.  The Cologne Mani codex, here referenced, also has an article in the Encyclopedia Iranica here.  The Wikipedia article (unreliable, of course!) gives a 5th century date for the tiny codex, and mentions an English translation.  It also links to images of all the pages.  I have not been able to find an English translation online, however.

Share

Coptic fragments from Sothebys

Alin Suciu has a couple of interesting posts, identifying some Coptic fragments recently auctioned at Sothebys.  More info here!

http://suciualin.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-identification-of-the-coptic-fragments-auctioned-by-sothebys/

http://suciualin.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/the-sothebys-coptic-fragments-supplementary-identifications/

Share