Versional specialist Tjitze Baarda (Free University, Amsterdam) wrote of the Schøyen codex that it "presents us with a most intriguing version of Matthew, and therefore it should be studied carefully to establish the place which it takes in textual history…. I entertain the hope that this enigmatic text will become the object of a careful investigation in the near future. It might be an appropriate research object for a dissertation of someone who is interested in the relation of the Greek text and the early translations of the New Testament in general and the Coptic versions in particular" (NT 46.3, p.306).
Codex Schøyen 2650, the recently discovered (1999) Coptic manuscript of Matthew's gospel, is extraordinary for its great antiquity (300-350 C.E.), and sensational for its unusual text which may differ from canonical Matthew. Its editor, the late Hans-Martin Schenke, claimed it reflects a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew derived from a Greek Vorlage unlike any other extant manuscript. His conclusions would have a wide range of consequences for Matthean studies, including the formative development of the gospels.
Some of these conclusions were questioned on methodological grounds by Baarda. While Baarda emphasized that his criticisms could only speak to the small portion of text which he examined (Matt 17:1-9), he urged that a full review of the entire manuscript be undertaken.
Even if some of Schenke's conclusions go too far, ms. Schøyen 2650 remains a potentially important witness to the text of Matthew. The great antiquity of the codex gives it automatic significance. Further, it may reflect one of the earliest attempts to translate Matthew into Coptic, and give indication of the latitude a translator might deem appropriate. Moreover, the publication of ms. Schøyen 2650 necessitates reconsideration of the development of the Coptic versions. A thorough understanding of the Schøyen codex and the place of the Coptic versions will probably become increasingly critical as Egypt continues to be the primary source of new manuscript discoveries.
Therefore, I propose to analyze ms. Schøyen 2650 in the hopes that codicological, papyrological, and textual data will assist in explaining its unusual text and its role in transmission history. This analysis will be achieved by a comparison of ms. Schøyen 2650 with other Coptic versions and manuscripts, and with the translation dynamics of other early versions, with a particular sensitivity to textual variation in the whole manuscript tradition. Ultimately, the project will be designed to make ms. Schøyen 2650 and the Coptic versions more helpful in establishing the text of Matthew, and address implications regarding the formative history of Matthew's gospel.
Showing posts with label Codex Schoyen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Codex Schoyen. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Friday, 23 November 2007
Why I'm Studying Coptic
Somebody pm'd me and asked about my PhD project, explaining they were interested in how my studies in Coptic were going.
Interested in Coptic Matthew? I asked. Are you crazy?
In prior years, our interest in the ancient versions was that they might help us with text critical issues. For example, in 1 Tim 3:16, we're not sure if the text is supposed to read "who" or "God." Whichever is the correct reading, Paul goes on to connect the word to Jesus. If "God" is the correct word, then here you have an iron-clad reference to Jesus' deity. If "who" is correct, then you lose this prooftext for his deity.
The difference between "God" and "who" is that God is spelled theos--actually, the th is one letter, the letter theta. Theta looks like a round 0 with a dash going through it. In contrast, "who" is spelled os.
The reason why these two words were confused is that Christians always "abbreviated" theos with the first and last letters: theta and sigma with a line over both letters. Thus, the two words looked nearly alike: who--OS; and God--OS (with a dash in the 0 and a line over top).
Since Coptic and the other two ancient versions (Latin and Syriac) were translated in the second or third centuries, and since they have completely different translation words for "who" and "God," they tell us what their Greek manuscripts read. In these languages, you can't confuse "who" and "theos." This is especially important since we don't have any manuscripts of 1 Tim 3:16 earlier than the fourth century.
But my particular project goes in a different direction. I'm working on a specific manuscript named Codex Schøyen. It came to light back in 1999 and is owned by a private collector in Norway (http://www.schoyencollection.com/Coptic.htm#2650). It supposedly dates to the early fourth century (300-325), and if true, it is the oldest substantial copy of Matthew's gospel we have; it is the earliest text of Matthew in 11 whole chapters.
Few have published on the manuscript. Only two monographs exist, the authors of which have died since 2003 (Schenke and Boismard). Their work was methodologically faulty and their theories probably untenable. Apart from these two, Tjitze Baarda, a retired professor in the Netherlands, has written three articles. As far as I know, however, I'm the only one working on it now. (I invite additional information….)
Of course, this manuscript is already extremely important due to its old age. But what makes this manuscript even more interesting is that its text is rather different from all the other manuscripts of Matthew. We would use the technical term "wild," relatively speaking. Nearly every verse has two or three unique readings, often more. For example, the paralyzed man lowered through the roof had been paralyzed for 18 years; when Matthew was called and left his tax collector's booth, it was to Peter's house that they went for a meal (with many tax collectors and sinners); they don't accuse Jesus of blasphemy when he forgives sin; the text almost never says "behold" (in stark contrast to biblical Matthew); instead of Jesus' fame getting spread throughout "all the land," it spreads in the district (without "all"). The list could go on and on.
But otherwise, each verse of Codex Schøyen corresponds to our biblical Matthew. This project is important, especially in these last 10 years, because some scholars are making dramatic claims that the biblical text changed wildly in the late first, second and third centuries. The two dead scholars referenced above used Codex Schøyen to accentuate this claim.
My task is to give a more reasoned explanation for the peculiarities of this text. I have a long way to go before really understanding how this text was ever produced, but I think I will be able to explain a good number of peculiarities simply as translation technique, and a good number of peculiarities as normal text critical issues. Hopefully this will de-mystify this manuscript, and keep it from being the poster child of the chaos mongerers and extreme sceptics.
Interested in Coptic Matthew? I asked. Are you crazy?
In prior years, our interest in the ancient versions was that they might help us with text critical issues. For example, in 1 Tim 3:16, we're not sure if the text is supposed to read "who" or "God." Whichever is the correct reading, Paul goes on to connect the word to Jesus. If "God" is the correct word, then here you have an iron-clad reference to Jesus' deity. If "who" is correct, then you lose this prooftext for his deity.
The difference between "God" and "who" is that God is spelled theos--actually, the th is one letter, the letter theta. Theta looks like a round 0 with a dash going through it. In contrast, "who" is spelled os.
The reason why these two words were confused is that Christians always "abbreviated" theos with the first and last letters: theta and sigma with a line over both letters. Thus, the two words looked nearly alike: who--OS; and God--OS (with a dash in the 0 and a line over top).
Since Coptic and the other two ancient versions (Latin and Syriac) were translated in the second or third centuries, and since they have completely different translation words for "who" and "God," they tell us what their Greek manuscripts read. In these languages, you can't confuse "who" and "theos." This is especially important since we don't have any manuscripts of 1 Tim 3:16 earlier than the fourth century.
But my particular project goes in a different direction. I'm working on a specific manuscript named Codex Schøyen. It came to light back in 1999 and is owned by a private collector in Norway (http://www.schoyencollection.com/Coptic.htm#2650). It supposedly dates to the early fourth century (300-325), and if true, it is the oldest substantial copy of Matthew's gospel we have; it is the earliest text of Matthew in 11 whole chapters.
Few have published on the manuscript. Only two monographs exist, the authors of which have died since 2003 (Schenke and Boismard). Their work was methodologically faulty and their theories probably untenable. Apart from these two, Tjitze Baarda, a retired professor in the Netherlands, has written three articles. As far as I know, however, I'm the only one working on it now. (I invite additional information….)
Of course, this manuscript is already extremely important due to its old age. But what makes this manuscript even more interesting is that its text is rather different from all the other manuscripts of Matthew. We would use the technical term "wild," relatively speaking. Nearly every verse has two or three unique readings, often more. For example, the paralyzed man lowered through the roof had been paralyzed for 18 years; when Matthew was called and left his tax collector's booth, it was to Peter's house that they went for a meal (with many tax collectors and sinners); they don't accuse Jesus of blasphemy when he forgives sin; the text almost never says "behold" (in stark contrast to biblical Matthew); instead of Jesus' fame getting spread throughout "all the land," it spreads in the district (without "all"). The list could go on and on.
But otherwise, each verse of Codex Schøyen corresponds to our biblical Matthew. This project is important, especially in these last 10 years, because some scholars are making dramatic claims that the biblical text changed wildly in the late first, second and third centuries. The two dead scholars referenced above used Codex Schøyen to accentuate this claim.
My task is to give a more reasoned explanation for the peculiarities of this text. I have a long way to go before really understanding how this text was ever produced, but I think I will be able to explain a good number of peculiarities simply as translation technique, and a good number of peculiarities as normal text critical issues. Hopefully this will de-mystify this manuscript, and keep it from being the poster child of the chaos mongerers and extreme sceptics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
