Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Codex Schoyen - "Gospel of Matthew" - More info?

Expand Messages
  • Don Smith
    Karen King mentioned this in her book The Gospel of Mary of Magdala and said that it was interesting . I searched online and found only the info below.
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Karen King mentioned this in her book "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala"
      and said that it was "interesting". I searched online and found only
      the info below.

      Could anyone provide any additional information on this (papers, text
      in English, summaries, etc...)?:

      http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.1/413.html#2650

      Commentary: The text opens at ch. 5:38 and goes more or less
      continuously to the end.

      The present codex is the earliest Matthew in any Coptic dialect. The
      11 chapters, 6-9, 13-17, 22 and 28, and a great number of verses
      elsewhere, are in addition the earliest witnesses to these parts of
      the Bible. The text is unique, not following any Coptic nor Greek
      manuscripts known of Matthew.

      Prof. Dr. Hans-Martin Schenke in his editio princeps of the text, has
      named the manuscript Codex Schøyen, with the siglum Mae 2. (siglum
      Mae 1 being the Scheide Codex of 5th c.) His conclusions are that the
      text is not representing a free text transmission in relation to all
      the other extant Greek and Coptic manuscripts of Matthew, but that it
      is a correct translation of an entirely different Gospel of Matthew.
      There is only one other Gospel of Matthew known, the lost Hebrew
      Gospel of the Jewish Christians mentioned by the church fathers. This
      would have been the Hebrew exemplar of the Greek translation the
      present manuscript is based upon. Actually the famous statement by
      Papias that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek
      several times (Eusebius, hist. eccl. III, 39, 16), now come in a new
      light. Due to a series of textual differences between Codex
      Schøyen
      and the Canonical Gospel, it appears that both Gospels derive from
      different versions of the Hebrew Matthew. The consequence is that the
      relationship among the Synoptic Gospels has to be entirely re-
      evaluated, causing far-reaching and dramatic consequences for New
      Testament research.

      Published: Hans-Martin Schenke in the series Manuscripts in The
      Schøyen Collection, ed. Jens Braarvig; Coptic Papyri, vol. I. Oslo
      2001.

      Thanks in advance,
      Don Smith - Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    • John C. Poirier
      Tjitze Baarda has an article on Mt. 17:1-9 in Codex Schøjen in the latest *Novum Testamentum*. I have not read it yet, but my understanding is that
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Tjitze Baarda has an article on "Mt. 17:1-9 in 'Codex Schøjen'" in the
        latest *Novum Testamentum*. I have not read it yet, but my understanding is
        that Baarda challenges Schenke's interpretation at its broadest points, so I
        imagine he reveals a lot about his view of the codex as a whole.


        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio


        Don Smith wrote:

        > Could anyone provide any additional information on this (papers, text
        in English, summaries, etc...)?:
      • Wieland Willker
        Here is something I wrote about one ear ago. And, yes, Baarda disagrees with Schenke on his source theory. Some notes on the Coptic Mt, Schoyen MS 2650 = mae-2
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Here is something I wrote about one ear ago. And, yes, Baarda disagrees
          with Schenke on his source theory.

          Some notes on the Coptic Mt, Schoyen MS 2650 = mae-2

          Manuscripts in the Schoyen Collection
          Coptic Papyri, Vol. 1
          Hans-Martin Schenke
          Hermes Publishing, Oslo 2001
          ISBN 82 8034 002 5
          (you have to order it from the publisher)

          http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.1/413.html#2650

          mae-2 is a new (bought 04/1999) Coptic, middle-Egyptian MS, dated first
          half of the 4th CE. We already discussed this with respect to the Two
          Sons pericope. There are 39 leaves, with text from 5:38 to the end with
          many lacunae. Originally there must have been 46 leaves (92 pages).
          The edition of the text is very good. Unfortunately all discussion is in
          German. It has all you need: Plates of all pages, the reconstructed
          text, a translation (German!), and a reconstructed Greek text. One
          problem I have with the presentation is that you have to look at three
          places for the discussion: 1. the apparatus of the Coptic, 2. the
          apparatus of the translation with different, complementary commentary
          and the Greek reconstruction at the end of the book.
          Another problem I have is with Schenke's view that the text is something
          completely different and that our canonical text and this text both go
          back to a common original, possibly the Hebrew Matthew. Schenke's
          reconstruction builds on the view that the translator slavishly
          translated a Greek original. Therefore Schenke's Greek reconstruction
          looks very different from our canonical text (mostly minutiae). I am
          absolutely no expert and don't know Coptic at all, but from what I know
          now, I find it more probable that this text is just a free text, a free
          translation. There are many minor variations, but they are all really
          minor and can be explained simply as translation freedom IMvHO. I may be
          wrong though. Schenke admits that his view is just speculation.
          His main argument for the strangeness of this Coptic Mt is the scarcity
          of conjunctions:
          mae-2 mae-1
          ALLA 23 33
          GAR 39 104
          DE 155 416
          IDOU 8 23
          KAI 142 315
          OUN 14 54

          On the other hand:
          TOTE 83 49
          (of the 49 in mae-1, 21 are NOT found in mae-2!)

          Schenke says, that basically mae-1 can be explained as descend from a
          canonical Greek form, but not mae-2. Therefore mae-2 must come from a
          different Greek text, which he tried to reconstruct.
          He also notes that, because of the very limited circulation of the mae-2
          form and of certain secondary elements, this textform itself must be
          later than canonical Mt. He thinks that both the canonical Mt and the
          mae-2 form are translations of a Hebrew Ur-Mt.

          All this I find rather improbable. A check of all variants in the TCG
          shows that the underlying textform of mae-2 is basically Alexandrian,
          most agreements are with 01, Co. Additionally it has many singular
          readings.
          An analysis of the variants from the TCG for which mae-2 is extant
          (about 100) gives the following results. Agreement in %:


          sa 64%
          U01 63
          bo 60
          B 58
          Sy-C 52
          Sy-S 49
          it 49
          f1 48
          D 48
          mae-1 46
          892 44
          L 43
          Theta 43
          f13 42
          Sy-P 37
          W 32
          Sy-H 29
          Maj 22


          This of course gives only a very rough view, because it is based on a
          selection of variants only ("significant" variants), and not on a
          complete collation. It basically shows that mae-2 is embedded in the
          Egyptian textual tradition. It is especially close to 01, with which it
          shares many minority readings. (This does not rule out basically
          Schenke's speculation that mae-2 might have been translated from a
          Hebrew Mt, but this Hebrew Mt then must have been quite close to 01,
          Co.)
          One should note that f1 forms its own texttype in Mt and that D/it have
          a comparatively good text in Mt.
          Unfortunately I didn't have the contents of mae-1 handy so I couldn't
          check if it has significant lacunae in Mt. If it's complete the above
          value of only 46% agreement with mae-2 is interesting.


          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        • Wieland Willker
          Here is a list of the more noteworthy variant readings of mae-2: I went once through the text and noted the things I found noteworthy. THIS IS NOT COMPLETE!
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Here is a list of the more noteworthy variant readings of mae-2:

            I went once through the text and noted the things I found noteworthy.
            THIS IS NOT COMPLETE! Please refer to the volume mentioned before to
            draw your own conclusions.
            There are many (from my point of view) minor singular readings (mostly
            not noted), which are difficult to evaluate for me, because I don't know
            Coptic. But there is nothing really thrilling. If a Greek text is given,
            it is the reconstruction by Schenke. The new MS is referred to as mae-2
            here:


            5:44 mae-2 supports the short text, against mae-1

            6:8 mae-2 omits O PATHR hUMWN

            6:13 mae-2 has the short form with mae-1

            6:25 mae-2 omits H TI PIHTE

            6:28 omits PWS AUXANOUSIN

            6:33 mae-2 omits TOU QEOU

            8:31-33 slightly different

            9:2 adds hOS HN ETH DEKAOKTW EN TH ASTENEIA AUTOU
            after BEBLHMENON (compare Lk 13:11)

            9:13 mae 2 omits EIS METANOIAN against mae-1

            9:14 mae-2 omits POLLA

            9:24 Schenke reconstructs: APOSTHTE APO TOU KORASIOU. OUK APEQANEN
            ALLA KAQEUDEI.

            9:25 mae-2 omits OTE ... EISELQWN, singular reading?

            9:35 mae-2: ... QERAPEUWN TAS NOSOUS AUTWN TAS EN AUTWN

            10:27 adds EN TOIS TAMEIOIS (from Lk 12:3)

            10:34-35 OUK HLQON BALEIN EIRHNHN ALLA MACAIRAN 35 HLQON GAR
            is here only: HLQON META MACAIRHS

            10:37 omits 37b with B*, D (h.t.)

            10:42 reads with D, it et al.: OU MH APOLHTAI hO MISQOS AUTOU

            11:1 omits DWDEKA with f1 !

            11:8 mae-2: EN TW OIKW TWN BASILEWN EISIN

            11:18 adds probably PROS hUMAS with L and Theta et al.

            12:12 adds MALLON

            12:30 (mae-1), mae-2:
            hO MH SUNHGMENOS WN MET' EMOU ESKORPISMENOS ESTIN
            "who is not gathered with me, is scattered".

            12:47 mae-2 omits verse

            13:13 mae-2 omits all from OTI ... SUNIOUSIN

            13:33 omit: ALLHN PARABOLHN ELALHSEN AUTOIS

            13:51 LEGEI AUTOIS hO IHSOUS with Byz

            13:55 IWSHF

            14:9 mae-2 ends the verse with EKELEUSEN

            14:18+19a omitted by mae-2

            14:24 mae-2 has: STADIOUS POLLOUS ... against Byz

            14:30 omits ISCURON

            15:6 mae-2 omits complete 15:6a: OU ... AUTOU

            15:14 mae has TUFLOI EISIN only. It omits hODHGOI [TUFLWN].

            16:2-3 mae-2 omits

            16:4 adds TOU PROFHTOU with Byz

            16:12 PERI THS ZUMHS with D et al.

            16:20 IHSOUS hO CRISTOS with Byz

            17:1 mae-2? for ANAGEI with D, f1, Or

            17:8 AUTON MONON; mae-2 omits Jesus

            17:14 mae-2 adds here:
            TOTE HLQON PROS AUTON hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU
            compare 17:19a!

            17:21 mae-2 omits verse.

            18:11 mae-2 omits verse.

            18:15 mae-2 has EIS SE

            18:29 has EIS TOUS PODAS AUTOU with Byz

            19:3 mae-2 omits ANQRWPW and reads ..THN GUNAIKA **SOU**...

            19:9 mae-2 seems to confirm something like the the B, f1 or the D,
            f13 reading of 9b.

            19:16 mae-2 has txt = omits AGAQE

            19:20 mae-2 has EK NEOTHTOS MOU with Byz

            19:29 mae-2 has GUNAIKA with Byz

            20:4 AMPELWNA MOU

            20:7 ERGAZESQE EIS TON AMPELWNA MOU

            20:16 mae-2 without POLLOI GAR ...

            20:22-23 mae-2 has the short text

            20:30 ELEHSON hHMAS, IHSOUS hUIOS DAUID mae-2
            20:31 ELEHSON hHMAS, KURIE, ELEHSON hHMAS hUIOS DAUID mae-2

            21:29-31 mae-2, geo(2A): The "fourth form" of the Two
            Sons parable
            1. he answered, 'I go, sir'; but he did not go.
            2. he answered, 'I will not'; but later he changed his mind and
            went.
            3. They said, "The first."

            21:44 omits verse!

            22:15 mae-2 adds KAT' AUTOU with C-c, Delta, Theta, f1, bo

            22:30 omits TOU QEOU

            23:2-3 different wording, plural "chairs of Moses"

            23:3 only POIHSATE with 01*

            23:4 omits KAI DUSBASTAKTA

            23:5 adds TWN hIMATIWN AUTWN with Byz against mae-1

            23:14 omits verse

            23:19 omits MWROI KAI against Co

            24:7 omits KAI LOIMOI against mae-1

            24:36 omits OUDE hO UIOS with Byz

            24:48 CRONIZEI hO KURIOS MOU PRIN H ELQEIN

            26:42 TOUTO TO POTHERION PARELQEIN AP' EMOU with Byz


            26:44 PALIN APHLQEN EK TRITOU, omits 2nd PALIN

            26:51 mae-2 adds from Jo 18:10 "and the name of the servant was
            Malchus"

            26:73 does not add PALIN, contra mae-1

            27:17 APO TOUTWN

            27:27 TOU DIKAIOU TOUTOU with Byz

            27:33 omits LEGOMENOS

            27:34 OXOS

            27:35 not the addition at the end, against mae-1

            27:49 the piercing: mae-2 has the addition and it has with Gamma and
            some minuscules the order hAIMA KAI hUDWR, as in John.

            28:2 APO THS QURAS TOU MNHMEIOU

            28:19 has the full trinitarian formula



            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            ------------------------------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.