Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 94 items :

  • "Coptic Dialects" x
Clear All
The Coptic Translations of its Greek Text
Ecclesiastes, Erster Johannesbrief und Zweiter Petrusbrief im fayumischen Dialekt

Aegyptus, province of Egypt, 90 agoranomoi, “Greek notaries,” 62 “agraphia”: collective “agraphia” of the Egyptian population during I– III AD, 4, 64 Aïn Waqfa, 12, 20 Akhmimic. See Coptic dialects Albanian, 66 Alexandria, xii (map), 58, 62, 90, 93–94. See also bishop Alexandrians, “the language of the Alex- andrians,” 93 alphabets, as a result of Christianization, 65 Ammon, Greek author, 45, 113n2. See also Index of Ancient Sources, 4. Literary Sources anagnōstēs, “(church) reader,” 120 anchorites. See monks Antinoopolis, xii (map), 82n24, 89–90, 99, 163, 179n6

the Gospel of John, contained in Pap. Bodmer III and published in an exemplary way by Professor Kasser*, has produced no less than fifteen exam- ples of a new verbal prefix: Aiiueq- so far unattested either in Bohairic or, for that matter, in any other Coptic dialect. The careful éditor drew attention to it himself in his Introduction, giving a complete list of the occurrences' of this new phenomenon and preparing in this way all that was prerequisite for its further study and elucidation. The meaning of the new prefix is clearly the negating of a future

texts (with special emphasis on those corpora that are accessible in ancient manuscripts and good editions, but lack indexes). The program is initiated and supervised by Wolf-Peter Funk. Contributors enlisted so far include R. Charron, W.-P. Funk, H.-M. Schenke. Volumes planned to be published in the next few years include: Concordance to the Book of Proverbs in Achmimic Coptic (Dialect A) Concordance of the Book of Proverbs according to Papyrus Bodmer V I (Dialect P) Concordance to Matthew and Acts in Middle Egyptian Coptic (Dialect M) Concordance to

coalescing with the preposition N- the well- known verb2N6-, 2HA= (Crum 690a) 'be willing, desire', had been omitted. The reason is that while it seems certain that the element -Μλ= is the pronominal form of the preposition N- as Sethe18 was the first to see, the Egyptian verb underlying the first part 2- is still obscure. I t cannot be ® , Sh, 'be useful', for one would then expect j j in the Bohairic and 2 in the Akhmimic forms, which is, however, not the case, all Coptic dialects showing concordantly 2, a fact which Sethe seems to have overlooked, though he had

unfortunately have very little of the Akhmimic version of the Bible: it is important to us because the most archaic of the Coptic dialects; it seems to have been flourishing in the fourth and early fifth century, and to have disappeared by the sixth, under the influence of Shenoute and his writings, whose dialect was the purest Sa'idic. Where it exists, the Akhmimic version is valuable early evidence. Let us take an example or two from the Minor Prophets, who are well represented in Akhmimic. At Hosea 4 4 é>g αντιλεγόμενος Ιερεύς, not a very easy expression, *) In

actual varieties of language (and how to distinguish them). I shall make at least two claims in this paper: first, that the varieties of Coptic used in texts such as Thompson's Gospel of John, the Heidelberg manuscript of the Acts of Paul, the Manichaean manuscripts, and the Epistle of James, Gospel of Truth, etc.. from Nag Hammadi cannot reasonably be taken to represent one Coptic dialect, namely 'Subakhmimic' (or 'Lvcopolitan'), but are diverse. My second claim is tha t the language of these texts is not just an idiosyncratic form of Coptic in each case1 but