Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am**

a) What are the earliest dated (or approximately dated) books originally written in Coptic?
b) Did authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and/or John (or of other relatively-early gospels) know Coptic?

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:34 am**

That's a fine question, and the answer consists of dogma and paleography.
Bentley Layton likes to loudly proclaim that

: Layton.jpg (471.4 KiB) Viewed 1412 times

Old Coptic preceded that, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Coptic

The earliest surviving examples of Egyptian words transliterated in Greek script date to the 6th century BC. Whole Egyptian phrases appear in Greek script from the 3rd century BC.[5] The earliest Coptic text known is from the 1st century AD.[4]

The whole dating game again - but why don't we just look at the texts? Whatever is claimed about dates, of one wants to find out who plagiarised whom one looks only at the text, and not at the dates, correct?

I can assure everyone that our dearly beloved gospel writers not only didn't know much Greek, but certainly no Coptic.
A fine attestation to that is Mark and Matthew not knowing what to do with Thomas' ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ in logion 33, 'ear' commonly mistaken for 'measure', and translated by Luke with 'vessel', σκεύει. What did Mark come up with and what did Matthew copy?
μόδιον, commonly mistranslated by our dearly beloved bible translators with 'basket', whereas it's the Latin loanword for modius: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try=modius

A measure indeed! A Latin measure, holding some 8.5 litres of grain

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:41 am**

Previous discussion at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8116

Andrew Criddle

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:12 am**

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:41 am Previous discussion at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8116

Andrew Criddle

Ah tnx for the reminder Andrew. Funny how I didn't realise and picked the exact same example out of the many available

I'll leave this OP then with the usual conclusion:

if one cannot contest content, one flees into context

And a solid bit of content for those who want to engage with it:

viewtopic.php?p=146546#p146546

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:53 pm**

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am a) What are the earliest dated (or approximately dated) books originally written in Coptic?

From the Bentley Layton quote above: "

1) "Standardised Egyptian Coptic begins with biblical manuscripts dating to about 300 CE shortly after the translation of the Christian Bible into Coptic.

What? If that's the claim then what is this 3rd century evidence that the Christian bible was translated to Coptic before 300 CE? Who did this translation? Where and when?

The second claim from Layton however has a completely different spin. Evidence for it as super abundant.

2) Native literature originally composed in Coptic dates almost exclusively to the early Byzantine period roughly 325-800 CE

This proposition at least has the entire physical mid 4th century NHL as evidence. One could reasonably point out that the beginning of this period coincides with the date support and resources were provided by Pontifex Maximus Constantine towards the publication and circulation of the NT/LXX Bible codex in Greek. 325 CE is when the world of the Hellenic culture was "turned on its head". [Palladas]

b) Did authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and/or John (or of other relatively-early gospels) know Coptic?

From my reading there are zero indications that any of the Ante Nicene Christian authors, including all of the church fathers knew Coptic. Coptic literature related to biblical themes explodes c.325 CE during the rule of Constantine. Why is this? My explanation is that we are dealing with an underground press because writing the NT and LXX apocryphal material in Greek was a death sentence. This underground press chose Coptic for the NHL because it was one step removed from the Greek and could not easily be read by the Greek reading agents of the Christian emperors 325-350 CE. Alexandria had been shut down. Eusebius reports:

Eusebius's “Life of Constantine”, Ch. 56,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius.

In this manner the emperor, like a powerful herald of God, addressed himself by his own letter to all the provinces, at the same time warning his subjects against superstitious ("Demoniacal" or "diabolical") error, and encouraging them in the pursuit of true godliness. But in the midst of his joyful anticipations of the success of this measure, he received tidings of a most serious disturbance which had invaded the peace of the Church. This intelligence he heard with deep concern, and at once endeavored to devise a remedy for the evil. The origin of this disturbance may be thus described. The people of God were in a truly flourishing state, and abounding in the practice of good works. No terror from without assailed them, but a bright and most profound peace, through the favor of God,
encompassed his Church on every side. Meantime, however, the spirit of envy was watching to destroy our blessings, which at first crept in unperceived, but soon revelled in the midst of the assemblies of the saints. At length it reached the bishops themselves, and arrayed them in angry hostility against each other, on pretense of a jealous regard for the doctrines of Divine truth.

Hence it was that a mighty fire was kindled as it were from a little spark, and which, originating in the first instance in the Alexandrian church, overspread the whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further Thebaid. Eventually it extended its ravages to the other provinces and cities of the empire; so that not only the prelates of the churches might be seen encountering each other in the strife of words, but the people themselves were completely divided, some adhering to one faction and others to another.

Nay, so notorious did the scandal of these proceedings become, that the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

"He was made from nothing existing" (Nicene Creed 325 CE, disclaimer clause)

In my reconstruction at least some of the texts of the NT apocryphal literature (such as that found in the NHL) were being performed in the theatres of Alexandria. The emperor prohibited this heresy. Preservation of the tracts found in the NHL was accomplished by smuggling the Greek originals out of Alexandria and setting up one or more underground Coptic scriptoria 400 miles out of town at Nag Hammadi. Some of the NHL could be Coptic originals, authored by a generation of fleeing ex-Alexandrians in their diaspora.

The NHL IMO may be able to be reconstructed as the final literary voice of Hellenistic Alexandrian pagans. Plato and Plotinus stalk the halls of the NHL alongside Chrestos and his legions of "nomina sacra". The Sethians love their "Platonising treatises". None of these authors are associating themselves with the emperor's doctrines. They are reacting in writing to the first authoritative (dictatorial) political appearance of the Chrestendom doctrine.
The pagans react to the Emperor's "Good [Chrestos] News". There was a controversy.

The Interpretation of Knowledge
Translated by John D. Turner
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/intpr.html

[Amended ML]

(13 lines missing)
... they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications. The likeness that came to be through them followed him, but through reproaches and humiliations before they received the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard that the Christ [Chrestos] had been crucified. But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ [Chrestos] is alive.

Life on the Hellenic diaspora 325-360 CE

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:21 pm**

Bible translations into Coptic

Some early manuscripts:

Old Testament

Sahidic

Bodmer III – John 1:1–21:25, Genesis 1:1–4:2; 4th century; Bohairic
Bodmer VI – Proverbs 1:1–21:4; 4th/5th century; Paleo-Theban ("Dialect P")
Bodmer XVI – Exodus 1:1–15:21; 4th century;
Bodmer XVIII – Deuteronomy 1:1–10:7; 4th century;
Bodmer XXI – Joshua 6:16–25; 7:6–11:23; 22:1–2; 22:19–23:7; 23:15–24:2; 4th century;
Bodmer XXII – Jeremiah 40:3–52:34; Lamentations; Epistle of Jeremiah; Book of Baruch; 4th/5th century;
Bodmer XXIII – Isaiah 47:1–66:24; 4th century;
Bodmer XL – Song of Songs
Bodmer XLIV – Book of Daniel; Bohairic.[2]
Schøyen Ms 114 – Psalms; Sahidic; c. 400.

New Testament

Sahidic

The Crosby-Schøyen Codex is a papyrus manuscript of 52 leaves (12x12 cm). It contains the complete text of Book of Jonah and 1 Peter (2 Maccabees 5:27–8:41, Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha 47–105, unidentified Homily). It is dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries and is held at the University of Mississippi.[17]

British Library MS. Oriental 7594 contains an unusual combination of books: Deuteronomy, Jonah, and Acts. It is dated paleographically to the late 3rd or early 4th century.[18]

Michigan MS. Inv 3992, a papyrus codex, has 42 folios (14 by 15 cm). It contains 1 Corinthians, Titus, and the Book of Psalms. It is dated to the 4th century.

Berlin MS. Or. 408 and British Museum Or. 3518, being parts of the same original document. The Berlin portion contains the Book of Revelation, 1 John, and Philemon (in this order). It is dated to the 4th century.
Bodmer XIX – Matthew 14:28–28:20; Romans 1:1–2:3; 4th or 5th century.
Bodmer XLII – 2 Corinthians; dialect unknown; Wolf-Peter Funk suggest Sahidic;[19]

Bohairic

Papyrus Bodmer III is the oldest manuscript of the Bohairic version.[22] It was discovered by John M. Bodmer of Geneva in Upper Egypt. It contains the Gospel of John, dated palaeographically to the 4th century. It contains 239 pages, but the first 22 are damaged.

Huntington MS 17, bilingual Bohairic-Arabic, dated to 1174, the oldest manuscript with complete text of the four Gospels in Bohairic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tra ... nto_Coptic

List of Coptic New Testament manuscripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... anuscripts

Sahidic manuscripts

The Crosby-Schøyen Codex, Book of Jonah and 1 Peter; the 3rd or 4th centuries; University of Mississippi
British Library MS. Oriental 7594, Deuteronomy, Jonah, and Acts; the 3rd/4th century
Michigan MS. Inv 3992, 1 Corinthians, Titus, and the Book of Psalms; 4th century
Berlin MS. Or. 408, Book of Revelation, 1 John, and Philemon; 4th century
British Library MS. Oriental 3518 4th century
Papyrus Bodmer III
Papyrus Bodmer XIX — Matthew 14:28-28:20; Romans 1:1-2:3; 4th or 5th century.
Codex Copticus Tischendorfianus I – fragments of the four Gospels; 9th or 10th century

Bohairic manuscripts

Papyrus Bodmer III is the oldest manuscript of the Bohairic version
Huntington MS 17, A, Bohairic-Arabic, dated to 1174, the oldest manuscript with complete text of the four Gospels in Bohairic
Huntington MS 20, Bohairic-Greek, with complete text of the four Gospels
Oriental MS 424, Bohairic-Arabic, dated to 1308, with complete text of the Pauline epistles, Catholic epistles, and the Acts
Oriental MS 425, H2, Bohairic-Arabic
Oriental MS 426, Bohairic-Arabic
Oriental MS 1001, E2, Bohairic-Greek, 12th century, British Library
Oriental MS 1315, E1, Bohairic-Arabic, 1208, British Library
Oriental MS 1316, H3, Bohairic-Arabic, 1663, British Library
Oriental MS 1317, Bohairic-Arabic, 1814, British Library
Oriental MS 3381, 13th century, British Library
Add MS 5995, D4, Bohairic-Arabic, 14th century, British Library
Add MS 14470, Bohairic-Arabic, 15th century, British Library
Codex Marshall Or. 5 - Bohairic-Greek, 14th century, Bodleian Library
Codex Marshall Or. 6 - Bohairic-Greek, 1320, Bodleian Library
Codex Marshall Or. 99 - 16th century, Bodleian Library
Other dialects
Papyrus Michigan 3520 and (6868a), 4-5 century, dialect fayyumic, 1 John, 2 Petrus
Papyrus Bodmer XLII — 2 Corinthians 10:15-11:12; Sahidic

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2023 5:43 am**

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:53 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am a) What are the earliest dated (or approximately dated) books originally written in Coptic?
From the Bentley Layton quote above: "

1) "Standardised Egyptian Coptic begins with biblical manuscripts dating to about 300 CE shortly after the translation of the Christian Bible into Coptic.

What? If that's the claim then what is this 3rd century evidence that the Christian bible was translated to Coptic before 300 CE? Who did this translation? Where and when?

Does anyone know what evidence Bentley Layton puts forward in support of his claim about a Coptic Christian bible in Egypt before 300 CE? Or is he writing that 300 CE is shortly before the Christian bible was translated to Coptic?

Posted: **Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:14 am**

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 5:43 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:53 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am a) What are the earliest dated (or approximately dated) books originally written in Coptic?
From the Bentley Layton quote above: "

1) "Standardised Egyptian Coptic begins with biblical manuscripts dating to about 300 CE shortly after the translation of the Christian Bible into Coptic.

What? If that's the claim then what is this 3rd century evidence that the Christian bible was translated to Coptic before 300 CE? Who did this translation? Where and when?
Does anyone know what evidence Bentley Layton puts forward in support of his claim about a Coptic Christian bible in Egypt before 300 CE? Or is he writing that 300 CE is shortly before the Christian bible was translated to Coptic?

Why trust Bentley Layton, one of the greatest falsifiers of Christianity?
One who fakes that Doresse emends logion 74 whereas Doresse merely presented a translation without critical apparatus?
One who lies and cheats about logion 96 and translates 'colostrum' with 'leaven' without emending the critical apparatus?

: LaytonTheLiar.png (267.81 KiB) Viewed 1184 times

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3685

ⲥⲓⲣ S CF9280 Subst. m.
ⲥⲁⲓⲣ S CF31701 Subst. m.
ⲥⲁⲓⲣⲉ S CF31700 Subst. m.
ⲥⲏⲣⲉ S CF9282 Subst. m.

Scriptorium tag: N
1. (En) first milk (colostrum), butter

And Crum:

This is how honest, sincere and academic Bentley Layton is, and to what extent he is prepared to go via falsifying texts in order to uphold the charade of his beloved Churchianity. A true Pharisee in the sense of Thomas. There is no textual evidence for meaning 'leaven', and I have gone by all Coptic exemplars (so desperately) mentioned by Crum. It is almost as if Crum were aware of Thomas and frantically had to invent a word that was similar to leaven - but no Coptic text on the face of the earth, save for a 9th CE Shenoute (that I still haven't looked at) says leaven and starts with an S, unless it's the Semitic loanword Shemir / Samur etc

Posted: **Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:29 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:14 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 5:43 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:53 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am a) What are the earliest dated (or approximately dated) books originally written in Coptic?
From the Bentley Layton quote above: "

1) "Standardised Egyptian Coptic begins with biblical manuscripts dating to about 300 CE shortly after the translation of the Christian Bible into Coptic.

What? If that's the claim then what is this 3rd century evidence that the Christian bible was translated to Coptic before 300 CE? Who did this translation? Where and when?
Does anyone know what evidence Bentley Layton puts forward in support of his claim about a Coptic Christian bible in Egypt before 300 CE? Or is he writing that 300 CE is shortly before the Christian bible was translated to Coptic?

Why trust Bentley Layton, one of the greatest falsifiers of Christianity?

Well I do not trust Layton unless someone can provide evidence that a Coptic Bible existed in the 3rd century. (If that's what the above quote from Layton claims).

StephenGoranson you asked the OP question. Is Layton's claim supported or unsupported by the evidence? At the moment it looks like hot air. Can you provide evidence for the existence of a Coptic Bible before the Nicene Council?

One who fakes that Doresse emends logion 74 whereas Doresse merely presented a translation without critical apparatus?
One who lies and cheats about logion 96 and translates 'colostrum' with 'leaven' without emending the critical apparatus?

LaytonTheLiar.png

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3685

ⲥⲓⲣ S CF9280 Subst. m.
ⲥⲁⲓⲣ S CF31701 Subst. m.
ⲥⲁⲓⲣⲉ S CF31700 Subst. m.
ⲥⲏⲣⲉ S CF9282 Subst. m.

Scriptorium tag: N
1. (En) first milk (colostrum), butter

And Crum:

This is how honest, sincere and academic Bentley Layton is, and to what extent he is prepared to go via falsifying texts in order to uphold the charade of his beloved Churchianity. A true Pharisee in the sense of Thomas. There is no textual evidence for meaning 'leaven', and I have gone by all Coptic exemplars (so desperately) mentioned by Crum. It is almost as if Crum were aware of Thomas and frantically had to invent a word that was similar to leaven - but no Coptic text on the face of the earth, save for a 9th CE Shenoute (that I still haven't looked at) says leaven and starts with an S, unless it's the Semitic loanword Shemir / Samur etc

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?

Re: Earliest known Coptic books? Did canon gospel writers know Coptic?