5

A CODEX LEAF FROM A SHORT RECENSION (REC. D) OF THE LIBER BARTHOLOMAEI (LB)

Parchment Berlin P. inv. unknown X A.D. H. 14.5 x W. 21 cm White Monastery, Akhmîm?

This piece is the remains of a codex leaf selected from the unsorted storage boxes in Charlottenberg (Papyrus-Sammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin) in the 1990s. The original provenance of the codex is unknown, but it may derive from the White Monastery (see below). This was one of a number of Coptic texts/fragments gathered together by Paul Mirecki as of interest for further work and editing. He recalls that W. Brashear had placed it into a folded blotter sheet with other items marked ‘März 1971’ (presumably referring to the time of purchase for a set of papyrus and vellum mss.).1 The envelope was in a large cardboard box inscribed ‘Coptic varia’ on the front panel, this box having been created for the specific purpose of collecting together pieces that were of current interest to scholars. Mirecki also has a note that Maehler (Brashear’s predecessor) had had an inventory list of the March 1971 purchase, and that this was seen by C.W. Hedrick (though not by himself). A photocopy of (a photograph of) the text was one of a number forwarded to myself for the purpose of co-editing with Mirecki. However, we have both been occupied with other research, and that project has never been fulfilled. Still, the piece is of some especial interest, and I am pleased to use this auspicious occasion to put it in the public domain.2

Preservation There remains here one major fragment (plus a scrap)3 of a decorated double column codex leaf on parchment, inscribed in Sahidic on both sides. The edges of both columns are visible. The upper part of the text is missing; but we may have the lowest line, (the first column on side B appears to have a large band of margin below it). If the leaves were the same dimensions as the two mss. of the apocryphon (ca. 31-32 lines/col.), the upper half of each page would be missing.

1 Further to these comments (in which I follow personal correspondence of 2007 from Paul Mirecki) see n. 6 on p. 2 of C.W. HEDRICK — P.A. MIRECKI, The Gospel of the Savior (Santa Rosa, 1999). 2 P. Mirecki has kindly agreed to my proceeding with this alone. I acknowledge his important contribution to the original identification of the text. I also note that this article is (greatly) revised from an oral presentation I made to a papyrology seminar held at the University of Kansas (Lawrence) in 2000. At that time M. Choat had assisted me in collecting reference material. I thank all concerned. 3 This appears below the text on the original photocopy that I have. However, for the purposes of this publication Mirecki was kind enough to send a photograph dated ‘2003’ (taken by Margarete Büsing). On this the scrap has moved and now covers side Ai, 10; thus the clear reading of is obscured. Turn the photograph around and one can read .

[19] 20 GREEK AND COPTIC LITERARY TEXTS

Content This is evidently a Bartholomew apocryphon, with clear parallels (but also major variation) to the published recensions of ‘The Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by Bartholomew the Apostle’. At least, that is the title that was accorded to the work by E.A. Wallis Budge; there are various issues of title, genre and indeed relationship to the supposed Gospel of Bartholomew. In brief: There are two text cycles, this work (represented only in Coptic) and the Questions of Bartholomew (in Greek, Latin and Slavonic). Their relationship to each other and to the lost Gospel is a matter of debate.4 In this paper I follow most recent practice and term the work simply Liber Bartholomaei. See in particular: E. A. WALLIS BUDGE, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper (London, 1913), pp. 1-48, 179-230; M. PIERRE LACAU, Fragments d’apocryphes Coptes (MIFAO 9, , 1904), sections iii-iv. There is bibliography and general discussion by W. SCHNEEMELCHER in E. HENNECKE (trans. R. MCL. WILSON), New Testament Apocrypha I (London, 1963), pp. 485, 503ff. The latest editions (but still not including the full range of leaves identified in recent years) are by J.-D. KAESTLI — P. CHERIX, L’évangile de Barthélemy d’après deux écrits apocryphes (Turnhout, 1993), and M. WESTERHOFF, Auferstehung und Jenseits im koptischen “Buch der Auferstehung Jesu Christi, unseres Herrn” (Wiesbaden, 1999).5 Three manuscripts of the Liber Bartholomaei are known (or at least currently recognised in the literature). The most complete is held in London and was published by BUDGE: BL Or. 6804 = Rec. C; this is listed by SCHNEEMELCHER,6 following F. HAASE, ‘Zur Rekonstruktion des Bartholomäusevangeliums,’ ZNW 16 (1915), pp. 93-112, as K2, op. cit. pp. 504, 507f. Then there are the remains of two manuscripts from the White Monastery, as edited primarily by LACAU, which are preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and elsewhere (SCHNEEMELCHER lists them as two versions of K1, op. cit., pp. 504-507): from Bibl. Nat. Copte 78 et al., ed. pr. by DULAURIER, Fragment des révélations apocryphes de Saint Bartholémy (Paris, 1835) = Rec. B (= LACAU’s manuscript B); and from Bibl. Nat. 17 Copte 129 et al. = Rec. A (= LACAU’s manuscript A). Rec. B (which, confusingly, includes leaves from Bibl. Nat. Copte 12917) was also edited by E. RÉVILLOUT, Les apocryphes coptes (1904, reprinted Turnhout, 1985 = PO 2, 2), pp.

4 There is also the question of relationship to other works such as the so-called Gospel of the Savior (op. cit.); see the comments of S. EMMEL, ‘The recently published Gospel of the Savior (“Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium”): Righting the order of pages and events’, Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002), pp. 45-72 (especially p. 48). 5 I should comment that I had access to neither KAESTLI — CHERIX nor WESTERHOFF whilst preparing this paper in October 2007. I obtained the latter after the draft was completed, and see that some of my comments have been anticipated. Nevertheless, I have thought it worthwhile to leave my text essentially unaltered as it does represent independent thinking and conclusions of some interest. As an aid I have added cross-references to the section numbers in WESTERHOFF’s synoptic edition (listed in italics as e.g. W25). I also thank here P. van Minnen who kindly supplied a copy of his forthcoming review of WESTERHOFF (to appear in OLP). 6 He comments that it is more of a ‘paraphrase’; but the recent consensus (following especially WESTERHOFF’s detailed study, op. cit.) is that C is the best of the three known recensions (i.e. closest to the original and retaining archaic features glossed or omitted in the others).