P.Bodmer Xlii: 2 Corinthians 10:15‑11:12 in Sahidic

P.BODMER XLII: 2 CORINTHIANS 10:15‑11:12 IN SAHIDIC

By Daniel B. Sharp

P. Bodmer XLII (SMR-sa 473),1 currently owned by the Martin Bod‑ mer Foundation in Cologny, Switzerland, consists of five parchment frag‑ ments from 2 Corinthians. Rodolphe Kasser was originally tasked with publishing an edition of PB XLII, but his demanding schedule did not allow him to complete the assignment before his unfortunate passing. This article, dedicated to fulfilling Professor Kasser’s assignment, is the editio princeps of PB XLII.

Acquisition According to Kasser, P. Bodmer XLII was not part of the larger Bodmer find but was acquired later and was “… clearly distinct in origin from the Bodmer papyri proper.”2 James Robinson may have had this state‑ ment of Kasser in mind when he wrote, “There may be some unstated reason to assume [PB XLII] is not part of the Dishna discovery.”3 My own search through all the available records of the Martin Bodmer Founda‑ tion revealed no direct information about the acquisition of the manuscript, and no one currently associated with the Foundation has any knowledge of when it was acquired.4 A laser-printed document offered the intriguing heading, “BASE pour liste plus détaillée du 11.10.1971.”

1 SMR = S(chmitz)-M(ink)-R(ichter) database of the Coptic New Testament manu‑ scripts (http://intf.uni-muenster.de/smr/). 2 Kasser, “Introduction” note 5 p. XXIV, note 3 p. LIII; “Bodmer Papyri” 48b. 3 Robinson, The Story of the Bodmer Papyri 183. On page 15, however, Robinson wrote: “The presumably minor residue of still further materials at the Bibliothèque Bodmer from the same discovery … [emphasis added]” and then goes on to include PB XLII in a list of unpublished papyri. It is possible to interpret this statement as an endorsement of PB XLII as part of the same discovery of the rest of the Papyri. Probably, however, Robin‑ son is simply listing known Bodmer Papyri that had not yet been published. The reason for this belief, is that Robinson also included PB XLIV on this list which he could not possibly have thought of as from the same find as the other papyri. On page 183, Robinson dates PB XLIV to the tenth to twelfth century. It seems to me, that to include PB XLIV with the other papyri undermines the claim that they all come from a Pachomian monastery (for example see page 157 where he says the latest material that could be included in this library is from the seventh century). 4 E-mail correspondence between myself and Stasa Bibic September 11, 2016.

This document is divided into two parts: (1) “Papyrus grecs –10.5.1957” and (2) “Papyrus et parchemins coptes 28.3.1957.” I questioned the Director, Vice-Director, Conservator, Research Collaborator, and many others at the Martin Bodmer Foundation, and no one had any knowledge of the origin or author of this list, nor of the 1971 list it references.5 Because the 1957 catalog survives only hypothetically through this laser- printed version from the last decades of the twentieth century, any recon‑ struction of the earliest papyrological holdings remains uncertain. In any case, nothing on this list of Coptic manuscripts of 19576 — or in Walter Till’s description of the Coptic contents of the Bodmer collection in 19597 — matches the description of PB XLII. Thus, although the timing of its exact acquisition cannot be confirmed at this time, Kasser’s claim that XLII was acquired at a different time than the rest of the Bodmer papyri appears reasonable.

The Manuscript

I have reconstructed the five surviving fragments of PB XLII into a single folio measuring 16 cm in height by 14.3 cm in width. The text is written in two columns, with a space of approximately 1.2 cm between the columns. The left margin is 1.4 cm. The right margin is too fragmentary to reconstruct with confidence but appears to be at least 1.4 cm as well. The dimensions of PB XLII would give the codex a somewhat “square” appearance, similar to the dimensions of parchment codices dating from the 2nd to the 8th centuries that Eric Turner assigns to group X.8 The manuscript is too fragmentary to make any meaningful comments about the original construction of the codex. Each column contains 24 lines of text. The text covers 2 Corinthi‑ ans 10:15 – 11:4 on the recto, and 2 Corinthians 11:4 – 11:12 on the verso. The verso is much paler, which indicates it is the flesh side of the parchment.

5 This list was stapled to a statement about the Bodmer Papyri by Odile Bongard, Martin Bodmer’s personal secretary — the same statement published by Charles Méla in his book Legends of the Centuries. Possibly, one of these two people is the source of this list of papyri. 6 The list contains descriptions of PB XVI, XVIII, VI, XL, XXIII, XXII, XIX, III and XLI (in that order). 7 Till, “Coptic Biblical Texts” 240. 8 Turner, Typology 28–29. P.BODMER XLII: 2 CORINTHIANS 10:15‑11:12 IN SAHIDIC 179

Dialect The text is written in Sahidic, and shares a number of features with PB XIX. Discussing PB XIX, Kasser states that it contains, “… a certain number of anomalies which are, perhaps, archaisms, or, again, the result of dialectal influences.”9 These anomalies include the tendency (although not the rule) to write ⲓ as ⲉⲓ when following a vowel.10 Thus the Coptic verb ⲁⲓⲁⲓ appears in PB XLII on the recto column 1 line 5 as ⲁⲉⲓⲁⲓ. This is also true in cases involving forms of the Coptic perfect verbal prefix, normally written ⲁⲓ. Thus, on the verso column 1 lines 20–21 PB XLII has ⲁⲉⲓⲉⲩⲁ[ⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍ]ⲉ for the regular Sahidic reading of ⲁⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍⲉ. Also, verso column 2 line 11 offers ⲁⲉⲓϩⲁⲣⲉϩ for ⲁⲓϩⲁⲣⲉϩ. This ten‑ dency continues with the circumstantial of the 1st perfect (on the verso column 1 lines 17–18 it reads ⲉⲁⲉⲓⲑⲂⲃⲓⲟⲉⲓ for ⲉⲁⲓⲑ⳰Ⲃⲃⲓⲟⲉⲓ), and the 2nd perfect (on the verso column 1 line 17 it reads PB XLII ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲉⲓⲁⲁϥ instead of ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓⲁⲁϥ). As in PB XIX and other Sahidic texts, ⲉⲓ is sometimes written as ⲓ, thus ⲡϫⲟⲓⲥ for ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ11 and also ⲟⲩⲟⲓϣ for ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ.12 Another parallel between the features of PB XIX and PB XLII is that neither uses the regular Sahidic contraction of ⲑ for ⲧϩ. Thus, the normal Sahidic spelling Ⲙⲙ⳰Ⲛ⳰ⲧⲁⲑⲏⲧ is [ⲙⲙⲛ]ⲧⲁⲧϩⲏⲧ in this manuscript.13

Paleography The small portion of PB XLII that survives today is the work of a sin‑ gle scribe who writes in a biblical majuscule hand, although the variation in the thickness of strokes is less pronounced than in other examples of the biblical majuscule. For example, all strokes of the ⲙ and ⲛ are of roughly equal thickness, in contrast to the extremely thin diagonal strokes of these letters found in, for example, PB XIX. The horizontal bar of the ⲉ tends to be high, and a small ornamental mark appears at the end of thin lines, especially on the left end of the horizontal bar of the ⲧ. ⲣ, ⲩ and ϥ all descend below the baseline. Many of these traits are character‑ istic of writing samples that Pasquale Orsini places in his “second phase”

9 “… un certain nombre d’anomalies, qui sont, peut-être, des archaïsmes, ou, encore, le résultat d’influences dialectales” (Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIX 26). 10 Ibid. 11 Recto column 1 line 21, but also ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ on Recto column 1 line 16–17. 12 Verso column 1 line 14. This example also happens in P. Bodmer XIX, see Kasser, P. Bodmer XIX 28. 13 Recto column 2 line 2. 180 DANIEL B. SHARP of the Coptic biblical majuscule, dating between the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the sixth.14 There are seven examples of punctuation used to indicate transitions in this text: three examples of a high-dot, and four of a mid-dot. The first high-dot appears on the recto column 1 line 23, and indicates the large division between chapters 10 and 11. The second high-dot, which appears on the verso column 1 line 16, marks the end of verse 6 and the start of verse 7. The final example, on the verso column 2 line 20, marks the transition between verses 11 and 12. The first example of a mid-dot appears on the recto column 1 line 20, indicating a minor break in verse 18. The second is on the recto column 2 line 16, corresponding to a minor break in 2 Corinthians 11:3. The third, on the verso column 2 line 3, marks the transition from verse 8 to verse 9. The final mark, on the verso column 2 line 10, corresponds to a minor break in 2 Corinthians 11:10.15 In addition, the scribe sometimes uses spacing to indicate transitions: On the recto column 1 line 17, the significant space after ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ corre‑ sponds to the end of verse 17. There is also a space (along with the high- dot noted above) at the transition between chapters on the recto column 1 line 23. Overall, the breaks in this text correspond to fifteen modern verse breaks. Of the extant six verses that do not begin in a lacuna or as the first word of a line, five have either some punctuation mark, a larger than nor‑ mal space, or both. The only exception is 10:16, the recto column 1 line 7. There may be a minor space at the break between verses, but it is not as prominent as the space in line 17, and I see no sign of punctuation.16 I have noted only two corrections in the text. First, on the recto col‑ umn 2 line 3, the scribe seems to have written ⲁ twice and then attempted to scratch off the second one. Second, on the verso column 1 line 18, the scribe appears to have omitted a ⲥ as the last letter of the line. Although the letter could easily have been added in the margin, it is instead inserted slightly above the line and in a smaller hand than the other letters, suggest‑ ing that the scribe may have attached some importance to the evenness of the margins. The ink appears to be the same as the rest of the manuscript, so I see no reason to postulate a later corrector, although this possibility cannot be ruled out.

14 Orsini, “La maiuscola biblica copta” 131–136. 15 This final example is actually a little between a mid-dot and a high dot. Perhaps, other scholars might classify this as a high dot. 16 Perhaps there is some correlation between the lack of punctuation at this break and the fact that this manuscript omits the last word of the verse — see singular readings below. P.BODMER XLII: 2 CORINTHIANS 10:15‑11:12 IN SAHIDIC 181

Singular Readings I have compared the text of PB XLII with the Sahidic and Bohairic critical editions by Horner, as well as Thompson’s edition of the Pauline Epistles.17 I noted eleven singular readings. Eight of these singular read‑ ings are the dialectal spelling anomalies discussed above. In addition, there is a simple transposition on the recto column 1 lines 17–23 (2 Corinthi‑ ans 10:18) where this manuscript has: Ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲡ: ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲓⲥ ⲛⲁⲥⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲡⲉ·

The Sahidic witnesses have: Ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲠ. ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛⲁⲥⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲡⲉ (note the transposition of Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲁⲛ for ⲁⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ.)

The Bohairic edition, like PB XLII, has the Coptic verbal negation ⲁⲛ preceding Ⲙⲙⲟϥ, but the rest of the sentence structure is different from PB XLII: ⲫⲏ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ ⲙⲙⲁⲩⲁⲧϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲱⲧⲡ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲫⲏ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡϭⲟⲓⲥ ⲛⲁⲧⲁϩⲟϥ ⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ.

Thus, here we have a sensible transposition in the Sahidic of PB XLII, resulting in a singular reading. The other two singular readings are both omissions. The first is on the recto column 1 line 7. This is a heavily reconstructed passage and it is possible that this reconstruction is in error. But the Sahidic reading of 2 Corinthians 10:15–16 is: ⲉⲩⲚⲧⲁⲛ ⲇⲉ Ⲙⲙⲁⲩ Ⲛⲟⲩϩⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ ⲉⲥϣⲁⲛⲁⲩⲝⲁⲛⲉ ⲚϭⲓⲧⲉⲧⲚⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ· ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛⲁⲓⲁⲉⲓ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲉⲛⲕⲁⲛⲱⲛ ⲉⲩϩⲟⲩⲟ (16) ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲡⲓⲥⲁ ⲘⲙⲱⲧⲚ18

If my reconstruction of PB XLII is correct, then it omits the final word of verse 15, ⲉⲩϩⲟⲩⲟ (see the edition below): the ⲉ is clear on line 6 and the word ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍⲉ starts line 7. So, it seems that, rather than omitting the verbal prefix, resulting in nonsense, the scribe omits εἰς περισσείαν, as is the case in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions.19

17 Horner, The Coptic Version in the Northern Dialect and The Coptic Version in the Southern Dialect; Thompson, The Coptic Version. 18 Thompson, The Coptic Version 160–161. 19 Horner, The Coptic Version in the Southern Dialect, 2 Corinthians 10:15 apparatus. 182 DANIEL B. SHARP

The final singular reading is in 2 Corinthians 11:9, where the last clause ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ϯⲛⲁϩⲁⲣⲉϩ is omitted from the verso column 2 line 13. If the phrase, “and I will yet keep myself” is omitted from this passage, the remaining verse still makes sense. However, I know of no other Coptic manuscript that has this variant.

Conclusions

While the best available evidence suggests that this parchment codex was not part of Martin Bodmer’s collection prior to 1960, several char‑ acteristics connect it to other codices generally agreed to be part of the original find. The dimensions of PB XLII, 14.3 cm in width and 16 cm in height, place it comfortably within the group of “square” codices in the Bodmer find with sides of 14-16 cm.20 PB XLII is especially close in format to PB XIX, which is also a parchment codex containing Pauline material (a portion of Romans) laid out in two columns per page. I have already noted the dialectal similarities between PB XIX and XLII. In addition, both of these manuscripts are copied in the biblical majuscule, though the hands in the two manuscripts are clearly distinct. Another relevant comparison between these two codices is that both are in the double column format. Although Turner notes that “… the double column was a favored for‑ mat for the parchment codex,”21 this is not true for the parchment codices among the Bodmer “Papyri.”22 Of the seven parchment codices in the collection, only PB XIX and PB XLII have the double column format23. There are, however, dozens of examples of double column parchment manuscripts commonly dated to the fifth century or before in Turner’s list of codices.24 Not included among these, but relevant to our discussion are P. Palau Rib. Inv. 181, 182, and 183. This parchment Coptic codex of Mark, Luke and John is written in two columns and was included by Robinson as also possibly being part of the Bodmer find.25 Also relevant is the Crosby-Schøyen Codex. Although this codex is papyrus and not

20 PB II, the Bodmer “Composite” codex, PB XVI, PB XVIII, and PB XIX. 21 Turner, Typology 35. 22 PB VI, XVI, XIX, XXII, XL, XLII and XLIV. PB XXXIX is also parchment but is a roll and not a codex. 23 Actually the double-column format becomes standard in the later Coptic tradition: see Nagel, “Koptische Bibelhandschriften.” 24 Turner, Typology 102–185. 25 Robinson, Bodmer Papyri 182. P.BODMER XLII: 2 CORINTHIANS 10:15‑11:12 IN SAHIDIC 183 parchment, it is a Coptic codex and is regarded by many scholars to be part of the same find as the rest of the Bodmer papyri.26 These examples are sufficient to show that just because PB XLII is written in the two col‑ umn format is not a reason to automatically exclude it from being part of the Bodmer find. Thus, while PB XLII was not included in the 1957 list of codices owned by Martin Bodmer, it certainly would have been at home on that list. There could be a number of reasons it was not included. The list compiler may not have considered these five small fragments worth noting next to such complete codices as PB VI, XIX, XXII, etc. Or perhaps in the late 1950s the five parchment pieces that would eventually come to be known as PB XLII were thought to be fragments belonging to one of the other Cop‑ tic codices, and only later, upon closer examination, were identified as being from a different codex.27 It is also possible that PB XLII, while part of the same find, was purchased later; or was a later purchase from a dif‑ ferent find. I would agree with the sentiment of Brent Nongbri, my col‑ league at the Bodmer Lab: “On the whole, it seems to me that Kasser’s strict dissociation of PB XLII from the rest of the find is unwarranted. While it is just a single fragmen‑ tary leaf, its similarities to other pieces agreed to be part of the Bodmer find render it at least possible that this leaf too stems from the same discovery.”28

Edition

Text

Recto: 2 Cor 10:15‑11:4 (Fig. 1) 10:15 [ⲉⲩⲛⲧ]ⲁⲛ [ⲇⲉ ⲙⲙⲁ] [ⲙⲟⲓ ]ⲛⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩⲓ [ⲙ] [ⲩ] ⲛⲟⲩϩⲉⲗⲡⲓ[ⲥ ⲉⲥ] [ⲙⲛ]ⲧⲁⲧϩⲏⲧ ⲁ[ⲗⲗⲁ] ϣⲁⲛⲁⲩⲝⲁⲛⲉ ⲛ[ϭⲓ] [ⲧⲉ]ⲧⲛⲁ〚ⲁ〛ⲛⲉⲭⲉ ϯ 11:2 ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉ[ⲧ] [ⲕⲱϩ ⲅⲁⲣ] ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲚ ⲣⲉⲛⲁⲉⲓⲁⲓ Ⲛϩⲏ[ⲧ] 5 [ⲛⲟⲩⲕ]ⲱϩ Ⲛⲧⲉ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉ[ⲛ] [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲉⲓⲥⲃ]

26 Ibid. 83–93. 27 To support the idea that fragments of the Bodmer Papyri could be overlooked in the 1950s see Nongbri and Hall, “Melito’s Peri pascha 1-5.” 28 E-mail correspondence between Brent Nongbri and myself (August 17, 2017). We would note, however, that it is possible that Kasser had knowledge of the acquisition of these pieces that is not available to the author. 184 DANIEL B. SHARP

10:16 ⲕⲁⲛⲱⲛ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛ [ⲧⲱⲧ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲡⲁⲣϩⲓ] ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍⲉ [ⲛⲛⲉ] [ⲥⲧⲁ ⲙⲙⲱⲧⲛ ⲛⲟⲩ] ⲧⲡⲓⲥⲁ ⲙⲙⲱ[ⲧⲛ] [ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲥⲟⲩ] ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲛⲱⲛ [ⲁⲛ ⲉⲙ] 10 [ⲁⲁⲃ ⲛⲟⲩϩⲁⲓ ⲛⲟⲩ] ⲡⲱⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲉ[ⲧⲣⲉⲛ] [ⲱⲧ ⲡⲉⲬⲤ ϯⲣ] 11:3 ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ Ⲙ[ⲙⲟⲛ] [ϩⲟ]ⲧⲉ [ⲇⲉ ϫⲉ ⲙⲏⲡⲟ] 10:17 ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲧⲥⲃⲧⲱ[ⲧ ⲡⲉ] [ⲧ]ⲉ Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲡ[ϩⲟϥ] ⲧϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ [ⲇⲉ ⲙ] [ⲉ]ⲝⲁⲡⲁⲧⲁ Ⲛⲉⲩϩⲁ ⲙⲟϥ ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥ[ϣ]ⲟⲩ 15 ϩⲛ ⲧⲉϥⲡⲁⲛⲟⲩⲣⲅⲓ ϣⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϩⲘ ⲡ ⲁ‧ ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲁⲕⲟ Ⲛϭⲓ 10:18 ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ ⲛⲉⲧⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲥⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲛ ϩⲛ ⲧⲙⲚⲧϩⲁⲡⲗⲟⲩ[ⲥ] Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁϥ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲧⲂⲃⲟ ⲉⲧ[ϫⲓ] ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲠ ‧ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲡⲉ 20 ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲉⲬ[Ⲥ] ⲧⲉⲣⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲓⲥ ⲛⲁ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧ[ⲛⲏⲩ] 11:4 ⲥⲩⲛϩⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲁⲧⲁ[ϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ] 11:1 ⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲛⲟ̇ ⲩⲥ ⲉⲛⲉ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ [ⲛⲕⲉⲓⲤ] [ⲧ]ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲁⲛⲉⲭⲉ Ⲙ ⲉⲙⲡⲉⲛ[ⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ]

Verso: 2 Cor 11:4‑12 (Fig. 2)

[ⲙ]ⲙⲟϥ ⲏ ⲧⲉ[ⲧⲛⲁ] [ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ] ⲁ[ⲉⲓϫⲓ] [ϫⲓ] ⲕⲉⲡⲚⲀ⳰ ⲉ[ⲙⲡⲉ] [ⲙⲡⲁⲟ]ⲯⲱⲛⲓⲟⲛ ⲉ[ⲉⲓ] ⲧⲛϫⲓⲧϥ ⲏ ⲕ[ⲉⲉⲩⲁⲅ] [ⲇⲓ]ⲁⲕⲟⲛⲓ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ‧ ⲁⲩ[ⲱ] 11:9 ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ[ ⲉⲙⲡⲉⲧⲛ] [ⲛ]ⲧⲉⲣⲓϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲉⲉⲓ ϣⲟⲡϤ̣ⲉ [ⲣⲱⲧⲛ ⲉⲓⲉ] 5 [ϩ]ⲁⲧⲛ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ Ⲙⲡⲓ [ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲉⲭⲉ] [ⲟ]ⲩⲉϩϩⲓⲥⲉ ⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲡⲁ̇ 11:5 [ϯⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲓ] [ϣ]ⲱⲱⲧ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲛⲉⲥ [ϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲛⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲡⲁ] [ⲛⲏ]ⲩ ϫⲟⲕϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛ [ⲣⲁ ⲛⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟ] [ⲧⲉⲣ]ⲟⲩⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲧ 11:6 [ⲗⲟⲥ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲅ ⲟⲩ] 10 [ⲙⲁⲕ]ⲉⲇⲟⲛⲓⲁ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲚ [ϩⲓⲇⲓⲱⲧⲏⲥ ⲇⲉ ϩⲙ] [ϩⲱ]ⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲁⲉⲓϩⲁⲣⲉϩ [ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲁⲗⲗ]ⲁ [ϩⲙ ⲡ] [ⲉⲣⲟ]ⲓ ⲉⲧⲘϩⲣⲟϣ ⲉⲣⲱ [ⲥⲟ]ⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲁⲗⲗ[ⲁ] [ⲧⲛ ⲟⲩ]ⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉ 11:10 ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲟⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲁ[ⲛ] [ⲡⲉⲬⲤ] Ⲛϩⲏⲧ ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲓ ⲟⲩⲟⲛϩⲚ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ ϩⲛ 15 ϣⲟ[ⲩ]ϣⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲱϫⲚ 11:7 ϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ̇ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲛⲟ ⲁⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟ[ⲓ ϩⲛ] ⲃⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲉⲓⲁⲁϥ ⲉ ⲛⲉⲕⲗⲓⲙⲁ Ⲛⲧⲁⲭⲁⲓⲁ ⲁⲉⲓⲑⲂⲃⲓⲟⲉⲓ ϫⲉⲕⲁ\ⲥ/ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ϯⲙⲉ Ⲙ 11:11 [ⲛⲧ]ⲱⲧⲛ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉ ⲙⲱⲧⲚ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ [ϫⲓⲥ]ⲉ ϫⲉ ⲁⲉⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅ 20 ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ̇ⲡⲉϯⲉⲓ 11:12 [ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍ]ⲉ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ Ⲙ ⲣⲉ ⲇⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϯⲛⲁⲁ [ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ]ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ Ⲙ ⲁϥ ⲟⲛ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲓⲉ [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] Ⲛϫⲓⲛϫ̣ ⲏ ̇ ϭⲱⲱϫⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛⲧⲁ 11:8 [ⲁⲉⲓⲥⲩⲗ]ⲁ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲕⲉ ⲫⲟⲣⲙⲏ ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩ[ⲉϣ?] P.BODMER XLII: 2 CORINTHIANS 10:15‑11:12 IN SAHIDIC 185

Translation

10:15 … Having hope, if your faith should increase, for us to be magnified in you according to our standard, 16 for us to evangelize those who are beyond you, not in an standard which is not ours; for us to pride ourselves in things which are prepared. 17 But the one who prides himself, let him pride himself in the Lord. 18 For he who will commend himself is not chosen, but he whom the Lord commends is. 11:1 It is good if you will endure with me a little foolishness, but you will endure. 2 For I am jealous to you with a jealousy of God. For I was prepared to present you a pure virgin to one husband — Christ. 3 But I fear that. as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds (hearts) may be corrupted from the sin‑ cerity and the pureness which belong in Christ. 4 For if the one who comes will preach to you another Jesus whom we did not preach, or you will receive another spirit which you did not receive or another gospel which you did not accepted then well will you bear with (him). 5 For I think that I lacked not anything before the great apostles. 6 But if I am unskilled in word but in knowledge not but in all times we manifested ourselves to you in everything. 7 Is it a sin which I have done that I have humbled myself that you might be exalted because I evangelized to you the gospel of God freely? 8 I robbed other churches, I took my wages, ministering unto you. 9 And when I had been lacking, being with you, I disturbed not anyone, for my lack the brothers filled it up when they had come out from Macedonia. And in everything I kept myself, not to be burdensome to you. 10 There is truth of Christ in me that this glorying will not cease toward me in the region of Achaia. 11 Why? Because I love you not? God knows. 12 But the thing which I do, I will do it again in order that I might cut out the occasion of those who …

Bibliography

Horner, George W. The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect: otherwise called Memphitic and Bohairic. 4 vols. Oxford 1898. —. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect: otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic. 7 vols. Oxford 1911. Kasser, Rodolphe. “Bodmer Papyri.” In: CoptEnc 8, 48b-53b. —. “Introduction.” In: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana: La collection des Papyrus Bod- mer. Manuscrits de textes grecs classiques, grecs et coptes bibliques et de littérature chrétienne, du 2 au 9 siècle, edited by M. Bircher. Munich 2000. —. Papyrus Bodmer XIX: Evangile de Matthieu XIV, 28 - XXVIII, 20 Epître aux Romains I, 1 - II, 3 en sahidique. Cologny-Genève 1962. 186 DANIEL B. SHARP

Méla, Charles, Starobinski, Jean, Macey, David, and Lamoine, Sylviane. Legends of the Centuries: Looking through a Legendary Collection: Martin Bodmer Foundation. Paris 2004. Nagel, Peter. “Koptische Bibelhandschriften des Alten Testaments aus frühisla‑ mischer Zeit.” In: Die Koptische Kirche in den ersten drei islamischen Jahrhunderten, edited by Walter Beltz and Hans-Martin Schenke, 131-155. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 36. Halle 2003. Nongbri, Brent, and Stuart G. Hall. “Melito’s Peri pascha 1-5 as Recovered from a ‘Lost’ Leaf of Papyrus Bodmer XIII.” JTS (Forthcoming). Orsini, Pasquale. “La Maiuscola Biblica Copta.” Segno e Testo: International Journal of Manuscripts and Text Transmission 6 (2008), 121-144. Robinson, James M. The Story of the Bodmer Papyri: From the First Monastery’s Library in Upper Egypt to Geneva and Dublin. Eugene, Oregon 2011. Thompson, Herbert. The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect. Cambridge 1932. Till, Walter C. “Coptic Biblical Texts Published after Vaschalde’s List.” BJRL 42 (1959), 220-240. Turner, Eric G. The Typology of the Early Codex. [Philadelphia] University of Pennsylvania Press 1977.

Daniel B. Sharp Brigham Young University-Hawaii [email protected] P.BODMER XLII: 2 CORINTHIANS 10:15‑11:12 IN SAHIDIC 187

Fig. 1. P.Bodmer XLII recto: 2 Cor 10:15-11:4 188 DANIEL B. SHARP

Fig. 2. P.Bodmer XLII verso: 2 Cor 11:4-12