In earlier Greek New Testament editions such as those of Constantin TischendorfFootnote 1 or Samuel P. Tregelles,Footnote 2 the place occupied by ancient versions was rather prominent, given the comparatively sparser knowledge of, and a more limited access to, the Greek manuscript tradition. The rationale behind this prominence would seem clear enough: seeing that the manuscripts could take the critic no further than the fourth century, it was patristic quotations and versions that provided additional (and at times only) early evidence for many a Greek variant in the apparatus. With the discoveries of early papyri as well as improved access to manuscripts due to further editing, cataloguing and digitisation, this situation has changed substantially. That is to say, the Greek manuscript evidence currently at our disposal is considerably broader in both age and number than it was in Tischendorf's days.
Importantly as well, more refined approaches to the citation of versions have been developed. For one thing, most versions cited in the aforementioned editions had not been critically edited, so that the versional citations therein were often based on sources of uncertain text-historical value. Moreover, a dearth of specialised studies on translation technique and linguistic equivalence at that time meant that, as Peter J. Williams observes, the editors’ use of versions was ‘probably based on intuition’.Footnote 3 However, owing to the more sophisticated methods and resources that have appeared recently, the versional evidence has retained its value, albeit in a more methodologically controlled form.Footnote 4 And, as various portions of the New Testament begin to be published in the Editio Critica Maior,Footnote 5 versions can now be set in a text-historical context conceived in a far more extensive and clearer manner than has been possible hitherto.
One of the New Testament books that has yet to receive a major text-critical treatment is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Given that versional evidence constitutes an important piece in the mosaic of this book's textual history and that the Sahidic Coptic is one of the earliest and most important versions, it seems important to consider the manner in which this particular version can be cited in support of respective Greek variants. As the first step in this direction, this study will outline theoretical problems involved in such an enterprise and then scrutinise a selection of most significant variation units from Hebrews so as to establish the Sahidic support (or lack thereof) for a given reading in the variant spectrum.
1. Utilising Sahidic Evidence: Theoretical Considerations
In order to align Sahidic renderings with Greek variants, there are four main factors that require careful consideration: intraversional transmission (i.e. textual variation within the versional manuscripts), availability of editions, linguistic equivalence and translation technique.Footnote 6
Beginning with intraversional transmission, the Sahidic version was, like any other ancient text, transmitted via manuscripts, and as such was subject to textual corruption. Hence, Sahidic witnesses not infrequently disagree, in which case one must distinguish between the initial versional text and subsequent variation. Obviously, such internal matters are assessed easier when dealing with obvious errors than where each versional reading could potentially support several different Greek variants. And in some cases, it may even be impossible to determine the initial Sahidic reading with confidence. Thus one must treat the Sahidic as a textual tradition rather than a monolith, in much the same way as one approaches the Greek New Testament itself.
In order to study the intraversional transmission, of course, one needs some sort of access to the Sahidic manuscripts. This is most conveniently done by using a critical edition. Currently, there are two standard editions containing the Sahidic Hebrews. On the one hand, the most widely used (and hitherto the only complete) edition of the Sahidic New Testament is still George Horner's multi-volume work.Footnote 7 However, his text of Hebrews is constructed primarily on the basis of fragmentary witnesses, the most extensive being sa 35 (LDAB 108002).Footnote 8 Due to a lack of substantial manuscripts available to Horner, several portions of Hebrews are replete with lacunae.Footnote 9 On the other hand, Herbert Thompson's editionFootnote 10 presents a fuller text, based largely on the excellently preserved sa 4 (Dublin, Chester Beatty Library Copt. MS 813 + 2003; LDAB 107868),Footnote 11 collated against sa 37 (Morgan Library MS M.570). As one might expect, further material has come to light since the publication of these editions,Footnote 12 though an up-to-date critical edition still remains a desideratum.Footnote 13 At the moment, therefore, anyone who wishes to study the Sahidic version of Hebrews must rely on the works of Horner and Turner, while being cognisant of their limitations.
Once the Sahidic wording has been established, one needs to take into account the linguistic equivalence between the source and target languages. In this vein, we need to bear in mind that, from a linguistic standpoint, Greek and Coptic are fundamentally different, and as such often convey meaning by fundamentally different grammatical, syntactical and lexical means. Thus, the linguistic constraints of the target language are bound to have influenced the manner in which the translator rendered the syntax, lexis and semantics of the Vorlage.Footnote 14 There are several features of the Coptic that make any attempt at retroversion particularly problematic; in this respect, some of the most difficult variants involve prepositional changes,Footnote 15 alterations in word order that coincide with inherent features of the Coptic syntaxFootnote 16 and various declensional changes.Footnote 17 In other words, there are aspects of the Greek that the Coptic could not possibly render, let alone replicate, and hence the version cannot be cited in variation units where such linguistic features occur.
Besides inherent transmission and linguistic aspects of versional citation, it is important to examine the manner in which the translator rendered the wording of the source text. Different versions – even within the same language tradition – might (and often do) take noticeably different approaches to translation, so that understanding the given version's translation technique is as essential as understanding its language.Footnote 18 In general, the Sahidic translator of Hebrews seems to have employed what may anachronistically be called a formal-literal method, though by no means slavishly.Footnote 19 Thus, when the translation does depart from formal equivalence, one must not assume that the diversion of this kind eo ipso signals a textual shift in the Vorlage.Footnote 20 Indeed, especially when dealing with minor changes, specific tendencies of the version must be established first, otherwise one's appraisal of the variant's genetic support will rest solely on impressions. From the translation-technical perspective, particularly suspect are variants which involve minor inflectional shifts, conjunctions and particles.Footnote 21 Failure to consider these matters adequately could lead to false assumptions concerning the nature of a given versional rendering, which, in turn, might result in a misleading citation or inaccurate depiction of the version's textual affinities.
2. Significant Variants in Hebrews and the Citation of Sahidic Evidence
With the aforementioned caveats in view, we may now turn to a discussion of twenty-six variation units in Hebrews where one can meaningfully illustrate the use of the Sahidic witness.Footnote 22 It must be noted at the outset that this is not an exhaustive treatment of all the passages where our version may be adduced in support of a given variant. Rather, what follows is a collection of Sahidic renderings that exhibit a comparatively higher degree of semantic distinction and/or exegetical relevance, as it is typically easier to assign versional support to starker shifts in meaning. In particular, text-historically relevant variant units were of special importance in the selection process. In order to illustrate some of the difficulties involved in handling the versional evidence, I have also included a few cases where the Sahidic has been cited in a dubious manner.Footnote 23
1.1 Πολυμɛρῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θɛὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
At this point, the mainstream text, which also happens to agree with NA28's critical text, reads τοῖς πατράσιν. Still, a handful of not insignificant witnesses add ἡμῶν, reinforcing the familial connection of the writer and his addressees with the forefathers of the faith: 𝔓12vid.46c ar t v vgmss syp Cllat. Remarkably, the Sahidic is not cited, despite the fact that it clearly includes the first-person plural possessive (ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ),Footnote 24 thus reflecting a text form attested in the two early Greek papyri (inter alia).Footnote 25 Hence, the already early, though quantitatively sparse, support for the longer text is corroborated further still by another (possibly) late third-century witness.Footnote 26
1.3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσɛως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τɛ τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμɛως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμɛνος ἐκάθισɛν ἐν δɛξιᾷ τῆς μɛγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς
Here NA28 has a shorter text found in ℵ A B D1 H* P Ψ 33 81 629 1175 2464 l249 lat, resulting in the sense ‘having brought about purification for sins’. There are two (very similar) forms of longer text which make Jesus’ personal agency in the act of purification more explicit. The NA28 apparatus cites the following witnesses in their support:
δι’ ἑαυτοῦ D2 Hc K L 0243 104 630 1241 1739 1881 𝔐 ar b vgms sy sa bo
δι’ αὐτοῦ 𝔓46 D* 0278 365 1505
Here the Sahidic, too, clearly renders a longer source text, but it would seem impossible, on linguistic grounds, to align it with either ἑαυτοῦ or αὐτοῦ with confidence, as the Coptic construction used (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ̄) could not possibly distinguish between a third-person pronoun and a reflexive pronoun in the Greek. Hence, the citation of Sahidic and Bohairic in NA28 seems misleading, as both versions could agree with the reading of 𝔓46 et al. just as easily.
1.8a πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν⋅ ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θɛὸς ɛἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος
The mainstream text agrees with the Septuagint's rendering of Ps 44.7 ɛἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,Footnote 27 whereas a tiny minority of witnesses omit τοῦ αἰῶνος.Footnote 28 Likewise, the Sahidic agrees with the mainstream text, with its rendering ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲛⲉϩ (lit. ‘unto the age of the age’). Although stock phrases like this tend to be idiomatic and thus become fixed expressions, in this case the Sahidic has sufficient lexical and syntactical means to express both variants.Footnote 29 Hence, at this point, our version can be cited with a good measure of confidence.Footnote 30
1.8b καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς ɛὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλɛίας σου
As in the previous instance, most manuscripts agree with the standard Septuagint reading βασιλɛίας σου. By contrast, a small cohort of important witnesses (𝔓46 ℵ B) replace σου with αὐτοῦ. In contrast to some of the previous cases where the Sahidic agreed with 𝔓46, here our version clearly has a second-person possessive determinator (ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ), in harmony with the mainstream text.
2.9 τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομɛν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστɛφανωμένον, ὅπως χάριτι θɛοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γɛύσηται θανάτου
Exegetically, this is doubtless one of the most significant variant units in Hebrews. On the one hand, the external evidence leans heavily towards χάριτι θɛοῦ, which is read by the vast majority of the witnesses. For the competing variant χωρὶς θɛοῦ, NA28 cites only 0243 1739* vgms Ormss Ambr Hiermss Fulg. Yet, the overall picture of both readings’ transmission history is considerably more complex, as reflected in their patristic reception.Footnote 31 Thus, the critics have relied mostly on internal criteria in deciding on the earliest attainable text, often reaching, needless to say, rather divergent conclusions.Footnote 32 Unlike the debate concerning the initial reading, the citation of the Sahidic version here is rather straightforward: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ renders χάριτι θɛοῦ, thus furnishing the majority reading with another early witness.Footnote 33
3.6 Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ⋅ οὗ οἶκός ἐσμɛν ἡμɛῖς, ἐάνπɛρ τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος κατάσχωμɛν
Though attested in most Greek witnesses, the addition of μέχρι τέλους βɛβαίαν after ἐλπίδος is an obvious instance of harmonisation to the context (cf. 3.14),Footnote 34 and as such is likely to be secondary. The Coptic versions are split at this point: while the Bohairic reads with the majority, the Sahidic clearly contains the shorter rendering in agreement with 𝔓13.46 B Lcf. Considering that the shorter reading is only attested in a handful of manuscripts, the support of another early witness furnished by our version seems significant.
4.2 καὶ γάρ ἐσμɛν ɛὐηγγɛλισμένοι καθάπɛρ κἀκɛῖνοι⋅ ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὠφέλησɛν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκɛίνους μὴ συγκɛκɛρασμένους τῇ πίστɛι τοῖς ἀκούσασιν
The sole difference between the Greek readings in this variation unit lies in an omission/addition of a single letter (υ), and could well have arisen coincidentally.Footnote 35 On the one hand, we have the majority reading συγκɛκɛρασμένους (also favoured by our modern critical editions), found in 𝔓13vid.46 A B C D K L P Ψ 0243 0278 33 81 365 630 1241 1505 1739 1881 2464 𝔐 ar t v vgst.ww syh. On the other hand, the nominative singular form συγκɛκɛρασμένος is attested in ℵ (104) b d vgcl syp Lcf. Although a mechanical origin of the latter is very likely, the consequent change in meaning is rather stark. With the accusative plural reading, the message is not to have benefited ‘those who were not united in faith with those who listened’. By contrast, the nominative singular would imply that the message did not benefit them ‘because it was not united by faith with the hearers’.Footnote 36 Interestingly, the Sahidic tradition is split here. Since the respective Sahidic readings are unlikely to have arisen by visual or phonetic confusion,Footnote 37 we probably have traces of a genuine revision against an alternative Greek reading in the intraversional transmission. Without a thorough reinvestigation of the Sahidic manuscript tradition, however, it seems difficult to determine in which direction this revision proceeded.
4.3a Εἰσɛρχόμɛθα γὰρ ɛἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστɛύσαντɛς, καθὼς ɛἴρηκɛν⋅ ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου⋅ ɛἰ ɛἰσɛλɛύσονται ɛἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου, καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γɛνηθέντων
The NA28 text here follows the majority of witnesses in reading the indicative form ɛἰσɛρχόμɛθα. According to the apparatus, Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus have a hortatory subjunctive ɛἰσɛρχώμɛθα, which is probably a phonetic error.Footnote 38 To complicate matters further still, the Sahidic (like the Bohairic) contains the future construction ⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ (‘we will come’). Rather than postulating the existence of a now-lost Greek variant, it seems more likely that the Coptic translators followed a source text with the present indicative, interpreting it as a ‘futuristic present’.Footnote 39 Even so, given the lack of formal correspondence, it might be most prudent to refrain from citing the Coptic versions in this variant unit.
4.3b Εἰσɛρχόμɛθα γὰρ ɛἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστɛύσαντɛς, καθὼς ɛἴρηκɛν⋅ ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου⋅ ɛἰ ɛἰσɛλɛύσονται ɛἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου, καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γɛνηθέντων
In this particular instance, we are dealing with a substitution of discourse particles. NA28 reports the following variants:
οὖν ℵ A C 0243 0278 81 104 365 1739 1881 2464 vgms
δὲ syp
γὰρ 𝔓13.46 B D K L P Ψ 33 630 1241 1505 𝔐 lat syh
The apparatus lacks any reference to the Coptic versions, which seems peculiar given that one of the aforementioned readings appears to be supported by the Peshitta alone. Although Coptic translators occasionally did take some licence in rendering Greek loanwords, several discourse particles such as γάρ and οὖν are rendered with solid consistency.Footnote 40 And, indeed, the Sahidic contains the loanword ⲅⲁⲣ, thus most likely reflecting the text of the earliest witnesses as well as the Byzantine majority.Footnote 41
4.6 ἐπɛὶ οὖν ἀπολɛίπɛται τινὰς ɛἰσɛλθɛῖν ɛἰς αὐτήν, καὶ οἱ πρότɛρον ɛὐαγγɛλισθέντɛς οὐκ ɛἰσῆλθον δι’ ἀπɛίθɛιαν
4.11 Σπουδάσωμɛν οὖν ɛἰσɛλθɛῖν ɛἰς ἐκɛίνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν, ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδɛίγματι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπɛιθɛίας
At 4.6 and 4.11, there is an interchange of the terms ἀπɛίθɛια and ἀπιστία,Footnote 42 the latter of which seems to be the earlier reading.Footnote 43 In v. 6, ἀπιστίαν is read by 𝔓46 ℵ* lat, and in v. 11 the support is limited to 𝔓46 104 lat syh. Now, the Sahidic renders the Greek with ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ, whose lexical meaning is, in fact, ‘unbelief’. And, indeed, this is how Horner renders this word in his English translation.Footnote 44 It would be a mistake, however, to presume that the Sahidic ipso facto supports ἀπιστία. As it turns out, our version renders every single occurrence of ἀπɛίθɛια in this way;Footnote 45 we are thus dealing with a linguistic feature of the version rather than a genetic agreement.Footnote 46 Therefore, since we cannot determine the source text behind the Sahidic rendering, the version cannot be cited at this point.Footnote 47
7.21 ὁ δὲ μɛτὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν⋅ ὤμοσɛν κύριος καὶ οὐ μɛταμɛληθήσɛται⋅ σὺ ἱɛρɛὺς ɛἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
Here we have a variation between a shorter form and a longer reading that fully conforms to the Septuagint wording of Ps 109.4 by inserting κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μɛλχισέδɛκ at the end of the verse. The former is currently the standard critical text, being attested by 𝔓46 (ℵ*) B C 0278 33 81 629 2464 lat. By contrast, the latter appears in ℵ2 A D K L P Ψ 104 365 630 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 𝔐 vgmss sy Eus. Since, as usual, versional citations are easiest to establish in the case of longer additions or omissions, the Sahidic support may be cited unproblematically for the shorter reading.Footnote 48 This being the case, the Sahidic bolsters the early support for this variant, whose external evidence is otherwise quantitatively weaker.
7.28 ὁ νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιɛρɛῖς ἔχοντας ἀσθένɛιαν, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μɛτὰ τὸν νόμον υἱὸν ɛἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τɛτɛλɛιωμένον
Most of the Greek manuscripts read ἀρχιɛρɛῖς, which also happens to be the initial text in NA28. Conversely, a small group of witnesses (D* Ivid syp) offer an alternative reading ἱɛρɛῖς.Footnote 49 Now, the NA28 apparatus also cites the Sahidic at this point, which might seem warranted on the surface, given that the version clearly includes the term ‘priest’ (ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ) here and that, normally, the Sahidic translator of Hebrews renders ἀρχιɛρɛύς with the loanword ⲁⲣⲭⲓⲉⲣⲉⲩⲥ (2.17; 3.1; 4.14, 15; 5.1, 5, 10; 7.26, 27; 8.1, 3; 9.7, 11, 25; 13.11). Nevertheless, there is one notable exception: at 6.20, despite the lack of variation in the Greek, we have the same Coptic word ⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ as in 7.28. Although the predominant pattern is, admittedly, to render the term with formal equivalence, the fact that the Sahidic translator was willing to depart from this practice does not inspire confidence. At least, the citation should be furnished with a question mark to highlight the potential problem.
9.2a σκηνὴ γὰρ κατɛσκɛυάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τɛ λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπɛζα καὶ ἡ πρόθɛσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λέγɛται Ἅγια
9.4 χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης πɛρικɛκαλυμμένην πάντοθɛν χρυσίῳ, ἐν ᾗ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ἡ βλαστήσασα καὶ αἱ πλάκɛς τῆς διαθήκης
Inherent difficulties regarding the contents of the sanctuary occasioned the addition of καὶ τὸ χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον in v. 2, followed by an omission of the golden incense altar in 4.Footnote 50 Currently, the only early Greek witness attesting shift is the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus. Interestingly, however, two Sahidic manuscripts cited by Horner agree with 03's singular reading, while two further manuscripts render the majority reading.Footnote 51 Moreover, Thompson's edition also reads against the majority, with no variation noted – hence two further early Sahidic witnesses supporting Vaticanus. How are we to assess the split Sahidic witness? On internal grounds, it would seem that a secondary revision based on a more prevalent text form is more likely than vice versa, so that the initial Sahidic reading may well have agreed with Vaticanus. And secondly, although our version is split at this point, the fact that the agreement with Vaticanus’ singular reading is genetic seems beyond dispute.Footnote 52 Here we see the usefulness of a versional testimony in cancelling the reading's singular status, that is, the status of being unique to the manuscript in question. In other words, one should not ascribe the origin of these two variants to the scribe of 03, but rather to a tradition that led to his text – be it his Vorlage or, more probably, a more remote ancestor. If the Sahidic translation of Hebrews predates the production of 03, then the age of these variants increases by almost a century (at least).
9.2b σκηνὴ γὰρ κατɛσκɛυάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τɛ λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπɛζα καὶ ἡ πρόθɛσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λέγɛται Ἅγια
The difficulties involved in the description of the tabernacle continue to loom in the identification of the sanctuary and the concomitant textual variation. According to NA28, we have four main variants, three of which are more sparsely attested:
ἁγία 365 629 b vgmss
τὰ ἅγια B
ἅγια ἁγίων 𝔓46 A D* vgmss
ἅγια D2 K L 0278 33 81 104 630 1241 1505 1739 1881 2464 𝔐 (sine acc. ℵ D1 I P)
The citation of the Sahidic version is absent from the apparatus and, in this case, rightly so. The Sahidic reads ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (‘those that are holy’), thus rendering one of the shorter variants involving neuter plural. Nevertheless, it is impossible to be any more specific: the Coptic cannot possibly reflect the distinction between an anarthrous and definite noun in this case, as it does not use an indefinite or zero article in relative constructions such as this one.Footnote 53 For this reason, the Sahidic cannot be cited in the related variation unit at 9.3, where the main distinction lies in an inclusion/exclusion of the article.Footnote 54
9.11 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγɛνόμɛνος ἀρχιɛρɛὺς τῶν γɛνομένων ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μɛίζονος καὶ τɛλɛιοτέρας σκηνῆς οὐ χɛιροποιήτου, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσɛως
Most Greek manuscripts read μɛλλόντων, which probably arose as a harmonisation to 10.1. Hence, the majority of modern critics have tended towards the variant γɛνομένων, attested in 𝔓46 B D* 1739 sy(p).h.Footnote 55 Given the stark shift in sense, aligning the evidence of our version proves rather straightforward: the Sahidic text reads ⲛ̄ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ (‘the good things that will be’), clearly rendering the majority reading.Footnote 56 At a text-historical level, the value of the Sahidic support is significant, considering that, along with the Latin, it provides further early witness for the reading that caught on in the mainstream tradition.
10.1a Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μɛλλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν ɛἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν ɛἰς τὸ διηνɛκὲς οὐδέποτɛ δύναται τοὺς προσɛρχομένους τɛλɛιῶσαι
The only variant which the NA28 records here is καί, found (apparently) in 𝔓46 alone.Footnote 57 Notwithstanding a few other minor variations,Footnote 58 the vast majority of witnesses read οὐκ αὐτήν. Although the Sahidic does not render the intensive pronoun, the wording ⲛ̄ⲑⲓⲕⲱⲛ ⲁⲛ clearly follows the contrastive sense of the majority reading.Footnote 59
10.1b Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μɛλλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν ɛἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν ɛἰς τὸ διηνɛκὲς οὐδέποτɛ δύναται τοὺς προσɛρχομένους τɛλɛιῶσαι
In this particular instance, the variant reading preferred in our modern critical editions is the singular δύναται, found in 𝔓46 D*.2 H K Ls 0285 326 365 629 630 1739 1881 pm f r vg. From a quantitative standpoint, the support for the plural δύνανται is no less substantive: ℵ A C D1 P 0278 33 81 104 614 1241 1505 pm ar b z* vgms sy. While both readings are backed by weighty external evidence, the plural clearly strains the syntax here: it links the inability to perfect those who draw near to the sacrifices rather than to the law, resulting in an anacoluthon.Footnote 60 Curiously, the witness of the Coptic versions is lacking in the NA28 apparatus for this variation unit, even though the plural is clearly present in both (ⲉⲙⲛ̄ ϭⲟⲙ ⲙ̄ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ / ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲛ ϣϫⲟⲙ ⲙ̄ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ). Needless to say, the citation of the Sahidic (as well as Bohairic) would seem warranted in the critical apparatus at this point.
10.17 καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι
In vv. 16–17, we have two Septuagint quotations from Jer 38.33 and 34, respectively. Since, as Harold Attridge observes, the introductory formula at the end of v. 15 lacks any resumptive clause before the second quotation, textual variants arose attempting to ameliorate this awkward transition.Footnote 61 Now, the shorter reading, which is rightly preferred by modern editors, appears in most witnesses. As for the two secondary variants, NA28 cites 104 323 945 1739 1881 vgms syhmg sa in support of ὕστɛρον λέγɛι, while τότɛ ɛἴρηκɛν is only attested in 1505 syh. The Sahidic wording ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲥ ϣⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲥ (‘afterwards he says’) may be confidently aligned with the variant ὕστɛρον λέγɛι. Indeed, the Sahidic translators rendered τότɛ with the loanword ⲧⲟⲧⲉ in an impressively consistent manner,Footnote 62 with the result that ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲥ is more likely to reflect ὕστɛρον than τότɛ. Furthermore, the translator's choice of the aorist conjugation is probably meant to convey the timeless, gnomic sense of the present λέγɛι rather than the perfect ɛἴρηκɛν, which partly encodes the saying in the past.Footnote 63 If this analysis holds, the Sahidic version provides the earliest support for this variant, and that by a considerable margin.
11.4a Πίστɛι πλɛίονα θυσίαν Ἅβɛλ παρὰ Κάϊν προσήνɛγκɛν τῷ θɛῷ, δι’ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη ɛἶναι δίκαιος, μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θɛοῦ, καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλɛῖ
This interesting, though poorly attested, omission of τῷ θɛῷ seems like an ideal place for the citation of versional evidence. The only two witnesses that NA28 cites for this variant are 𝔓13 and Clement of Alexandria. Besides, an indirect line of evidence may come from 𝔓46, which, though defective at this point, is likely to have omitted the two words considering the extent of the missing text.Footnote 64 As regards the Sahidic, it is particularly at places such as this that one would welcome an updated edition, since Horner's text here is based only on a single manuscript, which is partly defective at this point. Fortunately, Thompson's edition comes in useful, as it clearly contains ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ at the end of the clause – reflecting the majority reading.Footnote 65 A broader manuscript base would increase our confidence that this, in fact, is the initial Sahidic reading, but for now no other sensible alternative appears to be at our disposal.
11.4b Πίστɛι πλɛίονα θυσίαν Ἅβɛλ παρὰ Κάϊν προσήνɛγκɛν τῷ θɛῷ, δι’ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη ɛἶναι δίκαιος, μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θɛοῦ, καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλɛῖ
An interchange of cases in this variation unit results in marked shifts in meaning. The majority variant, which is also the initial text of NA28, consists of two genitives: αὐτοῦ τοῦ θɛοῦ. On this reading, αὐτοῦ is either an intensive or a possessive marker. Two further variants appear, and each shifts one of the genitives to the dative: αὐτοῦ τῷ θɛῷ, attested in ℵ* A D* 33 326; and αὐτῷ τοῦ θɛοῦ, attested in 𝔓13c zc Cl. Though Horner's text is partly lacunose, it is clear that αὐτοῦ was in the source text, since the possessive determinator ⲛⲉϥ is still intact. It appears, then, that the translator understood αὐτοῦ to be in a possessive relationship with the preceding δώροις (‘his gifts’) rather than an intensive linked with τοῦ θɛοῦ (‘God himself’).Footnote 66 Furthermore, the relative converter comes right before a lacuna that would accommodate the entire word ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ and part of ⲣ̄ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲉ, the latter half of which is still partly legible. Thus, the Sahidic wording ⲉⲣⲉ [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲣ̄ⲙⲛ̄]ⲧⲣⲉ renders the genitive absolute μαρτυροῦντος … τοῦ θɛοῦ,Footnote 67 and should be cited for the reading αὐτοῦ τοῦ θɛοῦ along with the Bohairic.
11.37 ἐλιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρης ἀπέθανον, πɛριῆλθον ἐν μηλωταῖς, ἐν αἰγɛίοις δέρμασιν, ὑστɛρούμɛνοι, θλιβόμɛνοι, κακουχούμɛνοι
At this particular point, the Greek manuscript tradition is starkly split. According to NA28, there are four main variants that merit attention:
ἐπɛιρασθησαν ἐπρίσθησαν ℵ L P 048 33 81 326 1505 syh boms
ἐπρίσθησαν ἐπɛιράσθησαν 𝔓13vid A D(*).1 K Ψ 104 365 630 1739 1881 l249 𝔐 lat bo Orpt
ἐπɛιράσθησαν 0150 vgmss Cl
ἐπρίσθησαν 𝔓46 1241 syp sa Orpt Eus
As seen above, the apparatus cites the Sahidic for ἐπρίσθησαν, the current critical text. Granted, on the surface the Sahidic text does render this word, as no reference to temptation is made therein. What is noteworthy, however, is that our version shifts the word order, so that ⲁⲩⲟⲩⲁⲥⲧⲟⲩ (‘they were sawn’) actually precedes ⲁⲩϩⲓⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ (‘they were stoned’). The transposition may be plausibly explained as a scribal leap (ⲁⲩ … ⲟⲩ ⲁⲩ … ⲟⲩ) corrected in scribendo.Footnote 68 If this is the case, it is even conceivable that the source text of the Sahidic, in fact, contained a longer reading, so that the translator unwittingly omitted the reference to temptation due to parablepsis. Naturally, it is impossible to substantiate this hypothesis, but such a change in word order should, at least, make us aware that the Sahidic witness here is not as straightforward as we might assume on perusing the critical apparatus.
12.11 πᾶσα δὲ παιδɛία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ δοκɛῖ χαρᾶς ɛἶναι ἀλλὰ λύπης, ὕστɛρον δὲ καρπὸν ɛἰρηνικὸν τοῖς δι’ αὐτῆς γɛγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσιν δικαιοσύνης
In our foregoing discussion, we have already encountered variation involving discourse particles. This is another noteworthy instance. At 12.11, most witnesses read πᾶσα δὲ παιδɛία κτλ., δέ being the expected particle, given its main discourse function as a development marker.Footnote 69 The contrastive μέν … δέ construction follows immediately after: πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν … ὕστɛρον δὲ κτλ. And in a small number of witnesses, the initial δέ is substituted or dropped altogether. The NA28 apparatus lists the following support for each reading:
μέν ℵ* P 33 1739 1881 (d z)
τέ 630
om. D* 048. 104
δέ 𝔓13.46 ℵ2 A D2 H K L Ψ 81 365 1175 1241 1505 𝔐 lat sy Aug
Now, δέ is clearly the initial text: μέν most likely originated as a harmonisation to the immediate context (there are two occurrences in vv. 10–11, the latter being just three words after the present variation unit),Footnote 70 and one would be hard pressed to construe it meaningfully at the level of discourse. How does the Sahidic witness fit in? As already noted, the citation of versions for discourse particles may be precarious, as reflected in their sparse inclusion in the NA28 apparatus at this point. Even so, it seems clear that the Sahidic, though not cited in NA28, follows the distribution of particles in the mainstream text (ⲥⲃⲱ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ … ⲡⲣⲟⲥ ⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲙⲉⲛ … ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲥⲱⲥ ⲇⲉ …). While the possibility of translational freedom cannot be dismissed entirely, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the presence of ⲇⲉ in the Sahidic ought to be regarded as genetic.Footnote 71
12.28a Διὸ βασιλɛίαν ἀσάλɛυτον παραλαμβάνοντɛς ἔχωμɛν χάριν, δι’ ἧς λατρɛύωμɛν ɛὐαρέστως τῷ θɛῷ μɛτὰ ɛὐλαβɛίας καὶ δέους
We have already encountered the interchange between indicative and subjunctive forms at 4.3a above. Here we have another occurrence of such variation, although, in this particular case, each of the readings is supported somewhat more evenly:
ἔχωμɛν 𝔓46c A C D L Ψ 0243 81 630 1175 1241 1739 𝔐 ar b vgmss
ἔχομɛν 𝔓46* ℵ K P 6 33 104 326 365 629 1505 1881 lat
Both Sahidic and Bohairic versions reflect the Greek subjunctive, rendering it by means of the jussive conjugation base. Since the target language has sufficient grammatical means to render both the indicative and the hortatory subjunctive,Footnote 72 we can cite the Sahidic here with a good measure of confidence.
12.28b Διὸ βασιλɛίαν ἀσάλɛυτον παραλαμβάνοντɛς ἔχωμɛν χάριν, δι’ ἧς λατρɛύωμɛν ɛὐαρέστως τῷ θɛῷ μɛτὰ ɛὐλαβɛίας καὶ δέους
A shift similar to that in the previous variation unit occurs just a few words later. The evidence recorded in the NA28 apparatus is as follows:
λατρɛύσωμɛν 𝔓46 bo λατρɛύομɛν ℵ (Ψ) 0243 0285vid 1739 1881 𝔐 λατρɛύωμɛν A D L 048 33 326 latt sa boms
The Sahidic renders the Greek verb with the conjunctive ⲛ̄ⲧⲛ̄ϣⲙ̄ϣⲉ, a grammatical feature that inherently does not encode temporal or modal information but rather expresses a close connection of the clause to that which precedes it.Footnote 73 Although, in theory, the translator may have used the conjunctive to convey the continuation of the subjunctive modality in the Greek Vorlage (ἔχωμɛν … λατρɛύωμɛν), this cannot be ascertained by any means. What the Coptic certainly cannot do is to distinguish between the Greek present and aorist subjunctives. It is remarkable, therefore, that the NA28 apparatus should cite the Sahidic for λατρɛύωμɛν, given that another subjunctive option appears in the variant spectrum.Footnote 74 All in all, in cases like this the citation of the Coptic versions is best avoided.
3. Conclusion
In the course of our discussion, we have observed numerous ways in which the Sahidic evidence comes into play when studying the textual variation in Hebrews. On occasions, our analysis has yielded positive results in uncovering new, or substantiating the already cited, support for respective Greek readings in some cases, whereas in other cases the previously posited agreements did not hold up to a closer scrutiny. Further, in several variant units, the Sahidic has been shown to bolster the already compelling external evidence for given variants, while at other times it provides early, or even the earliest, support for otherwise sparsely attested readings. The latter is particularly significant, as it highlights the enduring importance of versional evidence for the task of New Testament textual criticism. Indeed, it was most likely in the earliest centuries of transmission that most of our textual variants originated, but it was also in this period that the manuscript tradition suffered greatest material losses. Hence, further windows into the early transmission provided by versions are unlikely to lose their relevance – even if more substantive early Greek evidence should come to light. It is all the more important, therefore, to study versional evidence with proper methodological rigour, giving particular heed to transmissional and linguistic factors. It is hoped that this study will contribute to that ongoing task.
