PPalau Rib. 183. First column of John's Gospel. Quecke's Edition, Plate 1 and page 73.

---

Introduction

Sahidic was a dialect of the Coptic language. Coptic is the final form of the ancient Egyptian language.

Coptic was the spoken and written language in Egypt at the time Christianity was first spreading.

The Sahidic was in use from the first to the sixth century AD; according to Rodolphe Kasser; quoted in The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations, by Bruce Metzger. pg. 129.

The New Testament was evidently translated into Sahidic late in the second century For example, William Willis states that the Crosby-Schøyen manuscript was "at least a copy of a copy, the original translation on which it is based must be pushed back to A.D. 200, perhaps even earlier." The Crosby-Schøyen Codex MS 193, pp. 137, 138.

A later Coptic dialect, called Bohairic, is also important in researching the New Testament; as explained below.

The United Bible Societies "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" (on page xxix in the 1975 edition) ranks the Sahidic with manuscripts of the Proto-Alexandrian group and the Bohairic with the Alexandrian group. The book states that Alexandrian group "is usually considered the to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original." (xvii-xviii).

Kurt and Barbara Aland testify ("The Text of the New Testament" p.204. Kurt and Barbara Aland, 1995):

"The Coptic New Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater importance to know precisely how the text developed in Egypt. The Alexandrian and Egyptian text types are not only of the greatest importance, by far, but the special climactic conditions of Egypt have also preserved for us nearly 100 percent of all the known witnesses to the New Testament text from the period up to the fourth century. A control of these by tradition in the national language promises significant results."

Bruce M. Metzger, in his "Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (3rd Edition page 216) testifies concerning the integrity and quality of the Proto-Alexandrian text:

"The Proto-Alexandrian text appears not to have undergone the systematic grammatical and stylistic polishing that was given to other texts, including the later form of the Alexandrian text itself."

Metzger then testifies concerning the Alexandrian text type overall:

"Though most scholars have abandoned Hort's optimistic view that the codex Vaticanus (B) contains the original text almost unchanged except for slips of the pen, they are still inclined to regard the Alexandrian text as on the whole the best ancient recension and the one most nearly approximating the original."

Coptologist J. M. Plumley testifies (in Metzger's "The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations." P. 142. Oxford, 1978):

"By and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine."

The Anchor Bible (1992) in Volume 6 under "Versions. Ancient" testifies:

"The Coptic Version is based on Greek manuscripts, which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses."

Coptic scholar Bently Layton points out that Coptic literature "includes several translations of the Bible made from Greek starting about AD 300, which are a very early indirect attestation of the Greek text and a direct indication of an Egyptian (perhaps Alexandrian) understanding of what it meant; the Coptic versions are of great importance to modern scholars of Biblical textual criticism." Coptic in 20 Lessons. Pp. 1,2. 2007.

In his blog entry "Sahidic Coptic. Why?" Rick Brannan of Logos Bible Software testifies:

We've recently pre-pubbed a collection called the Sahidic Coptic Collection. I can hear the questions already:

Why worry about a language like Coptic?

What is Coptic, anyway?

How could that ever be useful?

I'm sure there are other questions along those lines. The short answer to them all is that the Sahidic Coptic editions of New Testament writings are very valuable for text-critical purposes.

Yes, I can see the eyes rolling now, but please, keep up with me. For at least a little longer.

You see, the Sahidic Coptic editions of the New Testament were some of the first translations from the Greek New Testament into another language. And because Coptic has much affinity with Greek (sharing the most of the same alphabet and even sharing many Greek words) those who know a little Greek (like me) can muddle through Coptic after spending time to learn the alphabet and some basic vocabulary.

The resources in the Sahidic Coptic Collection make this a little easier for the Coptic neophyte (that's where I am) and the folks who are big-time into Coptic.

Because the Sahidic Coptic editions we have are likely very early, they provide an early glimpse into the texts they are translations of. And because most editions are extremely (almost woodenly) literal, they can provide insight into the underlying text ? helping in the quest to "establish the text" which is one of the first steps in any serious exegete's process.

More here: Logos Software

"Sahidica: The Egyptian New Testament" testifies as to why the Sahidic (and other Coptic manuscripts) are superior to the pre-400 AD manuscripts of Latin and Syriac translations.

1. Both the Latin and Syriac are representative of the Western textual family
(which is generally viewed as inferior), while the Sahidic ranks with the 
best papyri and the "B" Uncial (Vatican Library 1209) as representative of 
the Proto-Alexandrine textual family, which is generally recognized as the 
best and earliest group of manuscripts. The Westcott-Hort, UBS, and Nestle-
Aland master texts, and thus most modern translations, are based on this 
family of manuscripts.

2. The Old Latin and Syriac are represented by two extant manuscripts each,
which can be dated as being from before the fifth century (400 AD). All four
are of the Gospels only. On the other hand, Sahidic (and other Coptic) 
manuscripts dating from the same period are more numerous, more complete and
and represent many more books of the Bible.
  
Below is a comparison chart of the extant manuscripts for each language.

Language  Manuscript      Contents                Century   Condition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Latin:   Vercellensis     Gospels                 IV        partial
         Bobiensis        Gospels                 IV/V      partial

Syriac:  Sinaitic         Gospels                 IV        fragmented
         Curetonian       Gospels                 IV/V      fragmented

Sahidic: Crosby           1Peter                  III       complete
         Brit. M. 7594    Acts                    III/IV    fragmented
         Mich. 3992       John 1Cor. Titus        III/IV    fragmented
         Berlin 408       Rev. 1John Philemon     IV        partial
         Kahle 22         Eph. 1Pet. 1John James  IV        fragmented
         Lectionary 1604  Matthew                 IV        fragmented
         Berlin 15926     Acts                    IV        fragmented
         Garrido          Matthew                 IV        fragmented
         Rainer V(p41)    Acts                    IV/V      partial
         Bodmer XIX       Matthew Romans          IV/V      fragmented
         Kahle 21         1Timothy Titus          IV/V      fragmented

Other:*  Achmimic         Matt(p62)               IV        fragmented
         Achmimic         John James(p6)          IV        fragmented
         Achmimic         Luke                    IV        fragmented
         Fayumic          John                    IV        partial
         Oxyrhynchite     Matthew                 IV        complete
         Oxyrhynchite     Acts                    IV        partial
         Proto-Bohairic   John                    IV        partial
         Sub-Achmimic     John                    IV        partial
         Achmimic         Galatians               IV/V      fragmented
         Fayumic          Acts                    IV/V      partial
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Other Coptic dialects.

For a complete analysis of the quality and character of the Coptic versions see "The Text of the Greek Bible" pp.135-145 by Kenyon and Adams.

The two oldest manuscripts of first Peter were discovered among the Bodmer and other papyri discovered near Dishna in Upper Egypt in 1952. These were the Greek fragments P. Bodmer V; X; XI; VII; XIII; XII; XX; IX; VIII; and a fragment from Chester Beatty ac 2555. And the Sahidic fragments in the Crosby-Schoyen (Mississippian) manuscript. Both are dated to the third century AD/CE and it is uncertain which is older.

In the introduction to his translation of the Sahidic manuscript William H. Willis compares the Sahidic (Crosby-Schoyen) with Greek (P72). He testifies:

"Although both codices derive from the same early Christian library and therefore possible even from the same scriptorium, their texts appear to be quite unrelated. The Coptic version indeed was more carefully written by a scribe whose knowledge of Greek was more accurate (certainly in Greek orthography) than the scribe of P72. The Crosby-Schoyen text agrees with only one of the 29 unique significant readings of P72."

P72 is described by Comfort and Barrett in their "Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts" (April 2001 corrected edition, p. 479) as "Free and often careless transcription of a fairly reliable exemplar."

Aside from First Peter, the Crosby-Schoyen also has Sahidic versions of "On the Passover" by Melito of Sardis, 2 Maccabees 5:27-7:41, the book of Jonah, and unidentified fragments.

Aside from First Peter, P72 has the Nativity of Mary (Protevangelism of James), the Apocryphal Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Odes of Solomon 11, the Epistle of Jude, "On the Passover" by Melito of Sardis, the Apology of Phileas, Psalm 34-35, and Second Peter.

So here we have a case where the best ancient manuscript of a book of the New Testament (First Peter) is a Sahidic Coptic codex. Note that the third century Crosby-Schoyen manuscript is considered the oldest extant Coptic manuscript of the New Testament.