The Louvain Papyrus Fragments from the Asceticon of Abba Isaiah

Recently, I wrote on the blog about some papyrus fragments of a codex which contained the Coptic version of the Asceticon of Abba Isaiah. The fragments were kept in the library of the Catholic University in Louvain, but they were destroyed during the WW2 bombings. Apparently, the Louvain collection owned more than one hundred such fragments, which are, unfortunately, irremediably lost. My identification was based on Louis-Théophile Lefort’s catalogue, published shortly before the fragments disappeared for good.[1]

Accordingly, the lemma “On Repentance (metanoia),” which appeared on one of the papyrus fragments, and the incipit “The elder was asked: ‘What is the repentance (metanoia)?’” indicate that this fragment belonged to Greek Logos 21 (= Syriac Logos 14 – Draguet) of Abba Isaiah’s Asceticon. A few biblical quotations mentioned by Lefort as occurring on other fragments suggest that those damaged papyri represented the poor vestiges of a once complete copy of the Asceticon of Isaiah of Scetis in Coptic. If Lefort’s 6th to 7th century dating of the fragments is correct, it must had been the most ancient Coptic manuscript of this important ascetic corpus.

However, I omitted to say that in 1945, just a few years after his catalogue was printed, Lefort published in Le Muséon an article in which he edited and translated into French some additional fragments. Continue reading

Posted in Ascetic Authors, Isaiah of Scetis, Patristics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paola Buzi – Beyond the Papyrus

Those interested in Coptic manuscripts will find an excellent article by Paola Buzi in the Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies‘ Newsletter 2 (2012) 10-16. The article is titled “Beyond Papyrus. The Writing Materials of Christian Egypt Before the Tenth Century: Ostraca, Wooden Tablets and Parchment.” The Newsletter is available here. The other issues of the newsletter, with many interesting contributions on Oriental manuscripts, can be read here.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Coptica Online: Oscar von Lemm

Somebody has pointed out to me that many Coptological studies by Oscar von Lemm are available on a Russian website. Here is the list (the links will redirect you to the original website):

1. Koptische Miscellen. CXLV–CXLVIII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 9:3 (1915), 205–226
2. Koptische Miscellen. CXLI–CXLIV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 8:13 (1914), 915–934
3. Koptische Miscellen. CXXXV–CXL
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 8:8 (1914), 525–540
4. Koptische Miscellen. CXXXIII. CXXXIV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 8:7 (1914), 485–513
5. Koptische Miscellen. CXXXI. CXXXII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 7:11 (1913), 627–638
6. Koptische Miscellen. CXXVI–CXXX
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 7:10 (1913), 533–554
7. Koptische Miscellen. СХХI–СХХV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 6:7 (1912), 517–529
8. Koptische Miscellen. CXIV–CXX
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 6:2 (1912), 163–180
9. Koptische Miscellen. СIХ–CXIII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 5:18 (1911), 1237–1266
10. Koptische Miscellen. СVІ–СVIII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 5:16 (1911), 1135–1158
11. Koptische Miscellen. CI–CV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 5:13 (1911), 927–940
12. Koptische Miscellen. XCVIII–C
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 5:6 (1911), 453–468
13. Koptische Miscellen. XCV–XCVII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 5:5 (1911), 327–348
14. Koptische Miscellen. XCI–XCIV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 4:17 (1910), 1461–1468
15. Koptische Miscellen. LXXXIV–XC
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 4:14 (1910), 1097–1128
16. Koptische Miscellen. LXXIX–LXXXIII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 4:5 (1910), 347–370
17. Koptische Miscellen. LXXIII–LXXVIII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 4:2 (1910), 169–185
18. Koptische Miscellen. LXVIII–LXXII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 4:1 (1910), 61–86
19. Koptische Miscellen. LXVI. LXVII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 3:6 (1909), 393–404
20. Koptische Miscellen. LXII–LXV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 3:5 (1909), 341–364
21. Koptische Miscellen LI–LXI
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 2:18 (1908), 1323–1354
22. Koptische Miscellen. XLVII–L
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 2:13 (1908), 1067–1089
23. Koptische Miscellen. XLI–XLVI
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 2:7 (1908), 589–605
24. Koptische Miscellen. XXXIII–XL
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 2:2 (1908), 191–208
25. Koptische Miscellen. XXVI–XXXII
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 2:1 (1908), 55–72
26. Koptische Miscellen XVI–XXV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 1:13 (1907), 495–510
27. Koptische Miscellen. I–XV
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 1:5 (1907), 141–151
28. Kleine koptische Studien. XXVI–XLV. (Schluss.)
Oscar v. Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 21:5 (1904), 151–239
29. Kleine koptische Studien. XXVI–XLV
Oscar v. Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 21:3 (1904), 41–150
30. Kleine koptische Studien. XXI–XXV
Oscar von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 14:3 (1901), 289–313
31. Kleine koptische Studien. X–XX
Oscar von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 13:1 (1900), 1–163
32. Eine dem Dionysius Areopagita sugeschriebene Schrift in koptischer Sprache
Oscar von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 12:3 (1900), 267–306
33. Kleine koptische Studien. I–IX
Oscar von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 10:5 (1899), 403–434
34. Nachtrag zu den «Koptischen Fragmenten zur Patriarchengeschichte Alexandriens»
Dr. O. v. Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ, 4:2 (1896), 237–243
35. Sahidische Bibelfragmente. III
O. von Lemm
Извѣстія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. VI серiя, 1:2 (1907), 45
Posted in Bibliographies | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Guest Post: Diliana Atanassova on the Coptic Liturgical Typika from the White Monastery

Diliana Atanassova is member of the Copus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari project (Hamburg/Rome) and research fellow at the Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History, Faculty of Catholic Theology of the Salzburg University.

N.B.: A much longer (and slightly different) version of this article appeared in Coptica 9 (2010) 1-23. This portion is published with the permission of the editor.

Already at the beginning of my research in the field of Coptic Liturgy, my interest in studying the typika of the White Monastery, available only in dispersed fragments, was awoken. Working on the Sahidic lectionaries I soon realized that one could not analyze the lectionaries without taking into consideration the typika and vice versa.[1] At the Eighth Congress of Coptic Studies in Paris 2004, I emphasized the importance and usefulness of the comparison between these two liturgical sources.[2]  In the following years, my efforts in investigating the typika increased. In 2007, this resulted in a research project[3], which was carried out at the Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History at Salzburg University and funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). Preliminary notes and detailed results were reported regularly in national and international gatherings of the scholars.[4] In order to reconstruct the original liturgical codices, I started to use the abbreviation system developed by Tito Orlandi in his  Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari (Rome) (CMCL)[5]. The White Monastery’s codices with liturgical typika have the sigla MONB.AW and MONB.NP, as well as all letters from MONB.WA to MONB.WT. In this article, the CMCL sigla for the parchment typika are quoted only with the inventory numbers of their core leaves (cf. here 6). The complementary leaves can be looked up in a forthcoming volume of the Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum (Münster).

In the following lines, I shall introduce to our readers some important issues for the understanding of the Coptic typika from the White Monastery.

(source of the image)

1. Term and Definition

Stephen Emmel describes a liturgical typikon as “a book containing a list of lections for church services, arranged according to the liturgical calendar. As distinct from a lectionary, a typikon gives not the full text of any lection, but only the opening words and a cross-reference to where the full text can be found.”[6] However, this definition is too narrow since the typikon do not only include biblical or patristic lections but also other liturgical texts such as different chant types. For this reason, parts of such manuscripts are sometimes also named “directories” or “indices”[7]. Following Hans Quecke[8], one of the foremost specialists in Coptic liturgical manuscripts, the term “typikon” is preferred among the German and English writing scholars. In my studies I am using both terms: “typikon” as to name the entire codex, and “directory” in order to differentiate between the distinct parts of the codex, as for example “directory of pericopae” and “directory of hymns”.

Investigations on the typikon fragments revealed that “typikon” needs to be defined more precisely.

2. The Content of a Typikon Leaf

Typika have two important characteristics. Firstly, they represent only incipits or desinits of liturgical texts. In addition, these are listed according to the liturgical calendar. The incipits of lections mainly derive from the Psalter and the NT. Continue reading

Posted in Articles, Bible, Liturgical Books, Monasteries, Shenoute of Atripe | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Guest Post: Mark Bilby – As the Bandit Will I Confess You: Luke 23.39–43 in Early Christian Interpretation

Recently, Mark Bilby successfully defended his PhD dissertation at the University of Virginia (advisor: Harry Y. Gamble). Mark’s thesis is entitled As the Bandit Will I Confess You: Luke 23.39-43 in Early Christian Interpretation. He was kind enough to use in his work my edition of the Coptic sermon attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria on the Cross and the Thief, which is forthcoming in Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum. At some point in the near future, Mark is also planning to publish a companion volume of Patristic homilies on the Good Thief. Below you can find the abstract of his dissertation, which he agreed to publish on this blog:

This dissertation comprises the first thorough, critical analysis of the early Christian interpretation of Luke 23.39–43 (up to 450 CE). Tatian’s Diatessaron is its earliest plausible reception, while the Gospel of Peter does not depend on Luke here but instead attests to an earlier, simpler apologetic narrative used by Luke. Contrary to the implication of modern commentaries, harmonization of Luke’s divergent criminals with the Markan/Matthean reviling bandits is not a major concern, nor do ancient views fit neatly into chronological vs. sylleptical positions. Several find intentional cooperation among the Evangelists, while early Syriac interpreters, starting with the Diatessaron itself, dismiss or ignore the Markan/Matthean tradition altogether.

Eschatological dissonance proves a far more prevalent concern. Origen’s interpretation—which provokes considerable criticism late in his own life—makes this apparent. Origen remains pivotal in eschatological debates for the next two centuries, though he is criticized for very different reasons.

By far the most common mode of interpretation finds in the second criminal a self-representative figure who models many Christian practices, beliefs and virtues, including prayer, beatitude, supersession, Nicene orthodoxy, faith, justification by faith without works, conversion, catechesis, confession, martyrdom, asceticism, simple speech, and penitence.

Augustine is the first on record to gainsay the traditional idea of the bandit as a martyr—an interpretation perhaps embedded in the original Lucan story—, though he reverses his position late in 419 CE. This shift calls for late dates for Sermons 53A, 285, 327, and 335C. Ephrem emerges as the most creative and influential purveyor of devotional, liturgical and typological readings. On the other hand, Chrysostom’s two Good Friday sermons on the bandit are the most influential texts in the early history of interpretation as they inspire Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin imitations. By the late 4th century, Luke 23.39–43 appears as a standard lection (or part of a lection) during Good Friday noon services in the East. Despite the exclusive use of Matthew’s passion in the West, the influence of Eastern homilies helps carve out a place for the Lucan story in Western homilies during Holy Week and Easter Octave.

Posted in John Chrysostom, New Testament, Patristics, Theophilus of Alexandria | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Old Testament Pseudepigraphon in Coptic: Yet Another Manuscript from the Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac

Here and here I wrote about the identification of some papyrus fragments which belonged once to the Catholic University in Louvain. They have been among the few unidentified items published by Louis Théophile Lefort in his catalogue of the Coptic manuscripts in this collection. As I have already said, all the manuscripts were burned in a fire which devastated the library in Louvain in May 1940. This was the second burning of the library, another fire reducing it to ashes in August 1914. Sad to say, in the 1940 fire perished also the entire photographic collection of Coptic manuscripts gathered by Lefort. Luckily, he reconstructed it patiently after the war, and the new series of photographs served as a nucleus of the much larger collection which Professor Tito Orlandi has formed later.

I shall continue the identifications of the Louvain material with two parchment fragments published by Lefort as nos. 52-53 of his catalogue. Although Lefort edited the texts separately, he already remarked their kinship, saying that “the quality of the parchment, as well as controllable paleographical features makes us believe that nos. 52 and 53 came from the same codex” (my translation from French). Although today we are not able to check anymore if the fragments were indeed paleographically related, Lefort’s assertion is confirmed by the fact that I identified both of them as coming from the same writing.

More precisely, the lost Louvain fragments came from an Old Testament pseudepigraphon: Continue reading

Posted in Apocrypha, Athanasius of Alexandria, Bible, Old Testament | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Lost Coptic Fragment from a Sermon on Penitence by Severian of Gabala (CPG 4186)

In a recent post, I identified a series of papyrus fragments from the Coptic version of the Asceticon of Abba Isaiah. The fragments formerly belonged to the library of the University of Louvain, but they disappeared forever in a fire which destroyed the library during the bombings in WW2. Luckily, all the Louvain fragments were published by Louis Théophile Lefort shortly before their physical disappearance. The Belgian Coptologist in this way granted us access to documents which today are lost.

Here I should like to introduce another of the papyrus fragments in Louvain, which have remained unidentified until now.

Under no. 48, Lefort published an unidentified papyrus fragment which he tentatively dated to the 6th or 7th century.[1] In fact, the text can be identified as a portion from a Continue reading

Posted in John Chrysostom, Patristics, Severian of Gabala | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments