[It has already been explained that documents found on the site of Memphis exhibit a dialect different in some respects from any of those that we have yet considered. In this also fragments have been found of a translation of the New Testament.
The dialect shows a combination of Sahidic and Bohairic forms. It has ⲓⲱⲧ for Sah. ⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲙⲉⲧⲓⲱⲧ for ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲏⲥ for ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ; ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ; ϣⲧⲱⲣⲓ for ϣⲧⲱⲣⲉ. It agrees again with the Fayoum dialect (which is generally considered a variety of it) in its affection for ⲁ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲕ, and apparently in using ⲗ for ⲣ, but only occasionally.
The following specimen from Rom. xi. 31-36 will exhibit the character of the dialect and the version: the Sahidic is taken from the Borgian fragment published by Amélineau, Z. A. S. 25, 1887, p. 49; the Middle Egyptian from “Mittheilungen,” ii. p. 69.
[pg 142]| Middle Egyptian. | Sahidic. |
| xi. 31. ⲧⲉⲓ ⲧⲉ | ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ |
| ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲉⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ | ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ |
| ⲉⲗⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ · | ⲣ ⲁⲧ ⲛⲁϩ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ · |
| ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛⲏⲩ | ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ |
| 32. ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲟⲥ · ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲅⲁⲣ | ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲱⲥ ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ |
| ⲁⲡⲧ ⲟⲩⲁⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲩ | ⲉⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲟⲩ |
| ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ | ⲙⲛⲧⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ |
| ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ : | ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ : |
| 33. ⲱ ⲡϣⲱⲕ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ | ⲱ ⲡϣⲓⲕⲉ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ |
| ⲙⲁⲟ · ⲙⲛ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ · ⲙⲛ | ⲙⲁⲟ ⲙⲛ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ |
| ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲫϯ · ⲛⲑⲏ | ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲑⲏ |
| ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲉⲩϣⲙⲁϣⲧ ⲛⲉϩⲉⲡ | ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲙⲉϣⲧ ⲛⲉϥϩⲁⲡ |
| ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ · ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛ | ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲉⲛ |
| ⲁⲧⲧⲉⲛⲗⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲁⲩⲓ · | ⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ |
| 34. ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲙⲓ ⲉⲡ | ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲡ |
| ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡⲟⲥ · ⲡⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ | ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ · ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ |
| 35. ⲥⲉ ⲃⲓⲏⲧϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ | ⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲉⲓⲁⲧϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ |
| ⲧⲉ ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛⲗⲉϥ | ⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛⲣⲉϥ |
| ϫⲓϣⲁϫⲛⲓ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ | ϫⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ · ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ |
| ⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲗⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛϣⲁⲣⲉⲡ · | ⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ |
| 36. ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲉϥⲧⲟⲩⲓⲁ ⲛⲏϥ · ϫⲉ | ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲟ ⲛʁϥ · ϫⲉ |
| ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲁϥ | ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲟϥ |
| ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲁ | ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲟ |
| ⲁⲧϥ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲟⲩ | ⲁⲧϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧⲟⲩ |
| ⲉⲗⲁϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ | ⲉⲣⲟϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ |
| ⲛϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ. | ϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ. |
Specimens of this version may be found in—
1. Mémoires de l'Institut égyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant.
2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69.
3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie, Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1.
4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments recently acquired by the British Museum.
The lines between this dialect and version and that of the [pg 143] Fayoum are not, however, clearly defined, and further research may make it necessary to rearrange the different specimens mentioned in this and the preceding sections.
Textually the version is of equal value with that of the Fayoum, that is, it represents another tradition of the version of Upper Egypt, of which Sahidic was the most important representative.]
[It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our discussion of the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of the Akhmîm dialect. It certainly represents the language in an older form than any other dialect we have examined; unfortunately such a very small fragment of the New Testament version exists that its importance at present can hardly be estimated.
The Akhmîm dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal and Biblical fragments published by M. Bouriant (Mémoires, i. p. 243), and has the following characteristics. In its vowels its affinities are nearest to the Middle Egyptian; it has ⲁ for ⲟ, ⲁⲩ for ⲟⲟⲩ, and ⲉ for ⲁ. It does not use ⲗ for ⲣ. Like the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final ⲉ, but not ⲫ, ⲑ, ⲭ for ⲡϩ, ⲧϩ, ⲕϩ. It also has some Bohairic forms, such as ⲛⲟⲩ, ⲁⲣⲉ, ⲁϥ. In the vowels it has the following peculiarities: ⲁ for ⲉ (Sah.), ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ, ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ, ⲁⲣⲁⲕ, ⲁⲃⲁⲗ; ⲓ or ⲉⲓ for ⲏ, ⲡⲓ (sun), ⲥⲙⲉⲓ, ⲧϩⲉⲓ; ⲟⲩ for ⲱ, ⲕⲟⲩ, ϫⲟⲩ, ⲥⲃⲟⲩ; ⲟ for ⲁⲩ, ⲛⲟ, ⲥⲛⲟ.
But its most distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter, [Symbol: Coptic “hori” glyph with additional stroke to lower left]: this may represent ϣ of other dialects; [Symbol: the new glyph] for ⲉϣ (to know), ⲉϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲁϣ; or ϫ as ⲧϩⲡⲟ [with the new glyph] for ϫⲡⲟ; or ϧ : ϩ, as ⲱⲛϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲱⲛϧ; ⲥϩⲉⲓ [with the new glyph] for ⲥϧⲁⲓ.
The textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small amount of material we possess, but there seems to be little doubt that it represents in a very early form the same version that we are acquainted with in Sahidic. Further discoveries in this dialect may do much to make us acquainted with the early history of the version of Upper Egypt.
Only two short fragments of this version are known, which have been edited by Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic [pg 144] MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2). They are contained in a parchment MS. of very great antiquity (Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but this is certainly too early), and contain St. James iv. 12-13, St. Jude 17-20. The following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the similarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect.
| Akhmimic. | Sahidic. |
| Jude 17. ⲛⲛϣⲉϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲛϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ | 17. ⲛⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ |
| ⲡⲭⲥ ⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ | ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ |
| ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲛ ⲛϩⲁⲣⲡ' ⲁⲃⲁⲗ · | ϫⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲓⲛ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ · ⲉⲃⲟⲗ |
| 18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧϩⲁⲉⲓ | 18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲑⲁⲏ |
| ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ | ⲛⲛⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ |
| ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁϩⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ | ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ |
| ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲙⲡⲧ' ϩⲉϥⲧ · | ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲡⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ · |
| 19. ⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ | 19. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ |
| ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲙⲛⲧⲉⲩ ⲡⲡⲛⲁ | ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲙⲛⲧⲟⲩ ⲡⲛⲁ |
| ⲙⲙⲟ · 20. ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛⲉⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲣⲣⲉ · | ⲙⲙⲁⲩ · 20. ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁ · |
| ⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ ⲕⲱⲧ ⲙⲙⲱⲧ | ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ ⲕⲱⲧ ⲙⲡⲱⲧⲉⲛ ... |
| ⲛⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ | |
| ⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ ϩⲙ | |
| ⲡⲡⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ |
It has only been possible in the above account to give a rough outline of more recent discovery. Further investigation is necessary, and the lines which divide the different dialects, especially those between Fayoumic and Middle Egyptian, require to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped also from the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the monasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up some of their treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light. Enough has been written to suggest that discoveries of great interest for the life and character of early Egyptian Christianity have been made, and that much still remains to be found, which may indirectly throw a flood of light on the early history of Christianity as a whole117.]