Peeters PDF

Journal of Coptic Studies 17 (2015) 165–213
doi: 10.2143/JCS.17.0.3132126
LOST COPTIC TEXTS FROM HERBERT

THOMPSON PAPERS I: THE ‘ACTS OF
STEPHEN’*
B y S ami U l ja s
In spring 2009, towards the end of my research fellowship at Trinity Col-

lege in Cambridge, I was given the opportunity to study the papers of Sir
Herbert Thompson (1859–1944), the eminent Egyptologist, Demotist, and
Coptologist.1 Among the notebooks, loose leaves of paper, photographs
etc., now in the Cambridge University Faculty of Asian and Middle East-
ern Studies, there were numerous copies of Coptic texts in Sir Herbert’s
own elegant handwriting. These included many literary works held in the
British Museum (later British Library) that at the time had mostly been
published by Crum and Budge or were in the process of being so treated.2
Yet among the documents there were also three sets of hand-copies of
two texts from the said source written on sheets of early 20th century
ruled paper and carrying titles that attracted my attention. Later a third
such text copied into one of Thompson’s bound notebooks appeared.
The names and origins of these texts, as given by Sir Herbert, were the
following:
1) Acts of Stephen, two sets of pages of ruled paper attached together and
containg copies of texts deriving from ‘Papyrus fragts. from Coptic
bindings in BM’. The first set is indicated as originating in ‘Or. 7029
[Story of Aaron the Poor acquired 1909 by Budge]’ and the second
in ‘Or. 7024/4’
* As usual, my thanks are due to Matthias Müller (Basel) as well as to Ingela Nilsson
(Uppsala) and two anonymous referees for their comments on a draft version of this paper.
1
Access to this material was granted by Professor John Ray, to whom I owe many
thanks.
2
Thompson’s papers paint a picture of a scholar who was in the habit of copying texts
even when they had already appeared in print or were being edited by others. John Ray
(personal communication) suggests that this was Sir Herbert’s method of familiarising
himself with Coptic manuscript first-hand. For instance, his notebook no. 2 contains copies
of the texts nos. 39–42, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 185, 187–91, 192, 198,
214, 215, 217–30, 239, 328, 343, 346, 953, 954, and 982 of Crum’s Catalogue BM. Crum
did not, of course, give a transcript in each case.
98544.indb 165 1/02/16 11:36

166 Sami Uljas
2) Martyria of Apa Cornelius, one set of pages of ruled paper attached

together and containing copies of papyrus fragments used in the bind-
ing of (BM) Or. 7023, 7024, and 7025
3) Acts of Pantoleon, Notebook no. 2, pp. 138–43, ‘BM. Or. 7029, papy-
rus fragments taken from the bindings of Coptic volume of the Story
of Aaron the Monk (Budge — acquired 1909)’
It soon became apparent that these modest notes, which had lain in the
archive for perhaps a hundred years, were the sole surviving copies of
lost Coptic literary works that originated in codices previously in the
collections of the British Museum and later of the British Library in
London.
The story behind the codices and the associated fragments as well
as the subsequent history of the latter is partly shrouded in mystery. As
noted by Thompson, the three texts were written on fragments of papyrus
from discarded manuscripts that had been used to make cartonnage sup-
port for covers of parchment codices known nowadays as British Library
Or. 7023, 7024, 7025, and 7029. The codices carry dates between AD 981
and 1004,3 and their binding must thus have been carried out using dam-
aged manuscripts dating prior to this period. The colophons of the codices
listing copyists, donations, and the like show that this work was carried
out in the scriptorium of some monastery in or near the town of Esna,
whence they were sent to other religious institutions in Esna and Edfu.4
As seen, Thompson stated that Or. 7029 was acquired by E.A.W. Budge,
the then-keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities in the British Museum,
in 1909. True to form, in his travelogue describing many acquisitions
for the Museum, Budge himself notes merely that in 1907 the ‘dealers of
Upper Egypt’ had found a place in the hills ‘where the monks of Edfû and
Asnâ had hidden their manuscripts’, probably ‘between 1153 and 1158’.5
He subsequently bought several of these ‘from a gentleman’, including
‘the hitherto unknown “History of the Monks of the Egyptian Desert’”.6
This work is part of Or. 7029, a miscellany later edited by Budge.7 Budge
3
More particularly, Or. 7023 is dated AD 999 or 1004, Or. 7024 AD 987, Or. 7025
AD 981, and Or. 7029 AD 992 or 982 — see Layton, Catalogue nos. 121, 158, 159,
and 163.
4
See again Layton, Catalogue xxvi–xxvii and nos. 121, 158, 159, and 163. However,
the codices are apparently part of a larger find of material that appears to have been pre-
pared in diverse places, most notably the Monastery of St Mercurius in Edfu.
5
Budge, By Nile and Tigris II 371.
6
Clavis coptica 0255; Budge, By Nile and Tigris II 372.
7
Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts 432–525/948–1033.
98544.indb 166 1/02/16 11:36

LOST COPTIC TEXTS FROM HERBERT THOMPSON PAPERS I 167
further mentioned among the manuscripts a version of the Apocalypse of

Paul, which forms part of Or. 7023, similarly edited by him.8 The codices
apparently belonged to the same collection of manuscripts of which Budge
had earlier bought parts for the museum in three lots since 1907 from
Maurice Nahman, an antiquities dealer in Cairo, from Reverend Chauncey
Murch from Luxor, and from Robert de Rustafjaell, a.k.a Colonel Prince
Roman Orbeliani, a flamboyant British-American aristocrat.9 De Rustafjaell
implies that all this material was found in the same place ‘about five miles
west of Edfu on the fringe of the desert plateau’10 near an old monastery,
where he was taken in 1909. Whatever the actual find spot, in 1987 all
these codices, among them BM Or. 7023–25 and 7029, were catalogued
and described by Bentley Layton,11 according to whom they represent a
fourth lot of Budge’s purchases bought on 15 June 1909 from the afore-
mentioned M. Nahman (Budge’s ‘gentleman’) and his accomplice Abd
en-Nur Gubriel of Qena.12 They were then brought to the British Museum
where the original bindings were removed. The latter were shortly after-
wards studied by Herbert Thompson, who entered a separate two-page
description of them in the keeper’s annual progress report for the year
1912.13 This reads as follows:
Papyrus fragments from bindings
The Coptic papyrus fragments were removed from the bindings of three vel-
lum MSS.: Or 7024, 7025, 7029.14 It is clear that two of these three volumes
came from the same original source and also were bound at the same time,
since fragments of three papyri are found partly in 7024 & partly in 7025.
As the fragments from 7029 are evidently of the same period and character,
whole group is doubtlessly contemporary.
The most striking feature of the collection of fragments is that, with a few
exceptions, they are literary & come from a variety of volumes. In 7024 there
are fragments in at least twenty different hands; in 7025 at least a dozen;
8
Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts 534–74/1043–84. A recent discussion of this text
(BHG 1460) and the codex is provided by Lanzillotta, “The Coptic MS. Or 7023.”
9
Layton, Catalogue xxvii; alinsuciu.com/entry 13 October 2012 (accessed 11 Sep-
tember 2014).
10
de Rustafjaell, Light of Ancient Egypt 3–6; de Rustafjaell’s account is reproduced
in Layton, Catalogue xxix.
11
Layton, Catalogue nos. 121 (= Or. 7025), 158 (= Or. 7023), 159 (Or. 7024), and 163
(= Or. 7029).
12
Layton, Catalogue xxvi–xxvii, xxx.
13
This note is now bound at the back of the Monthly and Annual Progress Reports
1901–12. The report itself is undated, but it follows another note by someone else carrying
the date 8 January 1912. My thanks are due to the Curator of Coptic Manuscripts in the
British Library for granting me access to their records.
14
The reason for the absence of Or. 7023 will be discussed below.
98544.indb 167 1/02/16 11:36

168 Sami Uljas
in 7029 again some twenty. In short, a whole library of cast-away papyrus

volumes must have been in use in the binding room of the monastery, which
was probably therefore a very important one.
The majority of the fragments are too small for identification. They are all
in the Sahidic dialect, except two small fragments from a Greek Psalter.
In a few instances there are more considerable groups of fragments, and
these may be enumerated:
1. About a dozen fragmentary pages of the Acts of Stephen (the largest
27.5 × 17 cm.). Of these Acts fragments also exist in the Vatican which
have been printed by Guidi, while some, unprinted, are in the Cairo
Museum. The Greek original is not known (from 7029)
2. Four fragments (largest 24 × 16.5 cm.) of the Acts of St. Panteleon. A
portion has been published by Rossi, but this version differs somewhat
from this one, being longer in the part which corresponds to these frag-
ments. The existing Greek version again exhibits a somewhat different
text from both Rossi’s & the new one, though they are all related (from
7029)
3. Four large fragments (largest 23.5 × 16 cm.) from apocalyptic work, not
identified (from 7029)
4. One nearly complete leaf from the Sahidic version of the lives of Pacho-
mius and Theodore, the founder and first abbot of Tabennese. Three
vellum leaves of another portion of the same version exist already in the
Museum (Or. 3581B = Crum, Catalogue no. 355) and other fragments have
been published by Amélineau (Mem. Miss. Franc. IV 521), who has also
published the Bohairic version (Mus. Guimet XVII) (from 7024 and 7025)
5. Sixteen fragments of a homiletic work, probably an encomium of some
saint (from 7024 and 7025)
6. Nine fragments of another work, possibly a homily (7024 + 7025)
7. Biblical fragments from the books of Genesis, Joshua & Wisdom (7029)
Date. The fragments are mostly written in coarse & rather irregular uncial
hands, and I should not be inclined to place them much earlier than half a
century or so before the date of the vellums, which I am told is AD 990 to
1000. The use of papyrus forbids a much later date than the 10th century &
they may be as early as the 9th. The fragments of the Greek Psalter are in a
more elegant hand & may be a little earlier.
It seems clear that Sir Herbert had not at this point conducted more than
a superficial examination of the fragments or made any transcripts. How-
ever, he apparently later returned to the material and made at least some
copies thereof. At this time he must have had access also to the material
deriving from Or. 7023 and understood that it related to some of the frag-
ments that he had included in his list under nos. 5 or 6 and derived from
a work which he subsequently called Martyria Apa Cornelius.15 Alas, it
Unfortunately, and as will also be discussed in a later occasion, it is difficult to deduce

15
which fragments of Thompson’s 5 and 6 were parts of this work seeing that most of the
material thereof comes from Or. 7023, with only a small portion derived from 7024 and 7025.
98544.indb 168 1/02/16 11:36

is not known when exactly Thompson made his copies,16 and it is simi-
larly unclear whether he prepared transcripts of all of the material listed
in his report or only of the three literary works whose copies were subse-
quently found among his papers. These gaps in our knowledge are particu-
larly regrettable seeing that in his 1987 Catalogue Layton states that the
original fragments could not be found in the library collections.17 By my
request, another search for the original fragments was conducted in 2011,
but their whereabouts could still not be established. It seems thus that the
humble copies of three of the texts by Sir Herbert Thompson and now in
Cambridge represent the only record of their content in existence.
The present article represents the first part of an ‘edition’ of the texts
recovered from the archive of Herbert Thompson — or, rather, of his
copies of them. The material on which Sir Herbert worked was very frag-
mentary, and his notes present further problems. He clearly meant them
for his personal use and may have intended to use them as a basis for a
subsequent publication, which, however, he never prepared. He appar-
ently made his initial transcripts in pencil and then inked in parts of them,
adding a few notes here and there again in pencil. However, he often did
not indicate the shape and exact character of the fragments, which occa-
sionally makes it hard to estimate how much text had been lost. In some
cases his organisation of the material is difficult to understand, and it is
not always clear what he meant by various numeric denotations or even
why he included certain material together with something else. Neverthe-
less, the texts are interesting and worth publishing not only because they
are, for the most part, unparalleled, but also because they also underscore
our scholarly debt to our predecessors, whose efforts from time to time
allow a partial reconstruction of ancient literary works that otherwise
seem to have been irretrievably lost.
The ‘Acts of Stephen’
Herbert Thompson’s copies of the fragments containing what he thought

were parts of a work known to him as Acts of Stephen are, as noted, in
two sets of ruled paper leaves attached together. On the cover sheet of the
first set Thompson wrote ‘0·7/16/1’ and on the first page of the second
16
See below for this problem.
17
Layton, Catalogue xxx & nos. 121, 158, 159, and 163. However, Layton surmises
that the fragment of Wisdom mentioned in Thompson’s report under (7) may be no. 25 of
his catalogue.
98544.indb 169 1/02/16 11:36

170 Sami Uljas
‘0·7/14/1’. The meaning of these sigla is unclear. The year in which the
codices were purchased was, as seen, 1909, so that in principle Thomp-
son could have meant ‘1 July 1914’ and ‘1 July 1916’. Yet this is, of course,
most unlikely. Moreover, on the cover sheet of the set containing copies
of Cornelius one reads ‘0·7/3/1’. The sigla do not seem to represent dates,
but it is difficult to say what exactly they stand for. Be that as it may, the
first of the Stephen sets contains transcripts of seventeen pieces of papy-
rus labelled A1–A17 plus one further fragment (A18), which appears to
contain orders concerning monastic life. Although including it with the
other fragments, Thompson wrote in the margin ‘Stephen?’ and ‘canons’,
clearly indicating that he did not consider it an incontestable part of the
text. His reason for including it there is revealed by a further margin note
‘prob[ably] same w[ri]t[in]g’. Nevertheless, the contents of the text seem
to have nothing to do with that of the other fragments, and I have there-
fore not transcribed it here. All the fragments in the first set were extracted
from the bindings of codex Or. 7029. The other set of copies comprises
only two fragments labelled P1 and P2 from Or. 7024.
There have been no verified sightings of the original Budge binding
fragments since they disappeared sometime between the early/mid 1910s
and 1987. In 1995 Peter van Minnen published a papyrus fragment in the
Duke University Special Collections Library narrating the martyrdom of
a certain Stephen of Lenaios, who, like many of his fellow believers, suf-
fered in the hands of the arch-persecutor Arianos and whose passio van
Minnen thought to be the earliest Coptic account of martyrdom.18 Later
Enzo Lucchesi cast doubt on van Minnen’s views and suggested that the
Duke fragment might instead form part of the ‘Acts of Stephen’ reported
by Layton as having been mentioned by Thompson.19 This identification
is, however, impossible. The St Stephen of at least the majority of the
Herbert Thompson fragments is in fact the famed ‘proto-martyr’ whose
career as a miracle-worker, outspoken defence of the divinity of Christ,
and subsequent stoning to death is narrated in the Acts of the Apostles
6:1–7:60. Stephen’s story inspired a number of apocryphal works in antiq-
uity, and some of these have been attested also in Coptic.20 In 1983 Jürgen
18
van Minnen, “The earliest account.” The fragment in question is P. Duk. inv. 438.
19
Lucchesi, “Le martyre de Stéphanos de Lénaios.”
20
A list of apochryphal works on Stephen is provided by Bovon, “The Dossier on
Stephen.” These works contain several acta and encomia of the saint in various languages,
and it cannot be excluded that the work(s) described in the present article, although unpar-
alleled in Coptic, will eventually turn out to be versions or translations of these. However,
ascertaining this is impossible at present seeing that many of the manuscripts catalogued
by Bovon are unedited.
98544.indb 170 1/02/16 11:36

Horn published a dossier listing manuscripts containing Coptic literary

works relating to St Stephen21 and, according to him, these included at
least two hagiographic texts. The Life of St Stephen the Protomartyr is
preserved in its entirety in a 9th century AD Sahidic codex from the Mon-
astery of Archangel Michael situated near Hamuli and now in the collec-
tions of the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.22 This work, published
by Yassa Abd al-Masih,23 is narrated by Stephen himself and is unrelated
to the story of his martyrdom in the Acts of the Apostles — indeed, it
appears to have been composed primarily to provide a fictional ‘prequel’
thereto.24 In the Vatican there is a set of two Sahidic parchment leaves
from the White Monastery containing part of the same text and transcribed
by Guidi.25 A fragment of the same manuscript and text has also been iden-
tified in Paris.26 The other work mentioned by Horn is an encomium on
Stephen by a bishop of Jerusalem (probably Theodosius, bishop AD 451–
453) that survives only in fragments from the same White Monastery
codex from which derive the Vatican leaves from Stephen’s Life. Some
of these are again in the Vatican and were edited by Guidi alongside the
pages from the Life,27 but the majority are in the Coptic Museum in Cairo
and consist of four leaves and fragments transcribed by Munier.28 Com-
menting on Horn’s investigation, Lucchesi pointed out that two further
parts of this codex and the encomium are preserved: one on a folio in
Vienna29 and another on a damaged leaf now in the British Library
described by Layton and transcribed at the end of the present article.30
21
Horn, “Der erste Märtyrer” 49–55; see also Lucchesi, “A propos d’un enkomion
copte.” Horn also discussed other Coptic sources on Stephen such as his two entries in
the Synaxar and the various hymns on him in the Difnar and elsewhere (46–49). For docu-
mentary material on the cult of Stephen, see Papaconstantinou, Culte des saints 193.
22
Pierpont Morgan M577 ff. 1r–12r. See Depuydt, Catalogue 354 no. 172.
23
Abd al-Masih, “A Coptic apocryphon of Saint Stephen.”
24
Cf. Horn, “Der erste Märtyrer” 50–51.
25
Guidi, “Frammenti copti” 48–50. The leaves, from the codex nowadays known as
MONB.NO, were originally catalogued as n. 122 in Zoëga’s Catalogus (p. 117). They
have lost their original page numbers, but correspond to ff. 9r.a24–10v.a19 of M577.
26
BnF 12913 f. 68; see Lucchesi, “Fausses attributions” 247–249.
27
Guidi, “Frammenti copti” 50–52. See also Zoëga, Catalogus no. 123 (p. 118). The
leaves are numbered ⲝⲁ–ⲝⲃ (61–62) and ⲝⲉ–ⲝⲋ (65–66).
28
CG 9234; see Munier, Catalogue 3036. The entry includes also CG 8018 described
earlier by Crum (Catalogue BM 8) and included under 9234 by Munier after a discovery
of more leaves of Crum’s text. Crum’s leaves carry the original page numbers ⲛⲉ–ⲛⲏ
(55–58). One of Munier’s new leaves must have had the original numbers 63–65 (cf.
Horn, “Der erste Märtyrer” 54 n. 44) whereas his second (fragmentary) leaf has lost
its number.
29
K 9492; this leaf is unpublished.
30
British Library Or. 6954 f. 51; see Lucchesi, “A propos d’un enkomion copte;”
Layton, Catalogue 184 no. 156.
98544.indb 171 1/02/16 11:36

172 Sami Uljas
According to Horn, the work from which all these fragments derive appears
to have been a ‘miraculous encomium’ mixing encomiastic motives and
standard themes of hagiographic miracula.31 However, Layton states that
this does not seem to be the same encomium on Stephen whose beginning
appears on a fragmentary leaf in Paris noted briefly by Crum and Porch-
er.32 A similarly badly preserved work (in Coptic) is the Sahidic transla-
tion of Gregory of Nyssa’s first panegyric on Stephen of which a fragment
is preserved in Paris.33 Moreover, there was also yet another work on
Stephen that gained wide currency in antiquity and was known as Inven-
tion of Stephen. This purports to have been written in AD 415 by a priest
named Lucian, who in a letter addressing churches of the east claimed to
have discovered the tombs of the two righteous rabbis Gamaliel and Nico-
demus34 as well as that of St Stephen, and that the whereabouts of the
sepulchres had been revealed to him by Gamaliel in a vision.35 The Copts
knew this story well, and a version of it appears in the Copto-Arabic
Synaxar for 15 Thout, the day of celebrating the translocation of the body
of St Stephen the Archdeacon.36 In addition, Crum tells that in the library
of the University of Leipzig there is a ‘very dilapidated text’ that ‘tells
how, on the second day of the week, the narrator guided [the bishop]
and clergy to a certain spot, where, after prayer, they dug a fathom… and
found a cave; how John the bishop… recognised the body of Stephen…
how, while seeking that of Gamaliel, Stephen [sic] appeared and bade the
bishop be now content and have this garden tended (?)’.37 As noted by
Crum, this is obviously a version of Lucian’s tale. Overall, therefore, it
would appear that the surviving manuscripts preserve (at least parts of) five
different ecclesiastical works on St Stephen the proto-martyr in Coptic.38
31
Horn “Der erste Märtyrer” 54 n. 45.
32
Paris BnF Copte 1317 f. 20. See Crum, Catalogue BM 9 n. 3; Crum, “Review of
Munier 1916”, 68; Porcher in “Analyse des manuscrits coptes 1311–8” 99. Neither author
provides a transcription of the text. According to Alin Suciu (personal communication),
an uncatalogued fragment with no call number in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek joins this leaf
and preserves part of the title of the work.
33
BnF 1314 f. 162; see Lucchesi, “Un fragment sahidique.”
34
See Acts 5:34–35 and Jh 3:1–9, 7:50, 19:39.
35
See Butler, Lives vol. VIII 3 August. See also Nau, “Notes sur les mots ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΣ
et ΠΟΛΙΤΕΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ.”
36
See Basset, “Le Synaxaire arabe jacobite, mois de Tout & Babeh” 270–72.
37
Crum, “Hagiographica” 306–07. The fragment has the inventory number 1067 f. 11;
see Leipoldt in Vollers, Katalog 402.
38
Here one should also make a note of the Arabic text on Stephen published in Y. Abd
al-Masih and A. Khater. “An Arabic Apocryphon of Saint Stephen the Archdeacon.”
Studia Orientalia Christiana Collectanea 13 (1968/1969), 161–198 that probably goes
back to a Coptic original. Alas, I have been unable to obtain the said publication.
98544.indb 172 1/02/16 11:36

It is difficult to say which of these works, if any, is/are represented in the

Thompson material. The latter do not show any direct correspondence
with the texts in the known or published sources for the Life or the (two?)
encomia of St Stephen’s. Crum’s brief description of the contents of the
Leipzig fragments suggests that the same holds also for this sole surviv-
ing part of his Revelation. Nevertheless, the Thompson fragments derive,
as noted, from two separate codices, one of which was cannibalised for
the bindings of Or. 7024 and one for those of Or. 7029. As shall be seen,
among them are (partly) preserved two colophons of a different sort that
derive from two different sources and probably involve two different
Stephens. One of the colophons calls the work ⲁⲅⲱⲛ ‘struggle’. The term
used of the other one is lost, although Thompson restored ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ‘dis-
course’ or ‘encomium’ in the lacuna. This must indicate not only two
original codices but also at least two separate original works. Yet the
number of original works was probably higher still. The fragments from
Or. 7029, which, according to Thompson, came from the same original
manuscript, narrate two approximations of the Biblical story of Ste-
phen’s actions prior to his trial before the Sanhedrin and his subsequent
lynching. It could therefore be that the material used in the bindings
of Or. 7029 derived from a miscellany on St Stephen the proto-martyr
that contained at least two works on him. Whether the codex used for
Or. 7024 was in some way similar to that torn asunder in preparing
Or. 7029 is impossible to say, but the fragments deriving from it do not
correspond to those from Or. 7029. Indeed, their content seems so dif-
ferent in character that it is well-nigh certain that they preserve parts of
a third unknown literary work featuring a Stephen who was not the char-
acter from the New Testament.
What follows below is a faithful reproduction in print of Thompson’s two

sets of copies of Stephen texts. I have maintained Sir Herbert’s ordering
of the material and his abbreviations and style of presentation as closely
as possible. Only in case of damaged or broken lines have I adopted the
use of square brackets to indicate missing portions; Thompson himself
usually simply cut the lines short, although sometimes he too used [ and ].
I have also added word divisions in the Coptic text as well as further
notes to those made by Sir Herbert, including comments on his com-
ments, suggestions of further restorations, certain alternative readings,
etc. The translation of the copies is based on the latter and is thus not
simply a translation of Thompson’s text as it stands.
98544.indb 173 1/02/16 11:36

98544.indb 174 1/02/16 11:36
(THOMPSON: STEPHEN SET No. 1)
0∙7/16/1
Papyrus fragts. From Coptic bindings in BM.
From Or. 7029 [Story of Aaron the Poor acquired 1909 by Budge]
Acts of Stephen
Largest frt. 25.5 × 17 cm.

Coarse uncial writing of 10th cent. (?)
98544.indb 175 1/02/16 11:36

176 Sami Uljas
A1
Vert: begs of lines Horiz ends

1 ... ⲁⲡⲟⲥ]ⲧⲁⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ[ .
ⲁⲁⲃ ⲟⲩϯⲱⲛⲉ ⲡⲉ · ⲟⲩⲁ[ ⲉⲩⲁ]ⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ.
ⲟⲩⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ · ⲛⲇ[ ]ϥⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ · ⲱ ⲡⲙⲁⲣ
ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲣⲟϕⲏⲧⲏⲥ · ⲛ[ ]ⲡϩⲟⲙⲟⲗⲟⲅⲏⲧⲏⲥ
5 ⲛⲓⲥⲇⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉⲟⲩ[.ⲩ [ⲛⲓ⳰ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭⲥ · ⲱ ⲡⲉⲡⲣⲱⲥⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲛ
ⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ ⲡⲉ · ⲁⲩⲕⲁⲑⲓⲥⲧⲁ ⲙ[ⲙⲟⲩ ]ⲱ ⲡⲇⲓⲟⲕⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲙ
ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲓⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟⲛⲟⲥ · · · ⲁ[ ⲧϩⲉ ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ⳰ⲥ · ⲙⲛϣⲉⲟⲙ ⲙⲡⲁ
ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲉϫⲛⲛ[ ]ⲛⲛⲉⲕⲁⲣⲏⲧⲛ
ⲣⲏⲅⲉⲓ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲃ[ ]ⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲕ ⲱ ⲡⲁ
10 ÷ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ · [ ]ⲕⲱ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲟ
ⲧ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲛⲉⲣⲉ[ ]ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲣⲉϥ
÷ ⲛⲥⲁⲛⲁⲡ[ⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ [ⲣⲛⲟⲃⲉ ]ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲓ ⲉ
ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟ[ⲥ ]ⲁⲛⲟⲕⲅⲁⲣ
ⲛⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇ[ⲁⲓ ]ⲙⲡϣⲁϫⲉ
Thompson’s Notes:
Top of page: ‘A1 Stephen largest 27½ × 17’ Under both transcripts: ‘bott. p.’ & ‘bottom
of p.’ v3, before ⲱ: ‘?’ v7, above ⲓⲥ: ‘ⲙ?’ Bottom of page: ‘Cf Crum Mon.ts (Cairo
Cat.) p8 no 8018; Paris 1317 fo 20 (WE Crum) Z. cxxii–iii (p227–8) = Guidi fram. P.48–50
(cf Lemm, K.Misc xxviii p.62) Crum PSBA xxix, 306. All pts. of same MS = Hyv Alb. xii.2.
(W.E.C.) early history?’; ‘invocation of his’.
Author’s notes:
r5: Thompson’s restoration at the end of the line consists of faintest pencil traces. Of the
seemingly two characters added only the second (ⲩ) is legible. One should, however,
restore r5–6 as ⲟⲩ[ϣ]ⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ ⲡⲉ. r9: restore ⲉⲃ[ⲟⲗ]. r11–12: perhaps restore
ⲛⲉⲣⲉ[ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲡⲱⲧ] ⲛⲥⲁⲛⲁⲡ[ⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ] ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟ[ⲥⲇⲉ ⲛⲉϥⲣϩⲟⲧⲉ
ⲁⲛ ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ] ⲚⲚⲓⲟⲩⲇ[ⲁⲓ] (cf. fragment A9v below). However, the space might not
suffice for this. v1: Surely ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ. Thompson’s restoration at the end of the line
consists of a single illegible character. v3–4: restore e.g. ⲙⲁⲣ[ⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲛ]. v6–7: Thomp-
son’s copy gives the impression as if there was nothing missing before ⲧϩⲉ. But given the
ⲙ on the previous line instead of Ⲛ, this can hardly be so. v7: sic; surely ⲙⲛϣϭⲟⲙ.
v9–10: perhaps restore ⲡⲁ[ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ].
98544.indb 176 1/02/16 11:36

A2
Vert. ends of lines Horiz. begs. of lines

1 [ ] ⲩ · ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲉϣϯ ⲟⲩⲃⲉⲧⲥⲟϕⲓⲁ ⲛⲉⲩⲕⲏϩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁⲩⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ[
[ⲙⲡ]ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏⲏϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ · ϯ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲁⲩⲛⲟϫϥ ⲉⲡⲉϣⲧⲉⲕⲟ [Ⲛⲧⲟϥ]
[ ]ⲧⲁⲙⲱⲧⲛ ϫⲉⲉⲧⲃⲉⲟⲩⲟ · ϣⲟ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲉϣⲧⲉⲕⲟ ⲉϥⲧ[
[ ]ⲙⲉⲛ ϫⲉ ⲛⲉϥⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ ⲚϣⲱⲚ ϩⲙⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ⳰ · ⲉϥⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ[
5 ⲙ · ⲉϥϯⲥⲃⲱ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲣⲉ ⲧⲁⲩⲛⲟϫ⳰ϥ ⲉⲡⲉϣⲧⲉⲕⲟ · ϩⲣ[ⲁⲓ]
[ⲩ]ⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ ⲙⲡⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ · Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ÷ ϩⲚⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ · ⲉⲧⲓ ⲉϥ[ⲁϩ]
[ⲇ]ⲉ ⲁⲩⲕⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ · ⲁⲩϣⲓⲛⲉ ÷ ⲉⲣⲁⲧ⳰ϥ ⲉϥϣⲗⲏⲗ ⲁⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲁ[ϩ]
[Ⲛ]ⲥⲁⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲧ ⲙⲙⲟϥ · ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛⲉⲩ ÷ ⲉⲣⲁⲧ⳰ϥ ϩⲓϫⲱϥ ⲁⲡⲉϣⲧⲉⲕⲟ [ⲧⲏ]
[ⲣ]ϩⲟⲧⲉ ϩⲏⲧϥ ⲙⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲓ ÷ ⲣ⳰ϥ ⲣⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ · ⲁⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ϣⲁϫⲉ [ⲛⲙ]
10 [ⲉ]ⲣⲉⲩⲥⲇⲉ ⲁⲩⲥⲙⲛⲟⲩϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ÷ ⲙⲁϥ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ · ϫⲉⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ [ⲡⲁ]
[ⲙ]ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ · ⲁⲩⲉⲒⲛⲉ Ⲛϩⲉⲛⲣⲱ ÷ ⲥⲱⲧⲡ · ⲭⲁⲓⲣⲉ ⲡϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ · ⲭⲁ[ⲓ]
[ⲙ]ⲉ Ⲛⲗⲟⲓⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩϯ ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛϩⲉⲛϩⲟ ÷ ⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲚϩⲟⲧ ⲭⲁ[ⲓ]
[ⲙ]Ⲛⲧ · ⲁⲩⲣⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲩϫⲱ ÷ ⲣⲉ ⲡⲉⲕⲗⲟⲙ Ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ · [ⲭⲁⲓ]
[ⲙ]ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉⲁⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ÷ ⲣⲉ ⲡϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ ⲚⲚⲁⲅⲓ[ⲟⲥ ⲭⲁⲓ]
15 [ϫⲉⲒ⳰ⲥ ⲡ]ⲛⲁⲍⲱⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ · Ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉⲧ ⲣⲉ ⲡⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲚϩⲟⲧ[
[ⲛⲁⲃⲱ]ⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲚⲚⲥⲱⲚⲧ Ⲛⲧⲁ ⲛⲁⲕ · ⲉⲓⲉϩ . . . [
[ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏ]ⲥ ⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛ⳰ϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲣⲅⲉⲓ ⲙⲁⲕ
Thompson’s notes:
Above both transcripts: ‘top of p.’ and ‘top of page’. r2, above ⲟⲩⲏⲏ: ‘sic’ r3, above
ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲟⲩⲟ: ‘sic’ r15–16, margin: ‘Acts 6/15 not quoted only ref.’. Bottom margin,
under r: ‘ⲛⲁⲍⲱⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ’; under v: ‘his ministry, false witnesses, imprisonment, vision
of St.’
Author’s notes:
r: Thompson does not indicate loss of any characters at the beginning of the first five
lines, where it must, nevertheless, have occurred. r3–4: restore ϯ[ⲛⲁ]ⲧⲁⲙⲱⲧⲚ and
ϣⲟ[ⲡⲣ]. r5: restore [ⲛⲓ]ⲙ at the beginning. v1: restore ⲉ[ϩⲣⲁⲓ]. v3: restore ⲧ[ⲏⲕ].
v4–5: perhaps restore [Ⲓ⳰ⲥ Ⲛ]ⲧⲁⲩⲛⲟϫϥ. v16–17: restore […ⲛⲙ]ⲙⲁⲕ. v17: end of line?
98544.indb 177 1/02/16 11:36

178 Sami Uljas
A3
Vert: ends [of] lines Horiz. begs.

1 ]... · ⲛ . . ϥ ⲥⲁ · ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲙⲡⲉⲓ[
]ⲡⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲏⲩ ⲛⲉϣⲧⲉⲕ . . . . [
]ⲡⲁ ⲚⲚϣⲣ⳰ⲡ ⲙⲙⲓ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ[
]ⲟⲩⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲥⲟ ⲣⲁⲛ ϯⲛⲁⲃⲟ . . .[
5 ]ⲛ ⲉⲣⲏⲧ ⲙⲡⲉⲕ ⲙⲟⲩ · ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ[
]ⲛⲁⲥ · ⲧⲁϫⲱⲕ ⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲡⲓ[
]ⲧⲏⲙⲁ ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ · ⲧⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ ⲉⲩϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩ[
ⲡⲁⲥ]ⲱⲧ⳰ⲡ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲓϯ ⲉⲛ . ⲧⲟⲛ . . .[
]ⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲚ . . .ϫⲁⲗⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ[
10 [ⲧⲕ ⲙⲡⲉⲙⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ] ⲙⲡⲥⲩⲛϩⲉⲇⲣⲓⲟⲛ · ⲣⲟⲓ ϩⲙⲡⲉⲕⲣⲟⲛ ϯⲛⲁⲧ[
]ⲩ Ⲛϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ · Ⲛ ⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ[ⲁⲁⲃ]
]ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉⲓⲟⲟⲧⲉ ⲁⲩ ⲙ⳰ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ [ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲕ]
]ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ · Ⲛ ϩⲱⲱⲕ · ⲉⲓⲥ ϣⲟⲙ⳰ⲛⲧ Ⲛⲕ[ⲗⲟⲙ ⲥⲉ]
ⲧ]ⲟⲟⲧ⳰ⲕ · Ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲥ⳰ⲃⲧⲱⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ϩⲚⲙⲡⲏ[ⲩⲉ ⲟⲩⲁ]
15 ]ⲁⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲉⲕϣⲁϫⲉ ϩⲁⲧⲉⲕⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ Ⲛⲇⲓⲁⲕ[ⲱⲛ]
]Ⲛⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲁ ϩⲁⲧⲉⲕⲙⲛⲧⲁⲡⲟⲥ[ⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ]
]ϯ[ⲛ]ⲁⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲛⲁⲕ Ⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ ϩⲁⲡⲉⲕⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲉ[ⲕⲉⲡⲁϩ]
]ⲡⲁⲓ ⲙⲡⲉⲗⲁⲁ ⲧ⳰ϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · ⲡⲉⲕⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩ[
]ⲧⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ · Ⲛⲥⲁⲓⲱ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲛ. . ⲡⲁ ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛ[ⲛⲏⲥ
Thompson’s notes:
Under both transcripts: ‘bott. p.’ Bottom margin: ‘words of ⲭⲥ (?) to St. 3 crowns to
be given him (cf. Guidi p49)’
Author’s notes:
r3–4: restore ⲙⲙⲓ[ⲥⲉ]. r7–8: restore ⲧⲉ[ⲛⲟⲩⲇⲉ]. r11–12: restoring [ⲛⲅϫⲛⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟⲟ]
ⲩ would suit given what is read in fragment A5r below, but the preposition Ⲛ before ϩⲱⲃ
ⲛⲓⲙ speaks against this. After this, restore ⲛ[ⲧⲁⲩϣⲱⲡⲉ]. r14–15: restore ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ[ⲇⲉ
ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲉϣϥⲓ] ⲁⲛ. r16–19: restore [ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉⲛⲁϭⲱ]ⲛⲧ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ [ⲁⲛⲟⲕⲇⲉ]
ϯ[ⲛⲁ]ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲛⲁⲕ Ⲛ[...] ⲡⲁⲓ ⲙⲡⲉⲗⲁⲁ [ⲉϣⲙⲁ]ⲧⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ. In the lacuna one might
have expected ⲕⲗⲟⲙ, but the Ⲛ makes this unlikely. r19: Thompson underlined ⲓⲱ[,
clearly anticipating the name ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ. v1–2: perhaps restore ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲙⲡⲉⲓ[ϣⲧⲉⲕⲟ
ⲉⲓⲧⲉ] ⲛⲉϣⲧⲉⲕ[ⲟ...]. v3–4: restore ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ϩⲙⲡⲁ]ⲣⲁⲛ. v4–5: restore
ϯⲛⲁⲃⲟ[ⲏⲑⲉⲓ ⲙ]ⲙⲟⲩ. v5–6: probably restore ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ [ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲉ]ⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ.
v10: ⲡⲉⲕⲣⲟⲛ for ⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ without ‘sic’ by Thompson. v17–18: almost certainly
ⲉⲧⲉ[ⲕⲛⲁⲡⲁϩ]ⲧϥ.
98544.indb 178 1/02/16 11:36

A4
Vert. ends Horiz. begs.

1 ]ϕⲣⲟⲛⲉ
]ⲁⲡⲧⲓⲟⲙⲁ · ϯϩⲟⲙⲟⲗⲟⲅⲉⲓ ]ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲙⲛⲡⲉϩ[
[ⲛⲁⲕ ⲱ] ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲧⲡ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ · ϫⲉ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲏⲓ Ⲛ[
[ⲟⲩⲟⲛ] ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲧⲱⲃⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛⲉ ⲣⲁ ⲡⲉⲭⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲟⲥ · ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ[
5 ]ⲛ⳰ϥϫⲱ ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲱϣϥ · ⲛ⳰ϥⲧⲁⲩ ⲡⲣⲟⲥϕⲟⲣⲁ ⲉⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ[
[ⲟ ⲙⲡ]ⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ ϯⲛⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲙⲉ ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲛⲟⲉⲓⲕ ϩⲙⲡⲉ[
[ϥ ⲛ]ⲧⲁⲁⲩⲝⲁⲛⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲩⲕⲁⲣ ⲧⲓⲛⲁⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛ[
[ⲡⲟⲥ] ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲉⲣⲏⲧ Ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧ ⲉⲛⲉⲕ ϩⲚⲧⲁⲙ⳰ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ · ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ
[ⲧⲟⲡ]ⲟⲥ ⲛ⳰ϥⲁⲙⲉⲗⲉⲓ ⲛ⳰ϥⲧⲙⲧⲁⲁϥ Ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲟⲡ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲉⲃⲟⲧ · ϯⲛⲁⲭ[ⲁⲣⲓ]
10 [ϯ]ⲛⲁϫⲓⲕⲃⲁ ⲙⲙⲟϥ · ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲉⲣⲏ⳰ ⳰ ⲍⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛⲁⲕ · ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲕⲱⲧ [Ⲛ]
]ⲛ⳰ϥϯⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲣⲏⲧ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϯ ⲟⲩⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ϩⲁⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ϯ
[ⲛ]ⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲙⲚⲡⲉϥⲏⲓ ⲧⲏⲣϥ · ⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲡⲱϩ ⲙⲡⲉⲭⲉⲓⲣⲟⲅⲣⲁϕⲟⲛ [Ⲛ]
[ ]ⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲓⲡⲟⲣⲛⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲛⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲉⲧ ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲟⲃⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛ[
[ⲛⲁ]ϫⲓϭⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲑⲏ ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ · ϯ ⲧⲓϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲱ ⲡⲁⲥ[ⲱⲧⲡ ⲥ]
15 [ⲛⲁ ] ⲧⲉϕⲁⲛ[ⲟⲥ] ⲉϫⲉⲛ[
Thompson’s notes:
r1, above the damaged ⲟ: ‘not ⲁ’. r2–3 &5, above restorations: ‘?’ Bottom of page:
‘address of ⲭⲥ (?) to St’
Author’s notes:
r1: perhaps restore [ⲕⲁⲧⲁ]ϕⲣⲟⲛⲉ or [ⲉⲩ]ϕⲣⲟⲛⲉ. r2: perhaps restore […ⲡⲁⲣ]
ⲁⲡⲧⲓⲟⲙⲁ. If the word truly is παράπτωμα, Thompson’s ⲓⲟ might actually have been ⲱ.
r4–5: probably restore ⲟⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛⲉ[ⲛⲕⲟⲧⲕ]. r6–7: given what follows, the correct restora-
tion seems to be ϯⲛⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ[ⲟⲩ]. r11: probably nothing lost. r12–13: perhaps
restore ⲣⲉ(ϥ)[ⲣⲛⲟⲃ]ⲉ, although the space for this indicated by Thompson seems small.
v1: certainly ⲙⲛⲡⲉϥ[ⲏⲓ]. v2–3: restore ⲉⲡⲏⲓ ⲛ[ⲁⲃⲓⲇⲇⲁ]ⲣⲁ. v3–4: restore ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ[ϯ
Ⲛⲟⲩ]ⲡⲣⲟⲥϕⲟⲣⲁ. v5–7: restore and emend as ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ (ⲉϥⲛⲁϯ) ⲛⲟⲉⲓⲕ ϩⲙⲡⲉ[ⲕⲣⲁⲛ]
ⲧⲓⲛⲁⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛ[ⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ]. See the translation below for this and note the
writing ⲧⲓ instead of ϯ in v7 and in v14. v13: restore ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛ[ϣⲏⲣⲉ].
98544.indb 179 1/02/16 11:36

180 Sami Uljas
A5

1 ]ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϣⲱⲡ[ⲉ
]ⲛⲥⲉϩ . ⲩⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲟⲟ ⲕⲁ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲥⲩ[ⲛϩⲉⲇⲣⲓⲟⲛ]
]ⲁⲧ ⳰ . . ⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲙ . . . ⲁⲩⲟⲩⲉϩⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ ⲉⲉⲓⲛⲉ [ⲛⲁⲩ ⲙ]
]ⲟⲟⲚ . ⲁⲧⲕ . . ⲕ[ [ⲡ]ϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ [
5 ]ⲡⲉⲕ . . ⲛⲓⲥ ⲣⲁⲛ . . . ⲏⲇⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · ⲁϥϫⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ [ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲓ]
]ⲁⲁⲃ . ⲡⲉⲕⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲥⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲩⲥ ⲉϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛ[
]ⲡϫ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · Ⲛϣⲟⲙⲛⲧ Ⲛ ⲣⲉϫⲟⲟⲩ · ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲓⲉⲣⲉⲩⲥ[ⲇⲉ ϫⲛⲟ]
]ⲕ ϯⲛⲁⲧⲚⲛⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲁ ⲩϥ ϫⲉⲛⲁⲓ ⲥⲙⲟⲚ⳰ⲧ Ⲛⲧⲉ[ⲓϩⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟϥ]
10 [ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ]ⲣⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲡⲉⲕⲥⲱⲙⲁ · ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲁⲣⲭⲓ Ⲛϫⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲉϩ[
[ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲛⲛⲉⲩ]ϫⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲛⲓⲕⲟ ⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉⲓⲟ[ⲧⲉ
]ⲧⲁϥⲥⲏ . ⲉⲛ . . ⲥⲙ · Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲱⲧⲙⲇⲉ ⲉ[
]Ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ . . ⲟⲕ ⲉⲡⲁ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ · ⲁⲩⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ [
ⲥ]ⲱⲙⲁ · Ⲛ . . . . ⲚⲚ . ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ ⲙⲙ[ⲟϥ ⲛⲧⲉⲩ]
15 ]ϩ . ⲧ . . . . ⲁⲛ⳰ϥ · ⲛⲟⲩ · ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ [ⲡⲉⲡⲛⲁ ⲉ]
]ⲗ . .ⲛ . . ⲧⲱⲕ · ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉ[ϫⲱϥ ⲉϥϭⲱ]
]ⲉⲥⲉ . . . . ⲛⲙⲙⲁ ⳰ ⳰ ϣ⳰ⲧ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲡⲉ · ⲁⲩ[ⲱ
]ϥ . . . ⲩ· ⲉⲩ . . . . . ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧ[
Thompson’s notes:
v8: ‘Acts 7/1’ v17: ‘Acts 7/55’ Under both transcripts: ‘bott. p.’ Bottom of page:
‘beginning of trial’
Author’s notes:
r2: Thompson added ⲃ above the damaged ⲟ. r5: Thompson added ⲟ and ⲓ above the
damaged ⲥ and ⲣ respectively. r6: perhaps restore ⲟⲩ]ⲁⲁⲃ. r7–8: perhaps restore
ⲚϣⲟⲙⲚⲧ Ⲛ[ⲥⲟⲡ]. r15: Thompson added ⲗ above the damaged ⲁ. r18: probably
restore […ⲣⲟ]ⲩ[ϩⲉ]. v1: restore Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϣⲱⲡ[ⲉ ⲁⲛⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ]. v5–6: so Thompson;
a better sense is achieved by restoring ⲁϥϫⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ [ⲛϭⲓⲡⲁⲣⲭⲓ]ⲉⲣⲉⲩⲥ, but it is uncertain
whether the space will have sufficed. v10–11: restore ⲁϥⲁⲣⲭⲓ ⲛϫⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲉϩ[ⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ
ⲛ]ⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ. v12–13: restore Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲱⲧⲙⲇⲉ ⲉ[ⲛⲁⲓ ⲁⲩϭⲱⲛⲧ] ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ. v13–14:
restore ⲁⲩⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ [Ⲛϭⲓⲛⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ] ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ. v17: restore ⲁⲩ[ⲱ ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ.
98544.indb 180 1/02/16 11:36

A6

1 ]ⲙⲉϥϩⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲟ . . . . ⲁⲛⲕⲁⲁϥ ϩ[
[ⲟⲩ ⲁⲛⲓⲕ]ⲟⲇ[ⲏ]ⲙⲟⲥ ⲙ⳰ⲛⲅⲁⲙⲁⲣⲓⲏⲗ [ϩ]ⲁⲡⲗⲱⲥ ⲁϩⲉⲛ . . . ϫⲉ[
]ⲟⲥ . ⲉⲓ Ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ · Ⲛϫⲓⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ . . . .[ ϩⲩ]
]ⲱⲣ ⲁⲩϥⲓ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲁⲩ ⲇⲣⲱⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥ · ⲉⲁϥⲣⲟⲩ . [
5 ⲙⲙ]ⲟϥ ϩⲛⲟⲩϩⲱⲡ ⲙ⳰ⲛⲛⲉⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲉϥϣⲱⲛⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲥ[ⲁⲉⲓⲛⲉϣ]
[Ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲩ]ⲡⲟⲙⲛⲏⲙⲁ · ⲁϩⲉⲛⲛⲟϭ Ⲛⲟⲩ ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟϥ · ⲁϥⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲁⲗ[ⲉⲓ
]ⲡⲉ · ϣⲁϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲙ⳰ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲛ ⲁⲕⲟⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩ[
[ⲉⲩⲥⲉⲃⲏ]ⲥ Ⲛⲣⲣⲟ ⲁⲣⲕⲁⲇⲓⲟⲥ ⲙ⳰ⲛⲟⲛ ⲡⲟⲥ ⲙⲡϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉϕ[ⲁⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛⲧⲉ]
[ⲱⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ]ⲣⲣⲱⲟⲩ Ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ · ⲁ ⲣⲟⲩⲚⲧϥⲇⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ . [
10 ]ⲩⲱϣ ⲉϯⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲡⲉ . . . . ϭⲟⲙ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩ[
]ⲟⲩⲱⲛ⳰ϩ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡ [ ]
ⲁⲉⲓⲛ Ⲛⲁⲗⲏⲑⲉⲓⲛⲟⲛ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲉ ]ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲟⲥ[
ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ Ⲛⲛⲉⲛϣⲱⲛⲉ · ⲙ⳰ⲛⲛⲉⲛⲗⲟ⳰ ]ϥⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ[
ⲗⲉϫ · ϩⲣⲁⲓⲅⲁⲣ ϩⲚⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲛⲟ ⳰ ]ϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉ[ϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ
15 [ⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲛ⳰ϩ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ]ⲉⲣⲟⲓ . ⲁϫⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲚ . . [
[ⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ · ⲙ⳰ⲛⲛⲉⲥϩⲁⲓ Ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲩⲡⲟ [ⲃⲟⲏ]ⲑⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲉϩⲏⲕⲉ · ⲉϣ⳰Ⲛϩⲧⲏϥ[
[ⲙ]ⲛⲏⲙⲁ · ⲛⲁϭⲓϫ ⲙⲓⲛ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩ ⲙⲙ]ⲟϥ · ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲚⲟⲩϩⲟⲣⲟⲙⲁ[
ϣⲓⲛⲉ ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ · ϯ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲙⲡ ϩⲁ[ⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉ]ϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ · . . . . .
[ⲉ]ⲓⲇⲱⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲧ⳰ⲡ ⲉⲇⲱⲣⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ · [ ]
Thompson’s notes:
r12, above the raised point: ‘?’. v1: ‘c.4’ (= ca. 4 characters lost). v7: ‘= διακουε’.
Under both transcripts: ‘bott. p.’ Bottom of page: ‘Gamariel takes his body, Emperor
Arcadius translation’
Author’s notes:
r1: restore [ϩⲙⲡ]ⲉϥⲧⲟⲟⲩⲉ. r3: possibly restore [Ⲛⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓ]ⲟⲥ. r4–5:restore ⲁⲩ[ϩⲱⲡ
ⲙⲙ]ⲟϥ. r6–7: restore ⲁϩⲉⲛⲛⲟϭ Ⲛⲟⲩ[ⲱⲛϩ ϣⲱ]ⲡⲉ. r8: possibly so; of Thompson’s
restoration only […ⲃⲏ]ⲥ is legible. r12: restore [ⲙ]ⲁⲉⲓⲛ. r14–15: So Thompson:
clearly there was no ⲩ at the beginning of l. 15. r17: sic; ⲙⲓⲛ for ⲙⲙⲓⲛ. r18: sic; a
medial point separating ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ and ϯ. v1–2: restore ϩ[ⲁⲡⲁⲝ ϩ]ⲁⲡⲗⲱⲥ. v3–4: per-
haps restore [ⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛ ⲟⲩϩⲩ]ⲇⲣⲱⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥ. v4: restore ⲉⲁϥⲣⲟⲩ[ⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ].
v6–8: restore ⲁϥⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲁⲗ[ⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲇⲓ]ⲁⲕⲟⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩ[ϫⲓ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲉⲡⲧⲟ]ⲡⲟⲥ.
v13–15: perhaps restore [ⲁ]ϥⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲥⲙⲏ ϫⲉⲡ]ϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉ[ϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ
ⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ] ⲉⲣⲟⲓ. v17–18: surely [ⲙⲡ]ϩⲁ[ⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉ]ϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ.
98544.indb 181 1/02/16 11:36

182 Sami Uljas
A7
Vert. begs. of lines Horiz. ends

1 [ ⲡϩⲁⲅⲓ] ⳇ · ϫⲉⲁϥⲧⲥⲁⲃⲟϥ ⲉⲡⲉϥ
ⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ · ⲡⲇⲓⲙ[ ]ⲟ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲙⲡⲟⲩ
ⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲛⲉⲩⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲥ[ ]ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲁ
ⲁϥⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ [ⲛⲥⲙⲏ ϫⲉ] ]ⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉϥϭⲓϫ · ⲁϥ
5 ⲱ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ · ⲧⲉⲕϭⲟ[ⲙ ]ϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉⲡϩ. . . . ϫⲉ . .
ⲁⲛⲟⲕⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲛ⳰ⲅⲟⲩⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ ⳰ [ⲉϥϫⲏ] ......
ⲕ ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ ⲙ⳰ⲛⲟⲩⲕⲣ⳰ⲙ[ⲉⲥ] ⲛ⳰ⲅ[ ]ϥϩⲉϫⲧⲉⲡⲱϩ ·
ⲛⲁϩⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ ⲁⲛ ⲁ[ⲛ]ⲅⲟⲩⲁⲡ[ⲟⲥⲧⲟ] ]ⲉⲩⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
÷ ⲗⲟⲥ · ⲡϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥⲇⲉ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ [ⲁϥ] ]ⲉⲩⲟⲩⲛⲡ
10 ⲁϣⲧ⳰ϥ ⲉϩ[ⲣⲁⲓ . . .]ⲧⲡⲉⲙⲛⲡ[ ]ⲡⲧⲏⲣ⳰ϥ · ⲁϥ
ⲁϥⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟϭ ⲛϭⲟⲙ[ ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ⳰ⲛⲡ
ⲛⲉϥⲥⲉⲕϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲚϣⲁⲛⲧ⳰ϥ Ⲛ[ⲑⲉ] ]ϥϫⲱ ⲉϥ
ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲁ Ⲛ . ⲟⲩ · ϫⲉⲁⲓϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲁ[ ⲁⲕ: ⲛⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲡⲉ
ⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ · ϫⲉⲛⲧⲉⲕϭⲟⲙ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ [ⲁⲛ ϩ]ⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲉϥⲙⲟⲩ · ⲉ . . ⲙⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ
15 ⲧⲉ · ⲛⲥⲙⲉⲗⲉⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲁⲛ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲕ [Ⲛ] ϩⲉⲛⲟϭ Ⲛϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ . . ϣⲱⲡ ⲉ
ⲧⲕⲟⲩⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲧⲕⲟ[ⲩ] ⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ . . . . ⲟⲁⲥⲧⲉ
ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ · Ⲛⲧⲕⲟⲩ[ⲡⲣ] ⲛ . . . ⲙⲉⲇⲉ
ⲉⲥⲃⲩ[ⲧ]ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲁ
Thompson’s notes:
r6–7: ‘Lemm KKS 541’; r8 above ⲛⲁϩ: ‘sic’. ‘l. ϣ for ϩ’ r13: ‘Prb but low for ⲙⲟ’ (?)
Bottom of page: ‘a miracle?’
Author’s notes:
r2: Thompson wrote ⲱ above the final ⲙ, clearly indicating uncertainty. r4: Thompson
suggests alternative restoration [ⲙϕⲱⲛⲏ]. r6: Thompson wrote ‘?’ above his restoration.
r11–12: probably [ⲉ]ⲛⲉϥⲥⲉⲕϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ. r13–14: restore ⲁⲓϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲁ[ⲕ Ⲛ]ⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ.
r14: Thompson wrote ‘?’ above his restoration. v5: perhaps restore ⲉⲡϩ[ⲟⲩⲟ]. v11–12:
perhaps restore ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙⲚⲡ[ⲡ⳰ⲛ⳰ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ...ⲁ]. v15: sic: ϩⲉⲛⲟϭ for ϩⲉⲛⲛⲟϭ.
v15–17: probably restore and correct as ⲛ[ⲉⲩ]ϣⲱⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ [Ⲛϭⲓⲡϩⲁⲅⲓ]ⲟⲥ
ⲥⲧⲉ[ϕⲁ]ⲛ[ⲟⲥ]. ϣⲱⲡ looks like a haplography with the following ⲉⲃⲟⲗ.
98544.indb 182 1/02/16 11:36

A8

1 ]ⲇⲉⲗϩ . . ⲛ . . . . . ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣ[
]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ⳰ · ⲁϥⲕⲱ[
]ϩⲟ[ ⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲡ[ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓ⳰ⲥ ϣⲉⲡⲡⲁ]
]ⲉⲣⲁⲧ⳰ϥ ⲛ . . ⲉⲩ ⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ
⳰ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣ[ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ]
5 ]ⲉⲧⲁϩⲉ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲛ Ⲛⲣⲱϥ ⲁϥϯⲡⲉ[ⲡⲛⲁ ⲛ]
]ⲉⲛⲁⲓ · ⲁⲩϯ ⲥⲟⲩϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲉⲃⲟⲧ[
]ⲁⲩⲧ . ⲉⲩ ⲱ ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ [
]ⲩⲗ . . ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ · ⲉⲩⲟ Ⲛⲁ[
[. . . . . . ] ⲁⲩⲏⲧ · ⲉⲩ . ⲓⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲧⲉϥ[
10 ]ⲱ · ⲡⲁⲓⲅⲁ ⲧⲏ · ⲁⲙⲓⲭ[ⲁ]ⲏⲗ ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲧⲚ ⲉⲃ[ⲟⲗ Ⲛ]
]ⲉϣⲁⲩⲧⲣⲉ ⲧⲉϥⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ · ⲁϥϫⲓ Ⲛ[ⲧⲉϥ]
]ⲣⲉϩⲱⲧⲃ . ⲛⲉ . . ⲛ ⲙ⳰ⲛ ⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲉϩⲣⲁ[ⲓ] ⲉⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ · ⲁϥⲕⲁ [
]ⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉⲓϩⲉⲇⲉ ⲁⲙⲙⲛ⳰ⲧ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲚⲚϣⲣ⳰ⲡ ⲙⲙ[ⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧ]
[ⲣⲉ] ⲕⲱ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩ̑ϩⲟⲓⲧⲉ · ⲁⲡ ⲥⲏϩ ϩⲚⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ · ⲡⲉϥⲥ[ⲱⲙⲁ .]
15 [ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲇ]ⲉ ϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ . . ϣ[
]Ⲛ[ⲧ]ⲟϥⲇⲉ ⲡϩⲁ
[ⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ. . . . . ]
Thompson’s notes:
Top of page: ‘cert. same wtg’ r13: ‘Acts 7/58’ v3: ‘Acts 7/59’ v6: ‘Stephen’s day is Tybi 1’
v12: ‘Cf S2’ Bottom of page, under 1: ‘ⲙⲓⲭⲁⲏⲗ’ Bottom of page, under 2: ‘sermon’
Author’s notes:
r13: ⲉⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ should probably be read Ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ. r15: Thompson inserted ‘?’ above his
restoration. v1: restore Ⲛⲧⲉⲣ[ⲉ. v2–3: restore ⲁϥⲕⲱ[ⲗϫⲇⲉ ⲛⲛⲉϥⲡⲁⲧ ⲁϥ]ⲱϣ. v4: so
Thompson, but following the Coptic version of Acts 7:60 (Thompson, Coptic Version 21)
one should restore Ⲛⲧⲉⲣ[ⲉϥϫⲉⲛⲁⲓⲇⲉ]. v9: the ⲉⲩ.ⲓⲏⲩ is probably for ⲉ[ⲩ]ⲛⲏⲩ, with
Thompson’s ⲓ representing the right vertical minim of ⲛ. v13: Thompson inserted ‘?’
above his restoration. v14: probably ⲡⲉϥⲥ[ⲱⲙⲁⲇⲉ]. v15: Thompson could apparently
see the tops of four vertical minims of two characters before the ϣ.
98544.indb 183 1/02/16 11:36

184 Sami Uljas
A9
Vert. mid. Horiz. mid.

1 [ ] [ ]
]ϩⲏⲕⲉ · ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ[ ]. . . . . ⲉϫ . .[
]ⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉⲟⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟ[ ]ⲟⲩ . . . . .[
]ϩⲛⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩⲇⲉ[ ]ⲉⲓⲱⲧⲉ . [
5 ]ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲇⲓⲱⲕ[ ]ⲛ . . . . ⲉⲣⲓ[
ⲁⲡ]ⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ · ⲡϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ]ⲥⲃⲉ . . . ⲓⲣ . . .[
[ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛ]ⲟⲥ· ⲛⲉϥⲣϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲁⲛ ϩⲏ[ⲧⲟⲩ ⲛ] ⲉⲧ]ⲃⲉⲧⲁⲧⲟⲗⲙⲏⲣⲓⲁ · ⲁ[
[ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇ]ⲁⲓ · ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛⲉϥϯⲧⲱ[ⲛ ]ⲛ⳰ⲅⲟⲩϩⲓⲇⲓⲱⲧⲏⲥ ϩ⳰ⲙ[
Thompson’s notes:
v4, above the lost part: an illegible scribble that looks like ‘Nov 5’. v6–7: ‘cf. Guidi
p. 51 bott’. Under both transcripts: ‘bott. p.’
Author’s notes:
r4–5: possibly restore ϩⲚⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩⲇⲉ [ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ] ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲇⲓⲱⲕ[ⲙⲟⲥ
ⲛⲛⲁⲡ]ⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ. v7–8: restore ⲁ[ⲗⲗⲁ ⲁ]ⲛ⳰ⲅ.
98544.indb 184 1/02/16 11:36

A10
Vert. begs. Horiz. ends

1 [?]ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲉ[ ]ϩⲛⲛⲉⲕ
[?]ⲙⲡⲉ . ⲣⲡⲙ[ ]ⲁ ϩⲙⲡⲕⲟⲥ
÷ ⲧⲉⲥ . . ⲩ . .[ ] . . ⲁ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ
÷ ⲡⲁⲁ . . [ ]ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲥⲩ
5 ÷ ⲟⲩϩ ⲉϩⲟ[ⲩⲛ ] . ⲟⲛⲟⲙⲁⲍ
÷ ⲁⲁⲃ · ⲡⲁ[ ]ⲱⲙ ⲉⲉⲧ
÷ ⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛ[ ]ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ
— •••• — •••• — [ ]ⲙⲉ · ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛ
ⲟⲩⲙⲉ ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲟ[ⲥ ⲡ] ]ⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ ⲕϫⲟⲟⲥ
10 · ⲉⲛⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲉϥⲱ[ ]ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏ ϩⲙⲉⲛ
· ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϫⲉⲉ[ ⲇⲓ] ]ⲉⲡⲉϥⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲙ
· ⲁⲕⲟⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲡⲁⲉ[ ]Ⲛⲥⲁⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲁϥ
ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ϫⲉⲡⲙⲁ[ ]ⲟⲩⲧ · Ⲛⲧⲟⲕⲇⲉ
ⲡⲁⲕⲉⲇⲓⲁⲕⲱⲛⲟⲥ[
ⲥ]ⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ
15 ]Ⲛⲧⲟⲕⲇⲉ ⲱ[ ]ⲡⲏⲩⲉ · ⲉⲩ
]ⲉ · ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓ[ ]ⲱⲧⲉϥ ϩⲙ[
]ⲃⲏⲏⲧⲕ · ⲁⲓ[ ]ϩⲚⲧⲙⲉϩ[
]ⲛⲟⲥ ⲙ . [
Thompson’s notes:
Under both columns: ‘prob. bott. p.’
Author’s notes:
r4–6: restore [ⲥⲱ]ⲟⲩϩ ⲉϩⲟ[ⲩⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁⲁⲃ. r10–11: perhaps something akin to ⲉϥⲱ[ϣ
ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲛⲉϥ]ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ might be restored. r11–13: restore and emend as ⲉ[ϣⲱⲡⲉ
ⲟⲩⲛ ⲟⲩⲁⲛⲁⲇⲓ]ⲁⲕⲟⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲙⲁⲣ[ⲉϥⲟⲩⲁϩϥ ⲛⲥⲱⲓ] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ϫⲉⲡⲙⲁ [ⲁⲛⲟⲕ
ⲉϯⲙⲙⲟϥ] ⲡⲁⲕⲉⲇⲓⲁⲕⲱⲛⲟⲥ [ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲩ]. r17: restore ⲉⲧ]ⲃⲏⲏⲧⲕ⳰ .
r2–3: restore ⲡⲕⲟⲥ[ⲙⲟⲥ. v13–14: perhaps restore Ⲛⲧⲟⲕⲇⲉ [ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲧⲡ ⲥ]ⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ.
v15: restore [ ϩⲛⲙ]ⲡⲏⲩⲉ. v17: restore ϩⲚⲧⲙⲉϩ[ⲧⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛ...] and cf. fragment A6r.
However, given the feminine gender here, restoring ϩⲚⲧⲙⲉϩ[ⲧⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ] is excluded.
98544.indb 185 1/02/16 11:36

186 Sami Uljas
A11
Vert: ends Horiz. begs.

1 ]ⲧⲙⲁⲓⲣⲱ ⲣⲟ[
]ⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ[
]ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲙ ⲉⲡⲕⲉⲕⲁ[
[ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲙⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ⳰ ⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ Ⲛⲣⲉϥ ⲛⲁ ⲉⲓⲉⲡⲉⲥ[
5 [ⲧⲁⲛϩⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛϩⲟⲙⲟ]ⲩⲥⲓⲟⲛ ϣⲁⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲧⲛ . . ⲁⲁϥⲛ[
] •••• — ••• — ••• — ϥⲑ ••• — ⲕⲁⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲡ[
[ⲟⲩⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲉⲁϥ]ⲧⲁⲩⲟϥ Ⲛϭⲓ ⲡ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ . . .[
ⲡⲁⲣ]ⲭⲓⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟ ⲧⲥⲛⲁ[
[ⲡⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲟ]ϕⲟⲣⲟⲥ ...
10 [ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡϩⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ] ⲡⲇⲓⲁⲕⲱ ⲉⲉϫ . ϩ . .[
[ⲛⲟⲥ ⲥⲧⲉ]ϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ · ⲡⲉ . ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ ϣ[
[ⲡⲣⲱⲧⲟⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲣⲉⲙ . . . ⲭⲱ[
]ⲉϥⲧⲁⲟⲩⲛ . .
]ⲁⲡ[
Thompson’s notes:
r5: ‘BH Acta Mart p88’. r6: a mostly illegible note; one discerns ‘cf’ and ‘ϥⲑ’. r9: the
alternative restoration ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ[ added above ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲟ[. Bottom of page: ‘Crum
Mons. P8 n. says those Acts of Stephen (in Cairo) are attrib. to a Bp of Jerusalem’;
‘Colophon?’
Author’s notes:
r1–2: restore ⲙⲛ]ⲧⲙⲁⲓⲣⲱ[ⲙⲉ. r2–3: restore ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ [ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ…], following
Balestri-Hyvernat, Acta 88, 1. r8–9: Thompson’s restoration seems too long for the space
indicated. A better alternative might be ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟ[ⲡⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲧⲟ]ϕⲟⲣⲟⲥ. Thompson’s
first ⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ should also be deleted.
98544.indb 186 1/02/16 11:36

A12

]ⲟⲧⲚ . . . ⲉⲕⲧⲥ
]Ⲛⲕⲣⲟϥ · ⲏ ....
]ⲩⲓ ⲉⲧⲃⲉϯ · ⲁⲩ ⲡⲉϥⲏ[
]ⲱⲣⲕ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩϫ ⲉⲓⲃ[
ⲉϥϣⲁⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁϕⲣⲟⲛⲉⲓ ⲙⲙⲟ[
A13
Vert. mids. Horiz. [mids.]

1 ]ⲉⲩ ⲥ[ ]ⲛ⳰ϩⲛ⳰ϥ [
]ⲉⲧⲉⲥϣ[ ⲧⲉ]ϥⲯⲩⲭ[ⲏ
]ⲥⲉⲡⲱⲣ[ ]ⲁⲛϫⲓⲧⲥ[
]ϩⲛ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ · [ ]ⲁⲩ ⲙⲡⲕⲟⲥ[ⲙⲟⲥ
5 ]ⲛⲧⲛⲁⲓⲥⲉ[ ]ⲛ · ⲚⲧⲚ[
]ⲉϫⲛⲛⲉⲛⲁ[ ]ⲉⲛⲛⲓϣ[
]ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉⲛⲁ[ ⲡ]ⲉⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙ[ⲟⲥ
]ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲩ[ ]ⲡⲟⲣϫ[
]ⲁ⳰ⲣⲡⲙ[ ]ⲙⲡⲉⲡ[
10 ]ⲉⲓ ]ϩⲓⲥⲉ[
..
Thompson’s notes:
A12, under both transcripts: ‘bott. p.’ A13, v2: ‘cf. E2
98544.indb 187 1/02/16 11:36

188 Sami Uljas
A14
Horiz. Vert.
]ϥⲣⲃⲗ[ ]ⲛⲟⲅⲓ[
]ⲙ⳰ⲛⲧⲉⲃ[ ]Ⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡ[
]ⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛⲧ[ ]ⲛⲟϭ Ⲛ[
]ⲙ[
A15
Hor[izontal] Vert.
]ⲛⲓ[ Very
]ⲧⲏⲣⲥ[ faint
]ⲉⲉⲧ[
Author’s notes:
A14, v2: restore ⲣⲟⲙⲡ[ⲉ.
98544.indb 188 1/02/16 11:36

A16
Vert. ends Horiz. begs

1 ]ⲛⲛⲉⲩϫⲓⲕⲃⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ · ⲛⲟⲛⲟⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲥ[
Ⲛⲉⲡⲣ]ⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲚⲚⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟⲛⲟ Ⲛⲥⲉⲟⲛⲟⲙⲁⲍⲉ . . . . . . ϩⲛ[
]ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ · ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩ ⲧ⳰ⲃⲃⲟⲟ ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲉ ⲧ[
]Ⲛⲥⲉⲗⲓⲧⲟⲩⲣⲅⲉ . . . . .ⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲕ[
5 ]ⲧⲁⲓ
A17
Vert. Hor.
1 ]ⲧϭⲁⲓⲥ[ ]ⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ[
... ]ⲧⲗⲉⲓⲧⲟ[
]ⲉϕⲁ[ ]ⲧⲉ[
]ⲟⲥ ·[ ]ϣⲁⲡ[
5 ]ⲙ · ⲉ[ ] · ⲛ[
]ⲉⲚ[ ]ⲉϩ[
Author’s notes:
A16, v2–3: perhaps restore ⲛⲥⲉⲟⲛⲟⲙⲁⲍⲉ [ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ] ϩⲛ[ⲧⲟⲓ]ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ ⲧ[ⲏⲣⲥ].
A17, v1: restore ⲙⲁⲣ]ⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ.
98544.indb 189 1/02/16 11:36

98544.indb 190 1/02/16 11:36
(THOMPSON: STEPHEN SET No. 2)
0∙7/14/1
Or. 7024/4
Acts of Stephen
– Z cxxiii = Guidi framm. p50

(see JTS viii 240 n.)
Cf. notes from bindings in BM
98544.indb 191 1/02/16 11:36

192 Sami Uljas
P1
Recto, Horiz. begs

1 ]. . ⲉ . ⲉⲧ . . .[
ⲧⲙ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲕⲗⲏⲣⲓⲕⲟⲥⲇ[
ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲣϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ[
ⲑⲩⲡⲟⲙⲟⲛⲏ Ⲛⲛⲉⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ
5 ⲙⲛⲡⲉⲩⲑ⳰ⲃⲃⲓⲟ · ⲛⲉⲙⲡⲁⲧⲟⲩⲁⲓ
ⲁⲓ ⲧⲟⲛⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ · ⲙⲟⲅⲓⲥⲅⲁⲣ ⲁⲩ
ⲣⲙⲚⲧϣⲙⲏⲛ Ⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ
ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ ⲁϥⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ⲛⲥⲧⲉ
ϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛ
10 ⲕⲉⲙⲟⲉⲓⲧ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲧⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉ
[ⲛ]ⲉⲩϭⲱ ϩⲙⲡⲉϥⲏⲓ ϣⲁϩⲧⲟⲟⲩⲉ
ⲛ⳰ϥⲣⲡⲧⲱϣ ⲙⲡⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲁ · ⲧⲉ
ϣⲃⲏⲣⲉⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲁⲩⲛ.[
ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ϩⲛⲛⲉⲩⲃⲁⲗ ⲛⲧⲉⲩϣⲏ ⲉⲧ[ⲙ]
15 ⲙⲁⲩ · ⲙⲚϣϭⲟⲙ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ ⲉⲥⲁⲁ
ⲧ ⲙϫⲟⲟⲥ · ⲉⲧⲓⲇⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩ
ⲁϩ ϩⲙⲡⲏⲓ ⲙⲡⲉⲅⲣⲁⲙⲙⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ
Ⲛⲧⲁⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲟⲩⲉϩ
ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ
20 ⲁⲃ ⲉⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ · ⲚⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲚⲕⲟ
ⲧⲕⲇⲉ ⲁⲥⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉ
ⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ
ⲟⲩϩ[ ]
Thompson’s notes:
Top of page: ‘Pap. Rather rough uncial (8–9?) very blk [sic] ink. 20.5 × 14.5 cm’. 1, above
ⲉⲧ: ‘cert’. 12: ‘prob. ⲃ but ϩ not imposs. ⲧⲉ cert. this ptly destroyed [illegible] cert.
([illegible] ⲙ)’. 13, above ⲁⲩⲛ: ‘cert’. 15, above ϭⲟⲙ: ‘sic’. 23: ‘Remains make ϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ
prob.’. Under the text: ‘bott page’.
Author’s notes:
1–4: Thompson could see two upright minims on either side of the first preserved ⲉ. A
suitable word would be ⲡⲉⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. After this, probably restore [Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲥⲱ]ⲧⲙ
ⲉⲛⲁⲓ ⲙⲚⲛⲉⲕⲗⲏⲣⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲁ[ⲩϯ]ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲣϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲑⲩⲡⲟⲙⲟⲛⲏ.
13–14: restore ⲁⲩⲛ[ⲁⲩ] ⲉⲣⲟⲥ; sic ϣⲃⲏⲣⲉ for ϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ. 23: ϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ is certainly to
be restored.
98544.indb 192 1/02/16 11:36

P1
Verso: vert.
1 ]ⲇⲉ ⲉϥϣⲁ[ϫⲉ] ⲛⲙ

ⲙⲁⲩ ⲁϥϫⲓ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲣⲁⲛ ⲕ . . ⲡⲉ
ⲑⲟⲥ [ⲁ]ϥⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲏⲭⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ
ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲁⲗⲉⲓ ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉ
5 ⲧⲣⲉⲩⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲉⲩⲏⲓ ϣⲁⲡⲉϥⲣⲁⲥ
[ⲧⲉ] Ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ ϫⲉⲛⲉⲚⲛⲁ
[ⲃ]ⲱⲕ ⲁⲛ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ Ⲛⲛⲁϭⲱ ϩⲁϩⲧⲏⲕ ·
ⲁϥⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲉⲇⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϩⲩⲡⲟⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟ
ⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲣⲉϥⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲱⲥ ⲉϥ
10 ⲇⲟⲕⲓⲙⲁⲍⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲡⲣⲟϩⲁⲓⲣⲉⲥ[ⲓ]ⲥ
Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉⲇⲉ ϣⲏⲙ ⲁⲩⲕⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲁ
ϩⲟⲩ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ ⲛⲁϥ ϩⲛⲟⲩⲉⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓ
ⲙⲏ ϫⲉⲕⲩⲣⲓⲉ ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲉ ⲁⲛⲉⲓ
ⲙⲉ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ ϫⲉⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲛ⳰ϩ ⲉ[ⲃ]ⲟⲗ ϫⲉ
15 ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲛⲧ[ⲙⲚ]ⲧⲭⲣⲓⲥ
ⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ ϩⲙⲡⲧⲣⲉⲕⲛⲟϫ[Ⲛ]ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉ
ⲃⲟⲗ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲱⲥ Ⲛⲧⲁ[ⲡ]ⲉⲭ⳰ⲣⲥ ⳰ ⲛⲟ
ϫⲚ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲡⲉⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ ⳰ ⲉⲧ[ⲟⲩⲁ]ⲁⲃ ⲉⲧ
ⲃⲉⲛⲉⲛⲛⲟⲃⲉ · ⲉⲓⲙⲉⲇⲉ . . . .
20 ϫⲉ[ⲕ]ⲁⲛ ⲉⲩϣⲁⲛϩⲟⲡⲚ ϩⲚϩⲉⲛ
ⲥⲏ . . ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁⲣ⳰ⲝ ⲡⲟⲧ
Thompson’s notes:
2: ‘one long big e.g. ⲱ or a short ⲁⲓ. ⲕⲁⲧⲁ not imposs but difficult to put into the space’.
3: ‘ⲥ prob not ⲟ (ⲡⲑⲟⲟⲩ not poss)’. 19: ‘ⲇⲉ ⲉⲡⲁⲓ poss.’. 20 ‘[ⲕ]ⲁⲛ poss’. Under the
text: ‘bott. p.’
Author’s notes:
17: sic ⲭⲣ⳰ⲥ for ⲭ⳰ⲥ. 21: the text must have continued ⲡⲟⲧⲡⲉⲧ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲥⲱⲙⲁ
(cf. CD 276a).
98544.indb 193 1/02/16 11:36

194 Sami Uljas
P2
Recto, horiz. begs

1 ]ⲧⲣⲉⲩϭⲓ Ⲛϣ
]Ⲛⲟⲩϩⲩⲇⲟⲛ[ⲏ]
]Ⲛⲛϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲩ ⲧⲗⲁⲗⲓⲁ
]ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ [ⲉ]ⲧϩⲚⲙⲡⲏⲩ[ⲉ]
5 [ⲁⲣ]ⲓ ⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲙⲡⲛⲟϭ Ⲛⲕⲣ[ⲓ]
ⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲧϩⲁϩⲟⲧ[ⲉ]
ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲛϫⲓϩⲟ Ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ · ⲙⲡ[
ⲁⲕ ⲉⲡⲧϩⲉ ⲙⲡⲏⲣ⳰ⲡ ⲱ ⲡⲓ [ⲉⲓ]
ⲙⲉ ϫⲉⲛⲛⲉⲕⲉⲓⲃⲉ ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲟ[ⲩ
10 ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲕⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲣⲟϥ · ⲁ[ⲗⲗⲁ]
ϯⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲁⲗⲉⲓ ⲙⲙⲱⲧⲚ ϫ[ⲡⲟ]
[ⲛ]ⲏⲧ⳰Ⲛ Ⲛⲟⲩϩⲁⲅⲛⲓⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉⲧ[ⲛ]
[ⲟ]ⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲟⲩⲡⲣⲟϩⲁⲓⲣ
[ⲉⲥ]ⲓⲥ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲥ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲛⲁ[ⲧ]
15 ϕⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲛⲙⲙⲏⲧⲚ [ⲉ]
ⲧⲉ Ⲛϩⲏⲕⲉ ⲛⲉ · ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲛⲕⲱ [ⲛ]
ⲏⲧⲚ Ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ[
Thompson’s notes:
10, restoration: ‘?’; so too with 11 and 14.
Author’s notes:
4: restore [ⲛⲛ]ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ. 7: restore ⲙⲡ[ⲣ]; Thompson inserted ⲉ above the first ⲙ of
ⲉⲧⲙⲙⲛϫⲓϩⲟ. 8: Thompson inserted ϫ above ⲁⲕ. 9: Thompson seems to have read the
end of the line ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲉ[ but added ‘ⲟ?’ above the ⲉ and ⲩ afterwards. The reading
ⲙⲟ[ⲟⲩ ⲙ] is surely correct. Under the text: Thompson outline of the fragment’s edges
around it suggests that this was the bottom of the page.
98544.indb 194 1/02/16 11:36

P2
Verso. Vert.
1 ]ⲛⲧⲁϫⲉ[
]ⲙⲉ ⲙⲡ . . . ⲱⲧ[
]ⲥ ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ[
]ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲟⲗ ϩⲓ[ⲧⲟ]ⲟⲧ
5 ]ⲡⲉⲡ⳰ⲛⲁ
⳰ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁ[ⲃ ⲉ]ⲃⲟ[ⲗ]
[ϩⲓ]ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ⲛⲛ[ⲣ]ⲉϥⲧⲁⲛϩ[ⲟ] . . .
[ ]ⲧⲥⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ . . ⲛ .
[ ⲟ]ⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϣⲁⲉ[ⲛ]ⲉϩ ϩⲁ[ⲙⲏⲛ]
ornamental design
1 ⲡⲉⲓⲁⲅⲱⲛ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲚⲗⲁⲓⲡ

ⲣⲏⲥⲓⲥ ⲧⲉϥⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲥⲣⲥ.
ⲁⲓϫ ⲓⲗ ⲛⲑⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲓⲟⲩⲗ
ⲗ ⲛⲉⲩ ϣⲏⲣⲧ . . . ⲥ
5 ⲏ . ϫⲱⲣⲃ<?> ⲩⲟ
ⲥⲕⲁⲗⲁ ⲉⲃⲱⲚ⳰ϩ <?>
ⲕ<?>ⲗⲁⲣⲏⲥ <?>ⲉⲟⲱ<?>ϩ<?>ⲡ
ornamental design
Thompson’s notes:
Colophon, 1: ‘? αγοδον’ (crossed over). Colophon, 4 ‘ⲣⲙⲛⲃⲁϩⲁ?’ (crossed over).
Colophon, 6 ‘ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ imposs’
Author’s notes:
4: after ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ Thompson pencilled faintly ⲉⲧ + an undecipherable character, meaning
perhaps ⲉⲧⲉⲃⲟⲗ. 6–8: So Thompson; a more probable reading/restoration is ⲛ[ⲣ]ⲉϥⲧⲁⲛϩⲟ
[ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲟⲙⲟⲩ]ⲥⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ [ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟ]ⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ. Colophon, 1: Thompson wrote
ⲗⲓⲡ above the ⲗⲁⲓⲡ and did not fully ink in the final ⲡ. Colophon, 2: Thompson pencilled
ⲧⲓⲁ above the -ⲥⲓⲥ of ⲣⲏⲥⲓⲥ. Colophon, 3: the gaps are as left by Thompson, who also
did not ink the last ⲓⲟⲩⲗ. He further inserted ⲥ above the final ⲗ. Colophon, 4: Thompson
pencilled some characters in the beginning of the line but then crossed them over; he also
left the stray ⲗ un-inked. Colophon, 5: indecipherable character after ⲃ; final ⲩⲟ without
ink. Colophon, 6: Thompson inserted ⲛ above the ⲕ of ⲥⲕⲁⲗⲁ and added an incomplete
character at the end of the line. Colophon, 7: probably so; all un-inked.
98544.indb 195 1/02/16 11:36

196 Sami Uljas
As already stated, it is clear that the material on which Sir Herbert worked
must have been in a wretched state of preservation, and it is most regret-
table that the originals can no longer be collated seeing that the text
presents various characteristics that seem rather unusual. The texts were
written in a single column, which is atypical for literary works. Idio-
syncratic and non-canonical spellings of singular lexemes aside, another
particularly ostentations feature is the use of the raised stroke at the end
of line to indicate omission of the final character. This is normally applied
only to line-final ⲛ, whereas in Thompson’s copies such lines are used
apparently also used in place of ⲗ (A1, v10), ⲩ (A3, r18; A6, r14),
ⲧ (A4, r10), and ϫ (A6, r13). Strange though this might seem, overall
Thompson’s copies seem trustworthy. I would, however, suggest certain
alterations to his ordering of the fragments. It appears that Thompson’s
interpretation of the recto and verso of fragment A1 should be reversed.
What he took to be the verso seems to contain an invocation of the saint
by the author of the (first) work. This most likely preceded the story of
how Stephen’s activities angered the Sanhedrin Jews which seemingly
begins on what Thompson thought to be the recto of A1 and clearly
continues (with some disruption) on the recto of A2. Similarly, in the case
of A7 Thompson’s recto is probably the verso and vice versa: the positive
miracle narrated in the verso of A6 is perhaps continued in what Sir
Herbert interpreted as the verso of A7 seeing that the contents of his recto
of the latter contain remnants of what appear to be another, altogether
more negative episode. Furthermore, fragments A8 and A9 apparently must
change places, and Thompson’s interpretation of the recto and verso of
A9 again seems to require a reversal. Finally, the recto and verso of frag-
ment P1 from Or. 7024 seem to demand the latter treatment as well. After
these adjustments to the ordering of the fragments and adding the restora-
tions suggested in the notes above, the following translation is obtained:
SET 1: Fragments from BM Or. 7029

A1r (orig. v)
[…] holy [apos]tle (ἀπόστολος) […] with the exalted [ev]angelist
(εὐαγγελιστής) […] his preaching. O the mar[tyr and] confessor (ὁμο-
λογητής) [of Jesus] Christ. O the image (πρόσωπον) of the […-s …].
O the administrator (διοικητής) of […] the way (of?) Jesus Christ!
There is no strength in my […] <?>39 you, O my [lord (?)]. Forgive me
[…] I am a sin[ner…] with me to […], for (γάρ) I [am a…] the word…
39
I have no suggestions for the restoration or division of ]ⲛⲛⲉⲕⲁⲣⲏⲧⲛ.
98544.indb 196 1/02/16 11:36

A1v (orig. r)
[ho]ly(?) (…) is a stone<-?>.40 One […] a holy nation (γένος). The
[…] the child prophets (προφήτης).41 When the […]s saw of him that
he was [ge]ntle-hearted, they set themselves down (καθιστάω) […]
The arch-deacons (ἀρχιδιάκονος) […] in the beginning (ἀρχή) since
the […] to them from […] greatly [… In(?)] that [time the Jews] used
to [persecute] the apo[stles. But Saint] Stephe[n was not afraid] of the
Jew[s…]42
A2r
They could not stand up against the wisdom of [g]od that resided in him.43
I [will] let you know why. Fir[st…] that he healed all the sick, whilst
instructing everyone to walk on the road of salvation. The Jews, however
(δέ), were greatly envious of him, and they sought to kill him, but (ἀλλά)
they were afraid of the people. The high priests (ἀρχιερεύς) then (δέ)
took counsel together. They brought in plague-ridden (λοιμός) people
and gave them some money. They testified against him saying: ‘Stephen
said that it is Jesus of Nazareth who [shall ann]ul the customs which
[Mose]s gave44 and abolish (καταργέω)[…]’
A2v
[…] they were jealous of him; they rose ag[ainst] him, and they threw
him into prison. But (δέ) [he] went to prison being st[rong] in the spirit
(πνεῦμα) and resembling our lord [Jesus wh]o was (also) thrown into
prison. That night while (ἔτι) he stood praying, the lord stood before him,
and the entire prison (cell) was illuminated. The lord spoke to him, saying:
‘Greetings (χαῖρε), [my] chosen one; greetings (χαῖρε), O strong one;
greetings (χαῖρε), O mighty apostle (ἀπόστολος); greetings (χαῖρε), O
crown of apostles (ἀπόστολος); greetings (χαῖρε), O pride of the saints
(ἅγιος); greetings (χαῖρε), O strong martyr (μάρυρος) […] to you; I
shall [… wi]th you…
40
ⲟⲩϯⲱⲛⲉ (if this is the correct division) makes no sense as it stands. Given the his-
tory of St Stephen, one could try reading ϯ(ⲕ)-ⲱⲛⲉ ‘throw stones’, but Crum, Dictionary
524b cites this as an Akhmimic lexeme, and it is in any case uncertain whether one could
form a noun ‘stone-thrower’ or ‘stone-throwing’ from this.
41
Apparently so, although ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡ(ⲡ)ⲣⲟϕⲏⲧⲏⲥ ‘the children of the prophet’ is
more likely.
42
Compare fragment A9r below.
43
Acts 6:10. What follows is a rough approximation of Acts 6:10–14.
44
Acts 6:14.
98544.indb 197 1/02/16 11:36

198 Sami Uljas
A3r
[…] is […], and I shall put you45 […] of the first-bo[rn of?] a woman
who is46 […] vow over your […] to her, and I will complete [your? …]
well (καλῶς). No[w, my cho]sen Stephen […] away; you will be [broug]
ht before the synod (συνέδριον), [and you will question (?) the]m about
all things [that happened to] their fathers,47 and [you will…] everything
[…from?] you. But they [will not be able to tolerate] your words [and
they will be ang]ry at you greatly. [But] I will grant (χαρίζω) to you the
[…]; no-one has [been able to atta]in it except Jo[hn…]
A3v
[…] whether (εἴτε) in this [prison (?) or] the prisons [elsewhere?]. If
they cry out [in my] name, I shall he[lp (βοηθέω) th]em, and all [who
will come to] your shrine (τόπος), with there being a […] upon me,
with them being […] I give (?) […] and […t]o me in your name, I shall
[…] them for the sake of your ho[ly] name. We do not have an apostle
(ἀπόστολος) [with] you alone. Behold, three cro[wns] are prepared for
you in heaven: [one] for your service (τάξις) as a deac[on (διάκονος)],
one for your acting as an apos[tle] (ἀπόστολος), and one for the sake of
the blood which [you will] shed.48 Your place of […] Jo[hn…]
A4r
[contem]ptuous (καταφρονέω(?) […tran]sgression (παράπτωμα?).
I promise (ὁμολογέω) [to you, O] my chosen Stephen, that all who shall
give up49 a place of s[lumber(?)], say humble things,50 and proc[laim
yo]ur name, I shall bless [them] and multiply (αὐξάνω) them and their
progeny (καρπός). (But) he who will swear an oath by your [shr]ine
(τόπος) and will neglect (ἀμελέω) it and not fulfil it, [I] shall take
45
The apparent ⲡⲉϯⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲏⲩ is difficult to decipher. The ⲡⲉ might belong to a
preceding word, leaving ϯⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲏⲩ. Since there is no verb ⲕⲁⲧⲏⲩ (apart from ⲕⲁ-ⲡⲧⲏⲩ
‘cast out breath, expire’, Crum, Dictionary 440a), this could then represent ϯ-ⲛⲁ-ⲕⲁ-
ⲧⲏⲩ[ⲧⲛ] or, if the ⲡⲉ is part of this complex, even [ⲁⲛⲟⲕ] ⲡⲉϯⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲏⲩ[ⲧⲛ] ‘It is
me who shall put you’, whatever the second person plural pronoun might refer to.
46
Perhaps ⲟ ⲛ?
47
Cf. here fragment A5v below.
48
The same promise of a three-fold crowning through martyrdom, a frequent motif in
Coptic hagiographic literature, occurs also in the apocryhon on Stephen published by Abd
Al-Masih, “A Coptic apocryphon” 342.
49
This seems to be the meaning of ⲧⲱ(ⲱ)ⲃⲉ ‘requite, repay’ (Crum, Dictionary
398b) here.
50
Perhaps so; ϫⲱ + ⲥⲱϣϥ is not listed in Crum’s Dictionary, but it seems roughly
synonymous to the Bohairic ϣⲁⲡ-ⲥⲱϣ ‘humility counting self naught, acceptance of
scorn’ (Crum, Dictionary 376a).
98544.indb 198 1/02/16 11:36

vengeance upon him. (Yet) he who shall swear an oath and fulfils what
he swore, I shall bless him and his entire house. Every sin[ner], fornica-
tor, (πόρνος), and adulterer who [will] return upon your shrine (τόπος),
I [shall…]
A4v
[…] to him and his [house] like I blessed the house of [Abidda]ra the
Hittite.51 He who will [give an] offering (προσφορά) to your shrine
(τόπος), a man {who will give} bread in [your name], I shall grant
(χαρίζω) him to you [as a child] in my kingdom.52 He who will linger
for a moment monthly,53 I shall grant (χαρίζω) him to you. He who will
build a church (ἐκκλησία) in your name, I shall erase their54 sins in the
manuscript (χειρόγραφον), and I shall give them to you as [children].
I say to you, O my ch[osen S]tephen, upon […]
A5r
[…] They, however, shall […]55 […ho]ly (?). Your body (σῶμα) will
[finally perish or the like]. At the third [time…] you, I shall send my
[angel to] keep vigil over your body (σῶμα) [so that] it56 may not be
touched in (?) […] It is he who […b]ody […]57
A5v
When [eve]n[ing] had come, the [Jews] gathered up in a coun[cil]
(σύνοδος), and they ordered saint (ἅγιος) Stephen to be brought [to
them…] away […]. The high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) inquired about all mat-
ters […] say them. Then the high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) [as]ked him: ‘Are
these (charges) true?’58 But (δέ) [he] began (ἄρχω) to question him
about [every matter t]hat had happened to their fath[ers…].59 Yet (δέ)
when they heard [this, they were] greatly [angered].60 All [the Jews]
51
2Sam 6:11.
52
For this common topos of Coptic hagiographies, see Suciu, “A Coptic fragment
from the History of Joseph” 100 and cf. e.g. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca 31, 8–9 (History of
Joseph the Carpenter), Budge, Miscellaneous Texts 288, 9–10, 16–17 (Pseudo-Acacius, On
Mercurius); Crum, Catalogue BM 151a (Passio Colluthos of Antinoe). The parallels allow
the restoration and emendation of the text.
53
ⲕⲁⲧⲁ + ⲉⲃⲟⲧ — see Crum, Dictionary 54a.
54
Sic; one would have expected Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲛⲟⲃⲉ.
55
Lines r2–5 are too broken to yield any connected sense.
56
Feminine; so not referring back to ⲥⲱⲙⲁ?
57
The rest of the column is too broken to translate.
58
Acts 7:1. What follows provides the gist of Acts 7:2–52.
59
Cf. A3r above.
60
Cf. Acts 7:54.
98544.indb 199 1/02/16 11:36

200 Sami Uljas
arose, and they seized him.61 And in this way the Holy [Spirit] came
down up[on him as he ga]zed up to heaven, and [he saw] a […], and he
(also) saw the […]62
A6r
[... On the] fourth da[y the righte]ous [Nic]odemus and […] Gamariel
came at night. Secretly […] they took his body (σῶμα) and they [hid] it
in a hiding-place together with his written reco[rds] (ὑπόμνημα). Great
rev[elations hap]pened down until the reign of [the impio]us emperor(s)
Arcadius and Ho[norius, the] ungodly (ἀσεβής) emperors. […] want[ed?]
to give praise in his […] revealed to us through a true (ἀληθινός) sign,
so that he might heal us of our illnesses and our ailments. For (γάρ) in
the days when God appeared to us in his holy body (σῶμα) with the
written testimonies (ὑπόμνημα), my very own hands had been searching
until God gave us this gift (δῶρον) that is more precious than any gift
(δῶρον).
A6v
[…] we put it [...] In short (ἅπαξ ἁπλῶς), some […] through him [There
was a man (?) suffering from dr]opsy (ὑδρωπικός) who had spent
[many years] being ill, and no doc[tor could] heal him. He entreated
(παρακαλέω) [that he be car]ed for (διακονέω) and that [he be taken
to the sh]rine (τόπος) of Saint (ἅγιος) Stephe[n. When] he was then
(δέ) brought in, […] power of the […][…]63 he cried out [with a great
voice ‘O] saint (ἅγιος) Ste[ven; help] me!’ <?>64 [… he]lps (βοηθέω)
the poor man to have mercy on him. He saw a vision (ὅραμα) [of] Sa[int
Ste]phen […]
A7r (orig. v)
[…] that he taught him about his […] him, and they did not […] to him
so that I65 […] grasp his hand. He […]-ed before him gre[atly] that […]
reach […] away […] completely.66 He […]-ed […] God and the [Holy
61
Cf. Acts 7:57.
62
One would have expected e.g. ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲓ⳰ⲥ,
in accordance with Acts 7:55.
63
Lines v11–12 are too damaged to translate.
64
The meaning of Thompson’s ⲁϫⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲚ escapes me.
65
v3 seems to contain the conjunct ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ + what has the appearance of a first
person singular conjunctive, but how does this fit the narrative is unclear.
66
Lines v7–11 contain next to no translatable material, and the division of the partly
preserved words is similarly unclear. In particular, I do not know what ‘ϥϩⲉϫⲧⲉⲡⲱϩ’,
‘ⲉⲩⲟⲉⲃⲟⲗ’, and ‘ⲉⲩⲟⲛⲡ ’ on lines v7–9 could be the remnants of.
98544.indb 200 1/02/16 11:36

Spirit?...] He sa[id], whilst he […] these […] until this day he has not
died. <?>67 great miracles used to happen through [Saint] Ste[phen…]
A7v (orig. r)
[…Sai]nt (ἅγιος) Stephen. The […] that […] fortunate (εὕκληρος)
[…]. He cried out with a great [voice]: ‘O Stephen, your power […],
for (γάρ) I am a spirit (πνεῦμα) […]68 earth and du[st].69 You will not
judge (κρίνω) me!70 I am an ap[ost]le!’ (ἀπόστολος). But Saint (ἅγιος)
Stephen picked him up […] <?>, 71 and he72 shouted out mightily,
whilst he snorted out noise(s) from his nose like a wild ass:73 ‘I said to
you before74 that your power is not due to you and that it is of no inter-
est (μέλω) to me!75 You are not an apostle (ἀπόστολος), you are not
a bishop (ἐπίσκοπος), and you are not a [pr]esbyter (πρεσβύτερος) at
all!’76
A9r (orig. v)
[…][…be]cause of my audacity (τολμηρία), b[ut] I am unskilled
(ἰδιώτης) to […]77
A9v (orig. r)
[…] poor so that he may […] because of a trust[ed78…]. In [those]
days the Jews were persec[uting the ap]ostles. Saint (ἅγιος) [Steph]en,
however, was not afraid of [the Jews]. Rather (ἀλλά), he used to dis-
pute […]
67
The ⲉ . . ⲙⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ on line v14 is indecipherable.
68
Thompson’s restoration [ⲉϥϫⲏ?] is unclear. The question mark indicates that he
was not sure of it himself, and it is not entirely certain whether the final faintly pencilled
character truly is ⲏ. The verb can scarcely have been ϫⲱⲕ ‘be completed, full’ (Crum,
Dictionary 761a), whose status nominalis is ϫⲉⲕ- and of which no combination ϫⲏⲕ-
ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ is attested.
69
Cf. Gen 18:27.
70
Perhaps so.
71
I have no suggestions for the ⲧⲡⲉⲙⲛⲡ that follows.
72
The reference appears to be to Stephen. In the following the person snorting is the
boastful visitor to his topos, whom the saint has just picked up.
73
See Crum, Dictionary 76a.
74
Lit. ‘another time’.
75
Possibly so.
76
Maybe so; the appearance of the adverb ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ ‘greatly, very’ here is unexpected,
but it may perhaps add the meaning ‘at all’ with the negative.
77
The narrator underlining his lack of skills in recounting the deeds of a saint is a
typical ploy in Coptic hagiographies. Its appearance here shows that the fragment was
originally placed very close to the beginning of another work on St Stephen.
78
Assuming a word such as πιστός or πιστόφρων (Liddell & Scott, Lexicon 1408b).
98544.indb 201 1/02/16 11:36

202 Sami Uljas
A8r
[…] to these. They gave […]79 whom they caused […] kill the […]s and
the […]s.80 In this way the witnesses laid their clothes at their feet.81 Now
(δέ) P[aul] sat down beside him. They […]-ed […] But (δέ) he, Sai[nt
Stephen…]
A8v
[…] our lord. When […] the spirit (πνεῦμα), he fe[ll on his knees and]
cried out: ‘L[ord Jesus; receive my] spirit! (πνεῦμα)’82 When [he had
said this], he opened his mouth and he gave up [the spirit on] the twenty-
sixth day of the month [of…]. O how great was the rejoicing […] at that
moment as they were [go]ing out to his […]. Michael spread out his
luminous robe (στολή), and he lifted up his soul (ψυχή) to heaven. He
put [him to] the church (ἐκκλησία) of the first m[artyrs who] are written
in heaven. His holy b[ody…]
A10r
[…]83 [gat]her in [ho]ly [… in God’s (?)] peace (εἰρήνη) [amen].
[…] truth. Truly (ἀληθῶς), […] our saviour (σωτήρ), as he [cried out
(?) to his] disciples (μαθητής): ‘I[f one shall min]ister (διακονέω) for
me, let [him follow me]’, and also: ‘The place [in which I am], my min-
ister (διάκονος) [will also be there].84 You then (δέ), O […] which I
[…]-ed because of you, and I […]-ed […]
A10v
[…] in your […] in the wor[ld and the] entire […] which they […] call
by name (ὀνομάζω) […] who see […]. If I […M]oses. You say […]
Moses in […] to his back in […] against the back, and he […]-ed […].
But (δέ) you [O my chosen] Stephen [… in] heaven […]85 on the
fif[th…]
79
Almost nothing remains of the first ten lines of this column.
80
The clitic particle ⲇⲉ on line 13 shows that ⲉⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ, which is surely to be emended
as Ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ, begins a new sentence. The ⲛⲉ on the previous lines should be the plural
definite article whereas the ]ⲟⲟⲩ on line 14 is perhaps what remains of another word with
a special morphological plural. In all, the issue seems to have been of someone killing two
groups of something or someone.
81
Cf. Acts 7:58.
82
Acts 7:60.
83
Lines r1–4 preserve nothing translatable.
84
Jh 12:26.
85
Next to nothing is preserved of the next two lines.
98544.indb 202 1/02/16 11:36

A11r
[… ch]ari[ty…] this one through […] of the Father, the [Son, and the]
Holy [Spirit], [life-giving and co-su]bstantial (ὁμοούσιος) forever. Amen.
(Colophon) [A discourse] delivered by the [spirit-be]aring (φόρος)
[arc]hbishop (ἀρχιεπίσκοπος) [concerning the saint] and deaco[n Steph]
en the [proto-martyr…] and the pre[…] reading out the […]
A11v
Text almost totally lost
A12–15
Nothing to translate save for singular words
A16r
[…] lest they take vengeance upon them [… the pr]esbyters (πρεσβύτε-
ρος) and deacons (διάκονος) […] of your shrine (τόπος). Let [them] be
humble and perform public mission (λειτουργέω) […]
A16v
[…] and they proclaim (ὀνομάζω) [your name] in the en[tire w]orld
(οίκουμένη) […]
A17
Singular words, most of which are only partially preserved.
SET 2: Fragments from BM Or MS 7024/4

P1r (orig. v)
[…] as he was speaking to them, he took their names […].86 He made
them catechumens (καθηγούμενος), and he entreated (παρακαλέω)
them to go home until the evening. They, however (δέ), said: ‘We will
not go, but ἀλλά) we shall stay beside you’. He then (δέ) ordered one of
the sub-deacons (ὑποδιάκονος) to throw them out, as if (ὡς) testing
(δοκιμάζω) their patience (προαίρεσις). The youth, however (δέ), they
returned back and said to him with understanding (ἐπιστήμη): ‘O lord
(κύριε) bishop (ἐπίσκοπος), for truly we have understood that we have
appeared87 as being unworthy of being Christians (χριστιανός), for (γάρ)
I.e. made a record of them. Thompson’s ⲕ . . ⲡⲉⲑⲟⲥ is untranslatable, but, as his

86
notes show, Thompson was uncertain about the correct reading here.
87
Lit. ‘revealed’.
98544.indb 203 1/02/16 11:36

204 Sami Uljas
when you threw us out, the Christ and the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα) especially
(πάντως) threw us out because of our sins. Now (δέ), understand [this]:
even if (κἄν) we hid ourselves in […]-s and our flesh (σάρξ) fe(ll off
from our bodies…)
P1v (orig. r)
[…] the h[oly on]e. [When he he]ard this together with the clerics
(κληρικός), [they gave] praise to God and were amazed at the endurance
(ὑπομένω) of these young men and at their humility. They had not yet
grown up much, for (γάρ) they were hardly (μόγις) eighteen years (old).
And in this way he entrusted them to Stephen — the one who became to
them another road to faith (πίστις) when they stayed in his house until
dawn and when he was putting the basin (?)88 in order. Yet (δέ) the miracle
that happened, they saw it with their (own) eyes that night. It is impossible
to me to omit telling it.89 Yet (ἔτι δέ) those who live in the house of the
scholars (γραμματικός), of which we spoke in accordance (κατά) with the
order of the holy bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) Eucharistos; when they were sleep-
ing, Stephen heard them as if they were crying out with a […] voice.
P2r
[…] that they may take90 the […] a pleasure (ἡδονή) […] the tongue
(λαλιά) [of the] angels (ἄγγελος) which is/are in heaven, and remember
that great and fearsome seat of judgement (κριτήριον) which shows no
partiality. Do [not…] yourself in drinking of wine, O […]. Understand
that you shall not thirst for wa[ter in] the place to which you will go.
Ra[ther] (ἀλλά), I entreat (παρακαλέω) you:91 strive for92 moral purity
(ἁγνεία), remain in goodly patience (προαίρεσις) over those of a single
spirit (φύσις) amongst you, which are the poor, and set down for your-
selves peace (εἰρήνη) towards […]
P2v
[…][…]93 our lord, this […] the Father, who is (?) through […] the Holy
Spirit (πνεῦμα) through him; life-giving [and co-subst]antial (ὁμοούσιος)
now [and a]t all times forever, A[men].
88
ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲁ probably has something to do with nouns such as βάπτρια (Liddell & Scott,
Lexicon 306a). Thompson’s tentative alternative reading ϩⲁⲡⲧⲓⲁ produces no sense.
89
For ⲥⲁⲁⲧ, a pre-pronominal form of ⲥⲓⲛⲉ ‘pass by, through’, see Crum, Diction-
ary 343b. The sense appears to be reflexive.
90
ϭⲓ probably stands for ϫⲓ.
91
Plural; in what precedes a single male person was addressed.
92
Lit. ‘acquire for yourselves an agneia’.
93
The first two fragmentary lines are too broken to translate.
98544.indb 204 1/02/16 11:36

(Colophon) This struggle (ἀγών) is composed by Lipretia/Laipresis

(???) and (?) his wife so that <?> […] to/of Saint94 Jul[ia?] (the rest is
untranslatable)
Notwithstanding the bad preservation of the material, the general gist of

the works from which the lost fragments derive and various details of their
nature can still be established even in the absence of anything resembling
a continuous narrative.
The fragments A1–A7 from Or. 7029 are most likely parts of the same
work, which was probably encomiastic in character. This is suggested
by the invocation of the saint on A1, the appearance of various standard
martyrological elements, the descriptions of posthumous miracles, and
the self-deprecating comments by the author. The latter probably repre-
sent part of the opening of the text, which was then followed by a version
of the Biblical story of St Stephen. The narrative from the Acts of the
Apostles is briefly retold, but unlike in the Bible, this is then followed by
an episode of the saint being cast into prison where Christ himself visits
him. Corresponding episodes are, of course, a standard fixture of almost
all Coptic martyrdoms, and overall this part of the text in particular sug-
gests that one is dealing here with an indigenous Egyptian work rather
than a piece of translated literature. The usual cliché of the cell being
illuminated is duly included, and Christ’s speech to the saint is similarly
construed using a set template common to numerous other texts of similar
sort in which the only true variation is the identity of the speaker (either
Christ or one of his archangels). After lofty greetings, the Saviour tells of
the fate awaiting his chosen one, which in Stephen’s case seems to involve
a woman. He then launches on a series of standard pledges relating to the
topos, or shrine of the saint, and promises blessings and salvation to those
who will dedicate an offering to it or otherwise attend to it besides cursing
those who will fail in this holy task.95 Given the economic status of the
topoi of martyrs and the importance of sanctity and legitimacy, the intent
of such statements is obvious. Being a foreign martyr, St Stephen natu-
rally will not have had a ‘normal’ topos in Egypt housing his relics, and
evidence of places of worship dedicated to him there is very slight.96 Yet
94
Feminine.
95
Curses are less common than the ubiquitous promises of blessings etc., but appear
e.g. in the martyrdoms of SS Shenoufe et al (Reymond & Barns, Four Martyrdoms 123)
and Phoibamon (Pierpont Morgan M582 f. 20r, Müller & Uljas, forthcoming).
96
On the Island of Philae an ancient pronaos seems to have been converted into a
sanctuary dedicated to St Stephen (cf. Aranda Perez,“Stephen, Saint” 2153).
98544.indb 205 1/02/16 11:36

206 Sami Uljas
given that our text is likely to be a Coptic composition, one may perhaps
speculate whether St Stephen might have had some sort of a cenotaph
also in Egypt. After this episode the narrative returns to the Biblical story
of Stephen, which is passed over very briefly. The saint’s long speech in
Acts 7:2–51 is omitted, and the story appears to have proceeded directly
to his death by stoning. In the Acts of the Apostles (8:2) it is said merely
that ‘godly men’ buried Stephen, but here these individuals are the righ-
teous rabbis Nicodemus and Gamariel, who take Stephen’s body and hide
it with his writings. The text then leaps forward to the reigns of the ‘impi-
ous’97 Western and Eastern Roman emperors Honorius (ruled AD 395–
423) and Arcadius (AD 395–408) and offers reflective comments by the
author. This seems to mark the beginning of a miracula, which may even
have been a separate work from the preceding one narrating Stephen’s
martyrdom. We are told of a miracle concerning a man suffering from
dropsy, who was clearly cured at the topos of St Stephen and, as the
text states, ‘has not died until this day’. However, not all visitors seem
to have been blessed with appropriate humility. One of them appears to
have claimed the status of an apostle, prompting the saint to administer
a bodily punishment on the boastful guest who, in a common fashion
of villains, is presented as snorting noises out of his nose ‘like a wild
ass’.98
The (revised) verso of A7 appears to be the last preserved fragment of

this text inasmuch as what follows in A9 (which, as noted, apparently
has to be placed before A8 and Thompson’s recto–verso interpretation
thereof reversed) again contain the characteristic self-deprecating words
common to openings of encomia and hence marks the beginning of a
new work. What then follows takes us back to the scene leading up to
Stephen’s lynching, but this time the wording and structuring of the
story are completely different from the text in fragments A1–A7, and
certain details from the Biblical story such as the members of the lynch
mob leaving their clothes to be looked after by Paul are included. After
97
The reason for this characterisation is not altogether clear, but the two sibling emper-
ors seem to have suffered from a relatively bad Christian press, perhaps due to the role
played by Arcadius’ wife Eudoxia in the dismissal of John Chrysostom from the archbish-
opric of Constantinople (AD 404) and stories such as that of their early tutor St Arsenius,
whom they allegedly treated with disrespect (see Butler, Lives vol. VII, 19 July).
98
The snorting is a common theme in Coptic martyrologies, where it is standard
behaviour of the devil and of the raging persecutors of Christians — see Drescher,
“Graeco-Coptica” 90–92.
98544.indb 206 1/02/16 11:36

the saint gives up his spirit, Archangel Michael ascends from heaven,
shelters his body, and guides his soul to heaven where he is given the
full honours of a martyr — again a standard part of every Coptic mar-
tyrdom. Whatever followed this seems to be completely lost, and all that
can be said for certain about A10 is that it appears to contain a water-
shed point in the narrative explicitly marked by a line. There is again
suspicion that the recto and verso of this fragment should be reversed so
as to place the point of break on the verso, but this is here less clear than
before. An intriguing feature of A10 is the apparent mention of Moses,
which recalls the end of Life of Stephen,99 but no obvious correspondence
is observable. In any case, the colophon on A11 certainly marked the end
of either this or the earlier story. The rest of the fragments are too broken
to translate. A16 seems to contain some sort of instructions or ordinances
to the staff of Stephen’s topos, which raises the suspicion that it may
derive from yet another (albeit related) text. On the other hand, these
scant remains may also represent part of the speech of Christ concerning
Stephen’s shrine. It is to be regretted that the term used of the work in
the remains of the colophon — restored as logos by Thompson — is lost
in a lacuna. Similarly intriguing is the episode describing St Stephen
giving up his spirit, which is said to have occurred on the twenty-sixth
day of a month whose name is again lost. As noted also by Thompson,
this is not the feast day of either Stephen’s martyrdom or the transloca-
tion of his body in the Synaxar. However, twenty-sixth of December
(former Kānun) is the feast day of the translocation of Stephen’s body in
the famed Syriac martyrology from AD 411 published by Wright,100 and,
of course, St Stephen’s day in Roman Catholic tradition. This correspon-
dence between dates is hardly coincidental, and it raises a series of inter-
esting but probably unanswerable questions about the precise cultural and
literary background of the text.
The two fragments P1 and P2 from Or 7024 obviously originated in a

rather different work from those that had been used in the bindings of
Or. 7029. In fact, it would seem that the Stephen featuring in them is not
the famed proto-martyr at all. In P1, whose recto–verso ordering once
again seems to require a reversal, we are told of a group of young men
who after being made catechumens were reluctant to go about their own
business and tried to stay at what was perhaps a church. When forcibly
See al-Masih, “A Coptic apocryphon” 346.

99
Wright “An ancient Syrian martyrology” 423.

100
98544.indb 207 1/02/16 11:36

208 Sami Uljas
evicted by a bishop — maybe the Eucharistos mentioned later on101 —

they returned and pleaded to be allowed to stay with such eloquence and
piety that the bishop and the other clergy were much impressed and
granted them their wish. They were then entrusted to a Stephen, who here
is clearly a living man. Given that he operates in a time when the Chris-
tian church institutions appear to be fully established, he can scarcely be
the proto-martyr of the New Testament, whose activities took place in
the very early days of the cult of Jesus. Nevertheless, after the youth were
entrusted to this individual, a miracle duly took place one night as the
young men were staying in Stephen’s house. Alas, the text breaks off just
when one is told that this involved Stephen hearing people in the ‘house
of scholars’ as if they were crying out loud. The story is resumed in the
middle of what appears to be a catechetic speech by an unknown indi-
vidual. After this, the narrative reached its end, and there is a colophon
on the verso of P2. Unfortunately, of all the material copied by Thomp-
son this is the least readable part. He seems to have had serious difficul-
ties in deciphering the text, which was clearly in abominable condition.
As noted, it uses the term ⲁⲅⲱⲛ of the preceding work and contains
tantalising but utterly obscure references to someone’s wife and to a
female saint whose name is mostly lost. It is useless to speculate what
may lie behind these faint echoes.
In all, Sir Herbert Thompson’s ‘Acts of Stephen’ — or what little is left

of them — do not appear to have been a single work but rather a col-
lection of literary works concerning or featuring the famed proto-martyr
and apparently his namesake. The fragments seem to contain three or
four such compositions, one or possibly two of which were probably
encomia, one (if separate from one of the previous works) a miracula,
and one perhaps a tale of wonders featuring a saintly Stephen. Never-
theless, the exceedingly fragmentary character of the material and the
lack of parallels make deducing their exact character difficult. It is to
be hoped that additional parts of these lost Coptic texts will one day be
rediscovered.
(to be continued)
101
This man is probably fictional; no bishop of the early church thus named is known.
98544.indb 208 1/02/16 11:36

APPENDIX
British Library Or. 6954 f. 51
In July 2014, whilst visiting the British Library on other business, I took
the opportunity to copy the fragmentary Or. 6954 f. 51 described by Layton
as containing part of a homily on St Stephen and noted above.102 This
fragment, merely 106 × 66 mm in size, derives from a parchment codex
and preserves part of a page number restored as [ⲅ]ⲇ by Layton. What
little remains of the text reads as follows:
Recto Verso
[ⲅ]ⲇ
1 ⲛⲧⲁⲗϭⲟϣ[ ϩⲁⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲟ[
ⲑⲁⲅⲙⲁ ϩ[ ⲙ]ⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲡϩⲁ[ⲅⲓⲟⲥ
ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲡⲟⲟⲩ[ ⲥ]ⲧⲉϕⲁⲛⲟⲥ
ⲛⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲧ[ ϣⲱ] ⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉ
5 ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲩ[ ϣⲁⲛ] [ⲃⲟⲗ] ⲙⲛⲡⲉϥⲥϯⲛⲟ[ⲩϥⲉ...]
ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲧ[ⲟⲡⲟⲥ... ⲡⲡⲉ] ]ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲛⲟⲩ
ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲛⲥⲉ[...ⲁⲙⲉ] ]ϩⲓⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ ··———
ⲗⲉⲓ ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϣ[ ]ⲁⲣⲁϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲉϣⲟⲙ
ⲁ· ⲡⲟⲩⲁϫⲓ[ [ⲛⲧ ⲛ]ϣⲉ ⲛⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ
10 ⲡⲉϥ[±3]ⲏⲙ[ ]ⲡⲉ ϫⲓⲛⲧⲁϥⲣ
]ⲙⲡ[
It is difficult to say whether this fragment derives from any of the same
works as those whose remnants are found in the papers of Sir Herbert
Thompson. Nevertheless, the reference to St Stephen’s topos and of heal-
ing (ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ) that seemingly took place there and was perhaps associated
with the appearance (ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉ[ⲃⲟⲗ]) of the saint and with emanating
of light (ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ) and sweet scent (ⲥϯⲛⲟ[ⲩϥⲉ]), recall the events
described in Thompson fragments A6 and A7 above.
Bibliography
Abd al-Masih, Yassa. “A Coptic apocryphon of Saint Stephen the Archdeacon.”

Le Muséon 70 (1957), 329–347.
Alcock, Anthony. The Life of Samuel of Kalamun by Isaac the Presbyter. Warmin-
ster 1983.
102
Layton, Catalogue no. 156. The fragment probably represents pages 103–104 of
codex MONB.NO.
98544.indb 209 1/02/16 11:36

210 Sami Uljas
Aranda Perez, Gonzalo. “Stephen, Saint.” CoptEnc VII, 2153–2154.

Balestri, Giuseppe & Hyvernat, Henri. Acta Martyrum I. CSCO 43, Scriptores
Coptici 3. Leuven 1907.
Basset, René. “Le Synaxaire arabe jacobite, mois de Tout & Babeh”. Patr.Or. 1
(1907), 215–379.
Bovon, François. “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr.” HTR 96/3 (2003),
279–315.
Budge, Ernest A.W. Miscellaneous Coptic texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt.
London 1915.
—. By Nile and Tigris. A Narrative of Journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on
behalf of the British Museum between the Years 1886 and 1913, vol. II.
London 1920.
Butler, Alban. The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints,
vol. VIII. Dublin 1866.
Crum, Walter E. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum.
London 1906.
—. “Hagiographica from Leipzig manuscripts.” PSBA 29 (1907), 289–296,
301–307.
—. Review of Munier 1916. JEA 4, (1917) 67–70.
—. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford 1939.
Depuydt, Leo. Catalogue of Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library.
Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts 4. Leuven 1993.
Drescher, James. “Graeco-Coptica.” Le Muséon 82 (1969), 85–100.
Guidi, Ignazio. “Frammenti copti.” Rendiconti Accademia dei Lincei Ser. 4/3
(1887), 47–64.
Horn, Jürgen. “Der erste Märtyrer. Zu einem Topos der koptischen Märtyrerlite-
raturen.” In: Guntram Koch (ed.). Studien zur spätantiken und frühchristli-
chen Kunst und Kultur des Orients. Göttinger Orientforschungen Reihe II/6.
Göttingen 1982, 31–55.
de Lagarde, Paul. Aegyptiaca. Göttingen 1883.
Lanzillotta, Roig. “The Coptic MS. Or 7023. An assessment of its structure and
value.” Le Muséon 119 (2006), 25–32.
Layton, Bentley. Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library
Acquired Since the Year 1906. London 1987.
Leipoldt, Johannes. Description of the Coptic manuscripts in Karl Vollers, Katalog
der Handschriften der Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Leipzig II: Die islami-
schen, christlich-orientalischen, jüdischen und samaritanischen Hand-
schriften. Leipzig 1906, 383–427.
Liddell, Henry and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon, Revised and Aug-
mented Throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the Assistance of
Roderick McKenzie and with the Co-Operation of Many Scholars. Oxford
1968.
Lucchesi, Enzo. “A propos d’un enkomion copte sur Étienne le Protomartyr
(BHO 1093).” AnBoll 101 (1983), 421–422.
98544.indb 210 1/02/16 11:36

—. “Un fragment sahidique du premier panégyrique d’Étienne le Protomartyr

par Grégoire de Nysse.” AnBoll 124 (2006), 11–13.
—. ”Fausses attributions en hagiographie copte.” Le Muséon 119 (2006), 243-
254.
—.“Le martyre de Stéphanos de Lénaios et les péripéties d’un papyrus.” AnBoll
128 (2010), 66.
van Minnen, Peter. “The earliest account of a martyrdom in Coptic.” AnBoll 113
(1995), 13–38.
Munier, Henri. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire
nos. 9201–9304. Manuscrits coptes. Cairo 1916.
Müller, Matthias and Uljas, Sami. Martyrs and Archangels. Coptic Texts from
the Pierpont Morgan Library I: The Martyrdom of St Phoibamon of
Preht; The Martyrdom of SS Theodore the Anatolian, Leontius the Arab
& Panigerus the Persian; Encomium on St Gabriel the Archangel by
Archelaos of Neapolis. Forthcoming.
Nau, François. “Notes sur les mots ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΣ et ΠΟΛΙΤΕΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ et
sur plusieurs textes grecs relatifs a Saint Étienne.” Revue de l’Orient
Chrétien 11 (1906), 198–216.
Papaconstantinou, Arietta. Le culte des saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abba-
sides. L’apport des inscriptions et des papyrus grecs et coptes. Paris 2001.
Porcher, Ernest. “Analyse des manuscrits coptes 1311–8 de la Bibliothèque Natio-
nale, avec indication des textes bibliques.” Revue d’Egyptologie 2 (1936),
65–123.
Reymond, Eve and Barns, John. Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan
Coptic Codices. Oxford 1973.
de Rustafjaell, Robert. The Light of Egypt from Recently Discovered Predynastic
and Early Christian Records. London 1909.
Suciu, Alin. “A Coptic fragment from the History of Joseph the Carpenter in the
collection of Duke University Library.” HTR 106/1 (2013), 93–104.
Thompson, Herbert. The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline
Epistles in the Sahidic Coptic Dialect. Cambridge 1932.
Wright, W. “An ancient Syrian martyrology.” Journal of Sacred Literature and
Biblical Record 8 (1866), 45–56, 423–432.
Zoëga, Georg. Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manuscriptorum. Leipzig 1810.
Website: http://alinsuciu.com
Sami Uljas
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History
University of Uppsala, Box 626
SE-751 26 Uppsala
sami.uljas@egyptologi.uu.se
98544.indb 211 1/02/16 11:36

212 Sami Uljas
Fig. 1. Thompson, Acts of Stephen fragment A7
98544.indb 212 1/02/16 11:36

Fig. 2. Thompson, Acts of Stephen fragment P1
98544.indb 213 1/02/16 11:36

Peeters PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Peeters PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Coptic Studies 17 (2015) 165–213

LOST COPTIC TEXTS FROM HERBERT

In spring 2009, towards the end of my research fellowship at Trinity Col-

98544.indb 165 1/02/16 11:36

2) Martyria of Apa Cornelius, one set of pages of ruled paper attached

98544.indb 166 1/02/16 11:36

further mentioned among the manuscripts a version of the Apocalypse of

98544.indb 167 1/02/16 11:36

in 7029 again some twenty. In short, a whole library of cast-away papyrus

Unfortunately, and as will also be discussed in a later occasion, it is difficult to deduce

98544.indb 168 1/02/16 11:36

The ‘Acts of Stephen’

Herbert Thompson’s copies of the fragments containing what he thought

98544.indb 169 1/02/16 11:36

98544.indb 170 1/02/16 11:36

Horn published a dossier listing manuscripts containing Coptic literary

98544.indb 171 1/02/16 11:36

98544.indb 172 1/02/16 11:36

It is difficult to say which of these works, if any, is/are represented in the

What follows below is a faithful reproduction in print of Thompson’s two

98544.indb 173 1/02/16 11:36

Largest frt. 25.5 × 17 cm.

98544.indb 175 1/02/16 11:36

Vert: begs of lines Horiz ends

98544.indb 176 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends of lines Horiz. begs. of lines

98544.indb 177 1/02/16 11:36

Vert: ends [of] lines Horiz. begs.

98544.indb 178 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends Horiz. begs.

98544.indb 179 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends Horiz. begs.

98544.indb 180 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends Horiz. begs.

98544.indb 181 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. begs. of lines Horiz. ends

98544.indb 182 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends Horiz. begs.

98544.indb 183 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. mid. Horiz. mid.

98544.indb 184 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. begs. Horiz. ends

98544.indb 185 1/02/16 11:36

Vert: ends Horiz. begs.

98544.indb 186 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends Horiz. begs.

Vert. mids. Horiz. [mids.]

98544.indb 187 1/02/16 11:36

98544.indb 188 1/02/16 11:36

Vert. ends Horiz. begs

98544.indb 189 1/02/16 11:36

– Z cxxiii = Guidi framm. p50

98544.indb 191 1/02/16 11:36

Recto, Horiz. begs

98544.indb 192 1/02/16 11:36

1 ]ⲇⲉ ⲉϥϣⲁ[ϫⲉ] ⲛⲙ

98544.indb 193 1/02/16 11:36

Recto, horiz. begs

98544.indb 194 1/02/16 11:36

1 ⲡⲉⲓⲁⲅⲱⲛ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲚⲗⲁⲓⲡ

98544.indb 195 1/02/16 11:36

SET 1: Fragments from BM Or. 7029

98544.indb 196 1/02/16 11:36