Journal of Coptic Studies 17 (2015) 127–139

doi: 10.2143/JCS.17.0.3132122

Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in

Sahidic from the White Monastery and
the Thebaid
B y Á gnes T. M i h ály k ó

It is relatively rare, due to the fragmentary preservation of the witnesses

of the liturgy in Sahidic,1 to have more than one copy of a prayer in this
dialect.2 It is no more frequent to find a liturgical text from the White
Monastery in the papyri and ostraca coming from the earlier period.3 This
makes the three manuscripts presented in this paper, a codex from the
White Monastery and two ostraca from the Theban area, all the more
interesting, since they carry parts of the text of probably the same ‘prayer

I am grateful to Anastasia Maravela, Anne Boud’hors and Ugo Zanetti for reading my
drafts. Special thanks go to Diliana Atanassova, whose suggestions and corrections helped
to improve this paper a lot.
1
  On the sources of the liturgy in Sahidic, see recently Atanassova, “The Primary Sources.”
2
 Other examples include the anaphora of St. Basil (cf. Budde, Die ägyptische Basilios-
Anaphora 95–99), the anaphora of St. Mark/Cyril (London, BM, EA 54036 [edited by
Quecke, “Ein saïdischer Zeuge der Markusliturgie”], Rome, BAV, Borgia 109 [100] p.  39–42
[edited by Lanne, Le Grand Euchologe 292–299], Louvain, ms. Lefort No. 29 [edited by
Lefort, “Coptica Lovaniensia” 26–29], and Prague, Or. Inst., ms. II [written in an irregular
Sahidic, edited by Hažmuková, “Miscellaneous Coptic Prayers II” 118–135]), the anaphora
of St. Gregory (P.Vindob. K 4854 [edited by Henner, Fragmenta Liturgica Coptica 36–79],
Rome, BAV, Borgia 109 [100] p.  27–28 [edited by Lanne, Le Grand Euchologe, 288–291],
and Prague, Or. Inst., ms. IV [edited by Hažmuková, “Miscellaneous Coptic Prayers II”,
141–143]), the beginning of an unknown anaphora on O.Crum 4 and 7 (reedited by Quecke,
“Das anaphorische Dankgebet” [1971]) and on St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. 1133 (reedited
by Quecke, “Das anaphorische Dankgebet” [1974]), a prayer of inclination before commu-
nion (O.Crum 6 and Vienna, KM, Inv. 8586b (edited by Satzinger, “Koptische Papyrusfrag-
mente” 428–429)), and possibly a prayer for the offering of incense (London, BM, EA 5895v,
edited as O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I p.  138, pl. 100,7 and London, BM, EA 5876, edited as O.Brit.
Mus.Copt. I p.  24. pl. 18.3). On different versions of Sahidic prayers, especially on inde-
pendent translations of liturgical texts into Sahidic, see Budde, Basilios-Anaphora 104.
3
  Examples, besides the already cited anaphoras of St. Basil, Mark and Gregory, include
P.Köln IV 173, which also appears in Paris, BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 119v, P.Berol. 16389
(edited by Treu, “Ein altkirchlicher Christushymnus”), which appears in Leiden, RMO, Ms.
Copte 75b (Insinger 32) pag. 68 (Pleyte/Boeser, Manuscrits coptes 140) as well (cf. Koenen,
“Der erweiterte Trisagion-Hymnus”), and P.Vindob. G 40195 (edited by Daniel, “Christian
hymn”), which also appears in Manchester, JRL, No. 33 (P.Ryl.Copt. 33). The publication
of a corpus of hymns on papyrus by Céline Grassien and the investigation of the hymns
preserved in the White Monastery typika by Diliana Atanassova in her current project will
hopefully reveal more connections between the liturgy of the White Monastery and that of
Upper Egypt in the earlier period.

98544.indb 127 1/02/16 11:36

 128 Ágnes T. Mihálykó

of offering’ in Sahidic. Moreover, as this prayer cannot be found in the

printed (Bohairic) euchologia, which represent the liturgy of Lower Egypt,
these three manuscripts also exemplify the lost diversity of the liturgy of
Upper Egypt.
This article presents first and second editions of these three manu-
scripts. The first (§1) is an unedited double leaf from a parchment codex
from the White Monastery4 kept in the Bibliothèque nationale de France,
Copte 12920 fol. 156–157,5 of which lines fol. 157r.8–v.13 contain the
prayer with the title ⲕⲉⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁ[ⲓ], ‘another prayer of offer-
ing.’ The second (§2), an ostracon from the pharaonic tomb TT29, the
dwelling of the monk Frange, was edited by Anne Boud’hors and Chantal
Heurtel as O.Frangé 730. The third (§3) is a fragmentary ostracon kept in
the British Museum with the inventory number BM EA 14180, which was
edited by H. R. Hall in O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I p.  24. pl. 18.3 together with
BM EA 5876, which the first editor thought to belong to the same piece.
It reports the title ⲧⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲙⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ‘the prayer of the bread.’ The frag-
mentary state of the ostracon does not allow us to determine with certainty
the identity of the text with the prayer of the other two witnesses.
All three manuscripts of the prayer are fragmentary. The latest, BnF,
Copte 12920 fol. 157r.8–v.13 (10–11th cent.) is the most complete, only a few
words are missing in ll. v.1–5. The right part of O.Frangé 730 (7–8th cent.)
was chipped off, which resulted in the loss of approximately one third of
ll. 3–7. However, as the surviving parts of these two manuscripts corre-
spond to a great degree (except for some variation in ll. 157r.13–v.1 and
v.11 of BnF, Copte 12920, see below, §2 notes) and the two witnesses
supplement each other, the missing parts can be restored. BM EA 14180
(6–7th cent.) preserves only four fragmentary lines after the title, so that
the identity and the extent of correspondence with the prayer in the other
two manuscripts is uncertain. What remains can be matched to the
text of the other two, and the coincidence of the idiosyncratic opening
[ⲧⲛ]ⲁⲝⲓⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲕⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ􀛎ⲁⲃ􀛐| [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ…
‘we supplicate your holy glory, God of glory, sweetness’ supports a cor-
respondence that goes beyond the first three lines, even though this is not
necessary, see §3.

4
 On the liturgy of the White Monastery, see Zanetti, “La liturgie.” I am grateful to
the author for having sent me the article before publication.
5
  Codices are quoted here by their shelfmarks, while papyri and ostraca are referred to
by their inventory numbers or, if possible, by their editions according to the conventional
abbreviations, which can be found in the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic,
and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets, accessible under http://papyri.info/docs/checklist
(last accessed 03/08/2015).

98544.indb 128 1/02/16 11:36

 Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in Sahidic 129

The prayer, according to its title in BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.8, is a
‘prayer of offering’. This title is, to my knowledge, unparalleled in the
sources of liturgy in Sahidic, but according to Heinzgerd Brakmann6 it can
designate a ‘prayer of the prosthesis.’ This prayer is recited by the priest
over the offerings, after their transfer to the altar, before the liturgy of
the word in the current Coptic rite.7 In the late antique Ordo Missae, the
transfer of the gifts took place immediately before the anaphora; its relo-
cation to the beginning of the mass happened probably not long before
the 10th century in Upper Egypt.8 The texts of the two surviving ‘prayers
of offering’ in BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 156–157 lend themselves easily to
such a function, for both supplicate God for a worthy presence in church
and a worthy offering. The parallel makes it likely, although not certain,
that the prayer preserved on O.Frangé 730 served as a prayer of the pro-
thesis as well, possibly in the same or at least in a similar function. The
title of BM EA 14180, with its reference to the (Eucharistic) bread does
not contradict this hypothesis either, see below §3.
The fragmentary state of the three manuscripts justifies a separate
edition for all three. BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.8–v.13, the best pre-
served one, will be taken as a starting point, followed by O.Frangé 730
and BM EA 14180. Each manuscript is first described; then the text is
given followed by a few notes relating to the textual reconstruction and
the differences from §1. Translation and an apparatus of Biblical parallels
is provided only for §1. §3 concludes with some remarks on the title
and the relationship of the text of BM EA 14180 to the other witnesses.
A short commentary on the text closes the paper.

*
*   *

§1 BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.8–v.13

White Monastery 10–11th century

BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 156–157 are two consecutive leaves from a small
format parchment codex, approximately 14 cm high and 11 cm wide. The
leaves come from the White Monastery. It can tentatively be dated to the
10th or 11th centuries, since parchment codices from the White Monastery

6
 Brakmann, “Le déroulement” 112.
7
 Brakmann, “Le déroulement” 111–112.
8
 Brakmann, “Le déroulement” 114–115, 122–123.

98544.indb 129 1/02/16 11:36

 130 Ágnes T. Mihálykó

written in a bimodular script are generally assigned to this period.9 There are
17 lines in a page. 156 r and v contain a numbering, ⲇ (4). Titles, including
157r.8, are written in red ink, the initials of the prayers and of a few lines
are written in ekthesis. Five leaves from the same codex, London, BL,
Or. 3580 A(14-16) (formerly A(10)), were edited as P.Lond.Copt. I 153.10
They contain a Eucharistic sequence consisting of a prayer of inclination
before communion, a prayer of absolution, the elevation, and the confes-
sion, and carry the folio numbers 51–55 on both sides of each leaf.11
The two leaves contain the last line and the doxology of a prayer
(156r.1–14) and three alternative ‘prayers of offering’: ‘the first prayer
of offering’ (ⲧϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲛⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ, 156r.14–157r.7), our
‘another prayer of offering’ (ⲕⲉⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁ[ⲓ], 157r.8–v.13),
and ‘another prayer of offering, (that) of the Son’ (ⲕⲉⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲟ
ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ· ⲧⲁⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ, 157v.14–17). Of the third only the first two lines
are preserved besides the title. This edition focuses only on the relevant
ll. 157r.8–v.13; the edition of the entire codex remains a desideratum.
The prayers are edited on the basis of high quality images accessible
on the webpage of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.12 The author has
also consulted the original.
r8 ⲕⲉⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁ[ⲓ]
ⲧⲛⲁⲝⲓⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲉ-
10 ⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲙⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ
ⲙⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲡϭⲥ
ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁ-
ⲧⲱⲣ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟ-
15 ⲉⲓⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ
ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲧⲛⲉⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ-
ⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲁⲁⲛ
v1 [] ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲁ-
[ⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁ] ⲉⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩ(ⲛ)
[ⲉⲡⲉⲕⲑ]ⲩ̣ ⲥⲓⲁⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓ-

9
 Young, Coptic Manuscripts 19.
10
 This manuscript was listed in Atanassova, “Primary sources” 71, but without men-
tioning the other part of the same manuscript, BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 156–157. Although there
are five independent leaves, four of them were glassed in pairs, and each pair as well as the
fifth leaf received a separate inventory number. Thus the five leaves ended up with three
numbers (A.14–16) instead of five.
11
 According to E. Lanne, “Les textes” 15 n. 48, fragments belonging to the same
euchologium are kept also in the Papyrussammlung in Vienna. This statement was repeated
in Henner, Fragmenta 12 n. 47. After scanning White Monastery material on microfilm
(notably P.Vindob. K 9000–10000), I could not verify his statement.
12
  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b525015068/f92.image (157r) and http://gallica.
bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b525015068/f93.image (157v) (last accessed 13/05/2015).

98544.indb 130 1/02/16 11:36

 Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in Sahidic 131

[ⲟⲛ ⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ·
 5 [ⲉⲥⲟⲃⲧⲉ] ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲁⲗⲟ
[ⲛ]ⲁⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛⲛⲉⲓⲛⲟϭ
[ⲛ]ⲕⲉⲫⲁⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛϣ-
[ⲡ]ⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ
ⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ
10 ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ
ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ
ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ
ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉⲡⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϣⲁ

10 Ps. 28:3 12–16 Eph. 1:3, 1 Pet. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:3 v10 1 Pet. 1:19.

Translation
‘Another prayer (εὐχή) of offering. We supplicate (ἀξιοῦν) your holy
glory, God of glory, Father of all sweetness, Lord God Almighty (παντο-
κράτωρ) Father of our Lord and Saviour (σωτήρ) Jesus Christ. We give
thanks (εὐχαριστεῖν) to you, because you have made us (worthy) of this
great honour (ἀξίωμα) to go in to your holy sanctuary (θυσιαστήριον),
to (prepare) and offer you these great and outstanding (κεφάλαιον)
wonders, which are the holy body (σῶμα) and the revered blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ, glory to you with him, with the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα),
forever.’

Notes
v.1. The meaning of the missing word is probably ‘worthy.’ In O.Frangé 730.5
ⲛⲁ can be read before the edge. This implies the reconstruction of ⲛⲁ[ⲝⲓⲟⲥ].
BM EA 14180.5 reports ]ⲙϣⲁ, which can be a variant spelling of ⲙⲡϣⲁ. BnF,
Copte 12920 fol. 157v.1 could contain either of these two words.
v.11–12. Between these two lines, one line containing ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ
was probably missed, as this expression is a standard part of doxologies and is
contained in O.Frangé 730.12–13 as well.

§2  O.Frangé 730

Thebaid, TT 29 Trismegistos No. 220268 7–8th century

Inv. No.: Fr. A: TT 29 Belgian excavations No. 292105 (+ 292169 + 292176

+ 292176 + 292377 + 292382 + 292463 + 292491), Fr. B: No. 292311

Description
Lined ostracon of light brown colour. It was found in the pharaonic
tomb TT29, which is known as the dwelling of Frange, a monk active in

98544.indb 131 1/02/16 11:36

 132 Ágnes T. Mihálykó

the early 8th century. It was reconstructed from 9 fragments, of which

No. 292311 (Fr. B) is not connected to the rest. It was placed by the
editors in the upper left part, but the textual integration based on BnF,
Copte 12920 fol. 157r.10–11 indicates that it belongs to the end of l. 1–2,13
and that it possibly preserves the right edge. The bottom, left, and pos-
sibly the top edges are extant as well, but a piece is missing from the
upper left corner, and more from the right side. Fr. A is 16 cm high and
17 cm wide, while Fr. B is 4.5 cm high and 7 cm wide; thus the ostracon
was approximately 17 cm high and 26 cm wide in its original state. The
ostracon tapers towards the bottom. The lack of space at the end forced
the scribe to copy the final line of the doxology on the margin above the
first line of the prayer in smaller letters.
The writing is a large formal majuscule, drawing on the formal sloping
majuscule, although the inclination to the right is not very marked. The
editors place this piece among the incerta of the volume, which cannot
be connected to the dossier of the monk Frange with certainty. If it was
indeed copied by Frange, then it can be placed in the period of his activity,
the early 8th century. However, it is more likely to be the product or the
possession of his predecessor in the tomb, the priest Moses. The text is
written in a very formal, trained hand, of a quality that Frange does not
seem to have achieved during his scribal activity. Moses, on the contrary,
was a professional scribe, who employed different hands (O.Frangé 752–
759). Even though none of these resemble O.Frangé 730, his writing skill
could allow him to employ a more formal hand for copying a liturgical
prayer, or he could have received the manuscript from someone else. He
is also a more likely user of the text of a prayer due to his priestly office.
However, these arguments are not decisive. The closest parallel to the
writing in the volume is O.Frangé 805, a letter by David, which was placed
among the 7th century material by the editors on the basis of palaeography.
The writing of O.Frangé 730 however exhibits a certain similarity with the
‘beginner’s hand’ of Frange as well (e.g. O.Frangé 202, pl. 133), and
Frange is known to have copied the style of Moses (O.Frangé p.  14), which
makes the separation of his products from that of Moses even more diffi-
cult. Thus the question of the scribe and thereby of the dating remains
uncertain.

13
 Due to the misplacement of the fragment the first edition added two lines before
the actual first line. In this paper I cite O.Frangé 730 by the new line numbering of the
present edition.

98544.indb 132 1/02/16 11:36

 Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in Sahidic 133

The ostracon has been reedited on the basis of the image in the first
edition pl. 116 and on further images kindly provided by Anne Boud’hors.
The author has not seen the original.

{[ⲁⲃ ⲧ]ⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲛⲉ[ⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ:}

[⳨? ⲧ]ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ [ⲡⲛⲟ]ⲩⲧⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ
[ⲡⲉⲓ]ⲱⲧ ⲙⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲡⲁⲛ-]
[ⲧⲟⲕⲣ]ⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓ[ⲥ ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲧⲛϣⲡ]
 5 ϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲁⲁⲛ ⲛⲁ[ⲝⲓⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲛⲟϭ]
ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁ ⲉⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡ[ⲉⲕⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁⲥⲧⲏ-]
ⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉⲥⲟⲃⲧⲉ ⲁ[ⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲁⲗⲟ ⲛⲁⲕ]
ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛⲛⲉⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲕⲉⲫⲁⲗ[ⲁⲓⲟⲛ]
ⲛϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲙ[ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ-]
10 ⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ [ⲙ-]
ⲡⲉⲕⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲓⲥ [ⲡⲉ-]
ⲭⲥ ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟ-
ⲧϥ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ
ⲙⲛ ⲡⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉ-
15 ⲡⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ-
<[ⲁⲃ ⲧ]ⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲛⲉ[ⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ:>

15 ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ed. pr.

Notes
1. The end of the doxology was copied on the upper margin due to lack of
space at the bottom. It is surprising the scribe considered it necessary at all, as
this is the most standard part of all prayers, even if it can have shorter or longer
variants, which are, however, exchanged freely. BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157 v. 13
in fact presents a shorter variant abbreviated as a simple ϣⲁ.
3. Before [ⲡⲉⲓ]ⲱⲧ, the ⲁⲩⲱ of BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.11 is unlikely to
have had enough space.
4. The probable shape of the ostracon suggests that the ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ
after ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ of BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.15 is absent.
4–5. [ⲧⲛϣⲡ] ϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ. BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.16–17 employs
the Greek verb εὐχαριστεῖν and the preposition ⲛⲁⲕ.
7–8.  ⲉⲥⲟⲃⲧⲉ ⲁ[ⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲁⲗⲟ ⲛⲁⲕ] ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ. The supplement is based on
BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157v.5, although ⲛⲁⲕ is not necessary and could be
omitted.
10. BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157v.10 has ⲙⲛ instead of ⲁⲩⲱ.
10–12. [ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲕⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲓⲥ [ⲡⲉ]ⲭⲥ ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. BnF,
Copte 12920 fol. 157v.11 has a shorter form, ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ.
15.  ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ. After the ⲁ, ⲁⲃ could hardly have had enough space. On the
other hand, there is space for two letters before ⲧ]ⲉⲛⲟⲩ in l. 1, which suggests
that ⲁⲃ was copied there. The lack of space for ⲁⲃ, which the scribe thought
necessary to add, could explain why he bothered to open a new line for the most
well-known part of the doxology.

98544.indb 133 1/02/16 11:36

 134 Ágnes T. Mihálykó

§3 BM EA 14180

Provenance unknown Trismegistos No. 111811 6–7th century

(Upper Egypt?)14

Fragment of an ostracon from thick light-brown pottery, h6.5×w18.2 cm.

The top and the right edges are preserved. The prayer starts with the
title preceded by a cross. The hand and the material is the same as of BM
EA 5876, which prompted the first editor to consider them parts of the
same ostracon. However, they preserve two different prayers, both known
from other sources,15 and if both prayers were written on one ostracon, it
would have been of unusual large size, around 30 cm high. Thus it is more
likely that the two ostraca, if they belonged to the same piece of pottery,
were broken apart already in antiquity.
The hand is a rather large, slightly clumsy majuscule. It is difficult to
date. Its characteristic letters include ⲙ, which alternates between a more
upright and angular and a more curved form; ⲕ, which has a hook at the
bottom oblique; and ⲁ with a long right descendant. It is comparable to
P.Mon.Epiph. 46v, which can be dated to the late 6th or early 7th centuries
on the basis of its archaeological context; and to Cavallo & Maehler,
Greek Bookhands pl. 39b (second half of 6th cent.). This implies a date
into the late 6th or 7th centuries, allowing for the uncertainty of Coptic
palaeography. The scribe applies horizontal strokes above the ⲕ in
ⲙⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ and above the ⲩ in [ⲧⲛ]ⲁⲝⲓⲟⲩ and ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ. The ⲁⲃ in l. 2
was added in the line above due to lack of space, and was preceded by a
sign in the shape of an ⳑ.
The reedition is based on the image provided by the British Museum
(on fig.  1), and autopsy by the author.

14
 The provenance from Upper Egypt is supported by the fact that almost all ostraca
that carry a liturgical texts and have a known provenance come from there, the only excep-
tions being O.Sarga 13 and Delattre, “Textes coptes et grecs d’Antinoé” 149–151, no. 8.
Crum lists the other ostracon from the same hand, BM EA 5876 among those written in
the monasteries of the Theban necropolis, which is the likely provenance of this piece as
well (Winlock & Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius 198).
15
  BM EA 5876 preserves in Sahidic the end of the prayer for the evening offering of
incense of the liturgy of Lower Egypt, whose Bohairic textus receptus is in the 1902 printed
Euchologium 35–37, and which is also attested in Sahidic on the backside of BM EA 5895
(O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I p.  138, pl. 100,7).

98544.indb 134 1/02/16 11:36

 Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in Sahidic 135

British Museum EA 14180. © The Trustees of the British Museum

ϯ ⲧⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲙⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ
[ⲧⲛ]ⲁⲝⲓⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲕⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ􀛎ⲁⲃ􀛐
[ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ
[ca. 15   ]ⲡⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ
5 [ca. 20   ]ⲙϣⲁ ⲉⲧ
--------------------------------
2. ϫⲓⲟⲩ ed.pr

Notes
3.  ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙ, which is attested in the two other redactions, is missing before
ⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ; it could be dropped accidently, or attest a different redaction.
4. [ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙ]ⲡⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ? The integration is based on
BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.12–15. The long sequence ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ is probably missing in between, but it is not present in the
Biblical parallels, Eph. 1:3, 1 Pet. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:3, either. ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ after
ⲡⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ can be absent as well, or contained in next line.
5.  ⲙϣⲁ can be a variant spelling of ⲙⲡϣⲁ. The equivalent ⲛⲁ[ⲝⲓⲟⲥ]
figures most likely in O.Frangé 730.5 (l. 7 in ed.pr.). [ⲧⲛϣⲡ]| ϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ
ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲁⲁⲛ of O.Frangé 730.4–5 may stand in between, or the equivalent in
BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.16–17 ⲧⲛⲉⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ|ⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲁⲁⲛ. Other
reconstructions cannot be excluded as we do not know to what extent this redac-
tion differed from the other two. The last two letters could either simply intro-
duce the verb of offering, which comes a few lines below in the parallels (ⲉⲧⲁⲗⲟ
ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ, cf. BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157v.5–6), or continue as the parallels do with
ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁ, the object marker ⲙ being exchanged for an ⲉ.

As noted above, the fragmentary state of the ostracon does not allow to
identify the prayer on it with that in the other two manuscripts beyond
doubt, or to state the extent of coincidence. The more complete ll. 2–3

98544.indb 135 1/02/16 11:36

 136 Ágnes T. Mihálykó

agree with the text of the other two, although the fragmentary lines imply
a slightly shorter redaction. In l. 3, between [ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ and ⲡⲉϩⲗⲟϭ,
ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙ could be dropped accidentally, or it could be a different
redaction. From l. 4, we are on a less firm ground. It is conceivable that
we are confronted with two different prayers with the same beginning.
However, the idiosyncratic opening with the phrase ‘We beseech your
glory, God of glory’ makes this possibility less likely, and ll. 4–5 can
also be restored in agreement with the text of the two other manuscripts.
This allows BM EA 14180 to preserve a different redaction of the same
prayer, although the extent of disparity is unknown.
The only observation that could contradict the identification is the title,
which refers only to the bread, while the prayer in the other two witnesses
includes both the bread and the chalice. However, this is not decisive.
A parallel case can be observed in a section of the anaphora in the Old
Slavonic Euchologium Sinaiticum, which presents a shorter redaction of
the prothesis prayer of the Lower Egyptian liturgy. It has the subheading
‘Prayer of Saint Basil at the Setting-Forth of the Bread,’ even though it
includes a reference to the chalice.16 The title ‘prayer of the bread’ is also
attested in the Great Euchologium for a prayer that is part of the marriage
ritual (pag. 233–234).17 A ‘prayer for oil of the sick or for bread or for
water’ is moreover found in the Euchologium of Sarapion.18

* 
*  *

I conclude with some remarks on the differences between the text

of O.Frangé 730 and BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157. The most conspicuous
one is the use of [ⲧⲛϣⲡ] ϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ in O.Frangé 730.4–5 instead
of ⲧⲛⲉⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲕ in BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157r.16–17. This

16
 Burmester, “An Offertory-Consecratory Prayer” 32. It is tempting to connect the title
‘the prayer of the bread’ with the rubric ⲡⲁⲣⲧⲟⲥ/ ⲁⲣⲧⲟⲥ ‘bread’ in the White Monastery
typikon Leiden, RMO, Ms. Copte 85 (Insinger 40) (Pleyte & Boeser, Manuscrits coptes 217–
226), which indicates a hymn in service connected to the Eucharistic bread situated between
the hymn for the kiss of peace and the hymn for ‘peace’. Ugo Zanetti suggested that it was
sung during the procession with the gifts, although he allows for other parts of the liturgy
of the faithful, such as the fraction prayer, as well (Zanetti, “La liturgie” 213). The word
‘bread’ in both titles may indicate their connection to the transfer of the bread to the altar,
and thus confirm the function of prothesis prayer in the case of BM EA 14180 and the
recitation of the ⲁⲣⲧⲟⲥ hymn during the procession with the gifts. However, as both cases
are ambiguous, such a hypothesis remains conjectural.
17
 Lanne, Grand Euchologe 396–399.
18
 Johnson,The Prayers of Sarapion 66–67.

98544.indb 136 1/02/16 11:36

 Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in Sahidic 137

expression may in fact be a secondary addition, as it breaks the logic of

the text: the object of request is missing after ‘we supplicate your glory.’
The ‘first prayer of offering’ in BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 156 r.15– 157 r.7 in
fact contains a request for worthy offering and not a thanksgiving for it
(cf. ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲕⲉⲁⲁⲛ ⲛⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲛϯ ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲟⲩⲟⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲕⲧⲁⲗϭⲟⲛ
ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲛⲧⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲅϯ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲣⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲣⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ
ⲡⲛⲁ ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ ‘that you make us worthy to approach you so
that you heal us in your goodness, and give us license to see the grace
coming from you’ ll.156v.5–11). The expression of thanksgiving echoes
the wording of two thanksgiving prayers from Qaṣr Ibrim: εὐχαριστοῦμέν
[σοι] κ(ύριε) ὁ θ(εὸ)ς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὅτι ἀναξίους ἡμᾶς ὄντας
ἀξίους ἀπειργάσω τοῦ παραισθαναι (l. παριστάναι) τον (l. τῷ)
ἁγίῳ{ς} σ(ο)υ θυσιαστηρίῳ, as well as εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι δέσποτα
φιλάν(θρωπ)ε ὅτι ἀναξίους ἡμᾶς ὄντας καταξιωσας (l. κατηξιώσας)
παρασθηναι (l. παραστῆναι) τῷ ἁγίῳ σ(ο)υ τουτο (τούτῳ) θυσιαστη-
ρίῳ.19 The insertion of the verb of thanksgiving may be due to influence
from a prayer of thanksgiving with a similar formulation.
The rest of the divergences between the two manuscripts, such as ⲙⲛ
in BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157v.10 instead of ⲁⲩⲱ in O.Frangé 730.10
or ⲙⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ in BnF, Copte 12920 fol. 157v.11 for
[ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲕⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲓⲥ [ⲡⲉ]ⲭⲥ ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ in O.Frangé
730.10–12, are minor, and can be explained from the nature of the trans-
mission of the liturgical prayers, where variation is much more frequent
than in the transmission of literary texts due to the prominent role of
orality in the transmission.20 BM EA 14180 may have contained a differ-
ent redaction or even a different translation of a lost Greek original, but
the remaining fragment is not substantial enough to be sure.

Bibliography

Atanassova, Diliana. “The Primary Sources of Southern Egyptian Liturgy:

Retrospect and Prospect.” In: B. Groen, D. Galadza, N. Glibetic,
G. Radle (eds.) Rites and Rituals of the Christian East, Proceedings of
the Fourth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy,
Lebanon, 10-15 July 2012. Leuven 2014, 47–96.

  Frend, “Some Greek Liturgical Fragments” 551.

19

 On the features of liturgical manuscripts and transmission, see Budde, Basilios-
20

Anaphora 39–40, 48–56.

98544.indb 137 1/02/16 11:36

 138 Ágnes T. Mihálykó

Boud’hors, Anne & Heurtel, Chantal. Les ostraca coptes de la TT 29. Autour du
moine Frangé (O.Frangé). Brussels 2010.
Brakmann, Heinzgerd. “Le déroulement de la Messe copte. Structure et histoire.”
In: Achille M. Triacca & Alessandro Pistoia (eds.) L’eucharistie: célébra-
tions, rites, piétés. Conférences Saint-Serge XLIe Semaine d’Études Litur-
giques. Paris, 28 Juin – 1 Juillet 1994. Rome 1995, p. 107–132.
Budde, Achim. Die ägyptische Basilios-Anaphora. Text–Kommentar–Geschichte.
Münster 2004.
Burmester, Oswald H. E. KHS. “An Offertory-Consecratory Prayer in the Greek
and Coptic Liturgy of Saint Mark.” BSAC 17 (1964), 23–33.
Cavallo, Guglielmo & Herwig Maehler, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine
Period, A.D. 300—800. London 1987.
Crum, Walter E. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum.
(P.Lond.Copt. I). London 1905.
Daniel, R. W. “Christian hymn: P.Vindob. G 40195 and P.Ryl.Copt. 33.” ZPE 42
(1981), 71–77.
Delattre, Alain. “Textes coptes et grecs d’Antinoé.” In: Rosario Pintaudi (ed.)
Antinoupolis. Vol. I. Firenze 2008, 131–162.
Frend, William H. C. “Some Greek Liturgical Fragments from Q’asr Ibrim in
Nubia.” In: Elizabeth Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica Vol. XV. Papers
Presented to the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies
held in Oxford 1975. Part I. Berlin 1984, 545–553.
Hall, Henry R. Coptic and Greek Texts of the Christian Period from Ostraka,
Stelae, etc. in the British Museum (O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I). London 1905.
Hažmuková, Valerie. “Miscellaneous Coptic Prayers II.” Archiv Orientální 9
(1937), 107–145.
Henner, Jutta. Fragmenta Liturgica Coptica. Editionen und Kommentar liturgischer
Texte. Tübingen 2000.
Johnson, Maxwell E. The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis. A Literary, Liturgical,
and Theological Analysis. Rome 1995.
Lanne, Emmanuel, Le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc. PO XXVIII/2.
Turnhout 1958.
—. “Les textes de la liturgie eucharistique en dialecte sahidique.” Le Muséon 68
(1955), 5–16.
Lefort, Louis-Théophile. “Coptica Lovaniensia (Suite).” Le Muséon 53 (1940),
1–66.
ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲭⲟⲗⲟⲅⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. (Euchologium). Cairo 1902. Available
under http://digitale-sammlungen.ulb.uni-bonn.de/content/pageview/1710118
(last accessed 14/05/2015).
Pleyte, Willem & Boeser, Pieter A. A., Manuscrits coptes du Musée de Leide.
Leide 1897.
Satzinger, Helmut. “Koptische Papyrusfragmente des Wiener Kunsthistorischen
Museums. (Liturgische und biblische Texte).” ChrEg 46 (1971), 419–
431.

98544.indb 138 1/02/16 11:36

 Witnesses of a ‘prayer of offering’ in Sahidic 139

Quecke, Hans. “Das anaphorische Dankgebet auf den koptischen Ostraka

B. M. Nr. 32799 und 33050 neu herausgegeben.” OCP 37 (1971), 391‑405.
—. “Ein saïdischer Zeuge der Markusliturgie (Brit. Mus. Nr. 54036).” OCP 37
(1971), 40–54.
—. “Das anaphorische Dankgebet auf dem koptischen Ostrakon Nr. 1133 der
Leningrader Eremitage neu herausgegeben.” OCP 40 (1974), 46–60.
Treu, Kurt. “Ein altkirchlicher Christushymnus (P.Berol. 16389).” Novum Tes-
tamentum 19 (1977), 142–149.
Winlock, Herbert E. & Crum, Walter E. The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes.
New York 1926.
Young, Dwight W. Coptic Manuscripts from the White Monastery: Works of
Shenoute. MPER N. S. XXII. Vienna 1993.
Zanetti, Ugo. “La liturgie dans les monastères de Shenoute.” BSAC 2014, 167–
224.

Agnes Mihálykó Tothne

a.m.tothne@ifikk.uio.no

98544.indb 139 1/02/16 11:36