^{page 236 note 1} Cp. Exod. xxxv. 23 (25) where Greek has παλαıσδή and Fb corrects σπτπθαμβς β γρρονθ; cp. also Jud. iii. 16 Theod. σπıθαμβς, Aq. Sym. γρóνθου παλαıστıου. On the Greek evidence for γρϳνθος=παλαıστή cp. F. Hultsch, Metrol. Script, Rel. II, Indices, s.v. γρονθος. On the association of ‘fist’ with ‘handbreadth’ cp. Tos. Kel. Bab. Mez. vii. 2: ‘Fist’ when referred to (in Talmudic literature); R. Tarfon used to stretch out his fingers and show (explaining thus to the college that ‘fist’ is the same measure as ‘handbreadth’). R. Akiba used to close his hand and show.

^{page 236 note 2} Cp. Liddell-Scott, s.v. γρόνθος.

^{page 236 note 3} Also spelt cp. in Jastrow, s.v. .

^{page 236 note 4} Die Gnostischen Schriften des Koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (TU60, Berlin 1955). An explanation of the delay in publication is given in the Introduction.

^{page 236 note 5} Cf. Puech in Coptic Studies in Honor of W. E. Crum (Boston, 1950), pp. 91 ff. Further references in Till, op. cit. p. 8 n. 1. See also The Jung Codex, ed. F. L. Cross (London, 1955).

^{page 237 note 1} Till, op. cit. p. 7: ‘Die Schrift… datierte Schmidt zuerst ins 5. Jahrhundert, später ging er höher hinauf.’

^{page 237 note 2} Published by Roberts, C. H. in Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, III (London, 1938), pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 3} Op. cit. p. 20.

^{page 237 note 4} Ibid. p. 19. See also Till in La Parola del Passato, IV (1949), pp. 230 ff.

^{page 237 note 5} Op. cit. p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 6} Op. Cit. pp. 73, 72. The numbers in the text refer to the pagination of the Coptic manuscript.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} 15. 6 f. ‘Thou hast not seen me or known me’ (? cf. Fourth Gospel; but here in a reply of the soul to one of the cosmic powers). 15. 14 f. ‘In wickedness (πονηρια) wast thou begotten’ recalls Ps. li. 5. If the document is a redaction, this may point to Jewish influence on the original source.

^{page 238 note 2} ‘Why judgest thou me, although I have not judged?’ Dr C. K. Barrett has drawn my attention to I Clem. xiii. 2 and Ep. Polycarpi 2. 3.

^{page 238 note 3} ‘From this time on shall I attain rest.’ Cf. Roberts, op. cit. p. 22. The Coptic shows no relation to Horner's edition of the Sahidic version.

^{page 238 note 4} It may be recalled that Reitzenstein (Poimandres, pp. 81 ff.) claimed to have found a purely pagan document underlying the ‘Naassene Preaching’ preserved in Hippolytus. Burkitt however in a review pointed out that this ‘purely pagan document’ contained a quotation from the O.T. firmly embedded in the text (J. T.S. xxvi, 117 ff.).

^{page 238 note 5} ‘The use of σωτήρ p to the exclusion of all other names for our Lord suggested a Gnostic origin for the work’ (Roberts, op. cit. p. 18, on the Greek fragment). Of the three occurrences of two are in forms of address, the third in a statement ‘I saw the Lord in a vision….’

^{page 238 note 6} Cf. The Jung Codex, pp. 76 ff.

^{page 238 note 7} ‘He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.’ Till, op. cit. p. 63 refers to Matt. xi. 15; xiii. 9, 43; Mark iv. 9; Luke viii. 8; xiv. 35.

^{page 239 note 1} Peter asks ‘What is the sin of the world?’ and the Saviour answers ‘There is no sin, but ye do sin when ye do the things that belong to the nature of unchastity.’ F. R. Tennant (The Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge, 1903), p. 164) finds a conflict in Rabbinic literature between the view that all men owe their mortality to the sin of Adam and that which makes each man ‘the Adam of his own soul’. Tennant also finds ‘reason to suspect that the original legends which were woven into the Fall story of Genesis were connected with the origin of the sexual relation’ (ibid. p. 153). See also Oesterley, Jews and Judaism during the Greek Period (London, 1941), pp. 165 ff., Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin (London, 1929).

^{page 239 note 2} For example, Acts xxiii. 11; xxvii. 25; John xvio 33.

^{page 239 note 3} μακάρıυς occurs as an epithet for God only in I Tim. i. 11 and vi. 15 in the Greek N.T., and not at all in LXX. The normal word was εúλσγητóς (cf. Mark xiv. 61), used in N.T. of God alone. Cf. Bauer, Wörterbuch ⁴, s.v., Beyer in T.W.B. it, 761 f., and Dibelius, Handbuch z. N.T. on I Tim. i. 11. μακάρıυς is used of God by Philo, but there appears to be no evidence for the phrase ó μακάρıυς as a periphrasis for the divine name.

^{page 239 note 4} Luke xxiv. 36 (John xx. 19, etc.); John xiv. 27; Matt. xxiv. 4 f. (Mark xiii. 5); xxiv. 23 (Mark xiii. 21; Luke xvii. 23); Luke xvii. 21 (with ‘Son of Man’ for ‘kingdom of God’); Matt. vii. 7; Mark xvi. 15 (cf. Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35); (?) I John ii. 7.

^{page 239 note 5} Roberts, who believed that the Gospel proper only began where our text ends (op. cit. p. 19), renders: ‘began to preach the Gospel according to Mary’ (ibid. p. 22). In the Berlin text, however, this is the end of the treatise, and the last five words accordingly form a colophon.

^{page 240 note 1} The Jung Codex, pp. 81 ff. esp. pp. 107 ff.

^{page 240 note 2} Matt. xi. 15; xiii. 9; xiii 43.

^{page 240 note 3} Mark iv. 9; Luke viii. 8; xiv. 35. Cf. also Rev. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6, 13, 22.

^{page 241 note 1} 8. 1–2 .

^{page 241 note 2} D, OL (a, b, ff, g), Syr. (H^mg).

^{page 241 note 3} Op. cit. p. 19. See also Till's discussion of the language, op. cit. pp. 11 ff.

As Professor Jeremias was quick to observe after the reading of the paper, this point might be of importance as evidence for knowledge of the Western text in Egypt at a fairly early date, if the passage is a genuine quotation of the Western addition to Mark iv. 9. It is, however, doubtful how much stress can be laid upon the point, since the words might be only a literary variation of the earlier part of the verse. Nor do we know whether these words stood in the Greek original or are due to expansion by the Coptic translator. The coincidence, if such it is, is at any rate striking.

Dr K. H. Kuhn suggested that the case might be stronger if the Coptic translators were in the habit of using νυεïν to render συνıέναı, but even such evidence would not be decisive. Whatever the normal practice, this particular translator might have diverged at this point; and even if συνıέναı were commonly rendered by νυεïν this would only prove not that συνıέναı must but that it could have stood in the Greek behind the νυεïν of the Coptic text.

Examination of the translators' usage does, however, lead to interesting results: of twenty-six occurrences of συνıέναı in some form in the N.T., two (Acts xxviii. 27 and Rom. xv. 21) are not represented in Horner's text. In the remaining twenty-four, συνıέναı is rendered twelve times by νυεïν (Matt. xiii. 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 51; xv. 10; Mark iv. 12; vii. 14; viii. 21; Acts xxviii. 26; II Cor. x. 12), nine times by the Coptic (Matt. xvi. 12; xvii. 13; Luke ii, 50; viii. 10; xviii. 34; xxiv. 45; Acts vii. 25 bis; Eph. v. 17), and three times by other forms (Mark vi. 52; viii. 17; Rom. iii. 11). In two cases (Matt. xvi. 12 and Mark viii. 17) νυεïν itself occurs in the Greek in the immediate context, which is sufficient reason for the use of another word. Four other cases of clue occur in Luke alone, where νυεïν never appears for συνıέναı. Mark viii. 21 is of particular interest: at viii. 17, where both νυεïν and συνıέναı occur together in the Greek, the latter is rendered by another form, but at viii. 21, where νυεïν occurs alone, the translator reverts to νυεïν. Unfortunately there is a variant in the Greek at the crucial point (νυεıτε BD²; συν│ετε NA, etc).

^{page 242 note 1} 8. 22 f., 18. 20: cf. I John ii. 7?

^{page 242 note 2} 18. 16 f. : cf. Col. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13 (άνήρ); Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10 (ένδúσαθαı). Cf. also Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27.