أبوكرفيا عورا الرابع قبطي

1. 1
Forthcoming in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2015
ON A BILINGUAL COPTO-ARABIC MANUSCRIPT OF 4 EZRA AND
THE RECEPTION OF THIS PSEUDEPIGRAPHON IN COPTIC
LITERATURE
Alin Suciu
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen
Digitale Gesamtedition und Übersetzung
des koptisch-sahidischen Alten Testamentes
Heinrich-Düker-Weg 14
37073 Göttingen
asuciu@uni-goettingen.de
Abstract
The text of 4 Ezra has survived in many ancient languages. Among these, the Sahidic Coptic
version is the most poorly attested. The focus here is to introduce a new Sahidic fragment of this
Jewish pseudepigraphon, which is preserved in a bilingual Copto-Arabic manuscript from the
Monastery of Apa Shenoute. This hitherto unknown fragment is datable to the late fourteenth or
early fifteenth century. The article provides an edition of the newly identified fragment, together
with a paleographical description, an analysis of the text, and a survey of the relevant sources
pertaining to the reception of 4 Ezra in Coptic and Copto-Arabic literature.

The claves quoted hereby are designated as follows:
CAVT = J.-C. Haelewyck, Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols,
1998);
CPG = M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum (5 vols.; Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983-1987);
M. Geerard and J. Noret, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols,
1998).
Clavis coptica = Clavis Patrum Copticorum; available online at http://www.cmcl.it (retrieved May 2015).

2. 2
Keywords
4 Ezra, pseudepigrapha, Copto-Arabic literature, Sahidic, paleography, White Monastery
 Introduction
4 Ezra (= 2 Ezra chs. 3-14; cf. CAVT 180) is a Jewish apocalypse that comprises seven visions
concerning the future fate of Israel. The recipient of the revelation mysteriously introduces
himself as ‘Salathiel, who am also Ezra’1
and claims that the visions occurred ‘thirty years after
the destruction of our city’ (3.1). While the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587
B.C.E. is probably envisaged here, the historical locus that influenced the author seems to be the
destruction of the Holy City by the Romans in 70 C.E., a detail that would place the composition
of 4 Ezra at the end of the first century at the earliest. This dating aligns well with the reference
in 11.1-12.51 to a vision of a three-headed eagle, which may represent the Flavian emperors
Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.2
Most scholars seem to agree that 4 Ezra was composed in Hebrew somewhere in Palestine.3
If
this is indeed the case, then the original is lost. From the Greek version, which is the source of
1
On some tentative explanations of the name Ezra-Southiel see M.R. James, ‘Ego Salathiel qui et Ezras’, JTS 18
(1917), p. 167-9; idem, ‘Salathiel qui et Esdras’, JTS 19 (1917), pp. 347-9; M.E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary
on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 55-6.
2
The opinions concerning the identity of the three emperors differ, but the most commonly held view is that the
vision refers to the three Flavian emperors. The text mentions that the second emperor will be murdered by the third,
which could be a reference to Titus, who is suspected of having been killed by Domitian. For a summary of the
views on this issue, see L. DiTommaso, ‘Dating the Eagle Vision of 4 Ezra: a New Look at an Old Theory’, JSP 20
(1999), pp. 3-38 (3-7, 36-8). DiTommaso does not accept the hypothesis of the Flavian emperors, although he
admits that the late first century dating of 4 Ezra is possible given the reference to the thirty years that passed since
the destruction of Jerusalem.
3
Cf., e.g., W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen und Zeit-
geschichtsverständnis im 4 Esra und in der syr. Baruchapocalypse (FLRANT, 97; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1969), pp. 90-106; M.E. Stone, Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra (HSS, 35; Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1989), pp. 149-72; T.A. Bergren, ‘Christian Influence on the Transmission History of 4, 5, and 6 Ezra’, in J.C.
VanderKam and W. Adler (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (CRINT, 3.4; Assen –
Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum – Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 102-27 (102-5). In favor of an Aramaic origin argued,
among others, L. Gry, Les dires prophétiques d’Esdras (IV. Esdras) (2 vols.; Paris: Geuthner, 1938), I, pp. xxiii-

3. 3
several subsequent ancient translations, only a few quotations are preserved in Clement of
Alexandria’s Stromata (CPG 1377) and the Apostolic Constitutions (CPG 1740).4
While the
Hebrew and Greek texts of 4 Ezra are lost, complete or fragmentary translations have survived in
Latin,5
Syriac,6
Sahidic Coptic,7
Arabic,8
Gǝʿǝz,9
Armenian10
and Georgian.11
The Sahidic is the most poorly preserved of all ancient versions of 4 Ezra. In light of its meager
attestation in Coptic, it seems appropriate to introduce here a new Sahidic fragment of this
Jewish apocalypse. The following pages provide a description, edition and translation of a
hitherto unknown portion of the text in Coptic, together with an analysis of its relevance for our
knowledge of 4 Ezra. Finally, the new fragment will be studied in the context of the reception of
4 Ezra in Coptic and Copto-Arabic traditions.
xciii and J. Bloch, ‘The Ezra-Apocalypse: Was it Written in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic?’, JQR 48 (1958), pp. 279-
94 (this article has to be read cum grano salis).
4
Four patristic quotations are known in Greek, two in Clement’s books 1 and 3 of the Stromata and two in books 2
and 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions. Cf. A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament
(SVTP, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), pp. 195-7; idem, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca
(PVTG, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), pp. 130-2.
5
In this and the following notes pertaining to the versions of 4 Ezra, I refer mainly to the standard editions. For a
more detailed bibliography, the reader can consult CAVT no. 180. Most of the ancient versions can conveniently be
found in German and Latin translations on parallel columns in B. Violet, Die Esra Apokalypse (IV. Esra) vol. 1: Die
Überlieferung (GCS, 18; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910). The Latin text is available in A.F.J. Klijn, Der lateinische Text
der Apokalypse des Esra (TU, 131; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983).
6
Edited and translated by R.J. Bidawid in The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version (5 parts;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972-2013), IV.3, pp. i-iv, 1-47.
7
See infra.
8
The Arabic manuscripts of 4 Ezra contain three different versions of the text. For an introduction to the first two
Arabic versions, see G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (5 vols.; Studi e testi, 118, 133, 146-
147, 172; Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944-1953), I, pp. 219-21. Texts in H. Ewald, Das vierte Ezrabuch nach
seinem Zeitalter, seinen arabischen Übersetzungen und einer neuen Wiederherstellung (Abhandlungen der
königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Klasse, 11;
Göttingen: Dietrichsche Buchhandlung, 1863); J. Gildemeister, Esdrae liber quartus arabice, e codice Vaticano 462
nunc primum editum (Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1877). A third Arabic version, based on Syriac, is available in A.
Drint, The Mount Sinai Arabic Version of IV Ezra (2 vols.; CSCO, 563-564. Scriptores arabici, 48-49; Louvain:
Peeters, 1997) (Arabic text and English translation).
9
A. Dillmann, Veteris Testamenti Aethiopici tomus quintus, quo continentur Libri Apocryphi (Berlin: A. Asher,
1894), pp. 153-93. The Gǝʿǝz text is undoubtedly translated from Arabic.
10
M.E. Stone, The Armenian Version of IV Ezra (ATS, 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979); idem, A Textual
Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra (SCS, 34; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990).
11
R.P. Blake, ‘The Georgian Version of Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript’, HTR 19 (1926), pp. 299-
375; idem, ‘The Georgian Text of Fourth Esdras from the Athos Manuscript’, HTR 22 (1929), pp. 57-105.

4. 4
 Vestiges of Three Coptic Manuscripts of 4 Ezra
With the addition of the newly identified fragment, there are now three Coptic codices
containing portions of 4 Ezra. In 1904, Johannes Leipoldt published the edition of P. Berol.
9096, a heavily damaged codex leaf in the collection of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, which
contains, with many lacunae, the Sahidic text of 4 Ezra 13.30-33.40-46.12
The fragment was
dated paleographically in the editio princeps to the sixth-eighth centuries.13
Given that the
attempt to ascribe dates to Coptic literary hands most often lacks independent criteria, Leipoldt’s
suggestion can be nothing more than a wild guess.14
A peculiar feature of P. Berol. 9096 is the
shape of the letters ⲣ, ⲧ, ⲩ, ⲫ, ϥ, whose horizontal strokes end with an oblique left serif.15
Aside from the text edited by Leipoldt, portions of Sahidic 4 Ezra 10.32-46 are preserved on a
parchment folio from a different Sahidic manuscript, now in the British Library. This badly
damaged leaf is kept together with other codicologically unrelated fragments under the shelf
mark Or. 6201 C.16
As the fragment was acquired at a more recent date, it is not mentioned in the
two published catalogues of the Coptic manuscripts in the British Library.17
Hans-Gebhard
12
J. Leipoldt and B. Violet, ‘Ein saïdisches Bruchstück des vierten Esrabuches’, ZÄS 41 (1904), pp. 137-40. Five
separate fragments of this leaf have survived, cf. W. Beltz, ‘Katalog der koptischen Handschriften der Papyrus-
Sammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Teil I)’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 26 (1978), pp. 57-119 (112).
13
Leipoldt, ‘Vierten Esrabuches’, p. 137 n. 1. Leipoldt based his dating on the shape of the letters ⲁ and ⲙ; for his
part, Beltz, ‘Katalog der koptischen Handschriften I’, p. 112 dated it to the sixth century.
14
On the difficulties of Coptic paleography, see B. Layton, ‘Towards a New Coptic Paleography’, in T. Orlandi
and F. Wisse (eds.), Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies. Roma, 22-26 September 1980
(Rome: C.I.M, 1985), pp. 149-58.
15
I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Berlin Papyrussammlung, for providing me high-quality
photographs of P. Berol. 9096.
16
I consulted in situ all the fragments under the shelf mark Or. 6201 C in May 2014. This shelf-mark includes the
following glass plates: ‘6201 C (1, 2)’, ‘6201 C (3-5)’, ‘6201 C (6) pt. 1-2’ (two long papyrus rolls kept under
separate glass plates) and ‘6201 C (Fragments)’. To the latter belongs the 4 Ezra fragment, which is kept under the
same glass plates with six other Coptic parchment fragments of various codices.
17
W.E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1905); B.
Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906 (London:
British Library, 1987).

5. 5
Bethge, who studied, identified and eventually edited the text,18
wrote in an unpublished paper
available in the reading room of the ‘Asian & African Studies’ department of the British Library,
‘In the collection Or. 6201 C, some text from 4 Ezra 10 can be read on the fragment of one page
(scil. folio) containing large parts of one complete column and parts of a second one.’19
The text
of the London fragment is faded and partly covered by dirt, especially on the flesh side. The page
numbers ⲡⲅ̣-ⲡⲇ̣ (= 83-84) are still visible on the upper outer corners of the pages. Nothing is
known concerning the provenance of the Berlin and London fragments.20
A fragment from a third Coptic manuscript of 4 Ezra is preserved in the National Library in Paris
under the inventory number BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32. This newly identified manuscript witness
contains 4 Ezra 5.33-35.37-40 in the Sahidic dialect, together with an Arabic translation on
parallel columns. The Paris fragment will be examined in detail in the following pages.
 Provenance and Paleographical Assessment of the New Coptic Fragment of 4 Ezra
As with the other Sahidic fragments in the National Library in Paris, BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32 also
belonged to the Monastery of Apa Shenoute, or the White Monastery as it is most commonly
known, situated in Upper Egypt near the ancient town of Akhmim. The Sahidic codices of the
White Monastery, which must have possessed the largest Christian library in Egypt at the turn of
18
Edition in H.-G. Bethge, ‘Neue Bibelfragmente: Ein Überblick’, in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet (eds.),
Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic
Studies. Leiden, 27 August-2 September 2000 (2 vols.; OLA, 133-134; Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA: Peeters,
2004), I, pp. 195-207 (198-9); cf. also K. Schüssler, ‘Zum Stand der koptischen Bibeltexte’, in Immerzeel and van
der Vliet, Coptic Studies, I, pp. 221-35 (221).
19
H.-G. Bethge, ‘Work on Coptic Manuscripts in the British Library. A Preliminary Report’. This and other
unpublished reports by Hans-Gebhard Bethge on various Sahidic fragments are bound together and kept with the
other catalogues of Coptic manuscripts in the British Library on the shelves of the ‘Asian & African Studies’
reading room.
20
Walter E. Crum’s suggestion that the Berlin fragment came from the library of the White Monastery is unlikely.
No other fragment of this codex, or at least in the same scribe’s hand, is known to survive among the White
Monastery manuscripts. See H.E. Winlock and W.E. Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes (2 parts; The
Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition; New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926), I, p. 197.

6. 6
the first millennium, has survived only fragmentarily. Starting with the second half of the
eighteenth century, fragments of the White Monastery manuscripts were dispersed all over the
world and ended up in various collections.21
The 4 Ezra fragment belonged to one of the batches
of dismembered White Monastery manuscripts that were deposited to the National Library in
Paris between 1885 and 1887, following a series of acquisitions made by Gaston Maspero in
Egypt.22
BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32 is a damaged paper leaf of which only the lower part has survived.
Although the main text is in Sahidic, the fragment features also an Arabic translation on the outer
margins of the pages. The Coptic script is the sloping uncial of later date, which is common in
some bilingual Sahidic-Arabic paper codices.23
It appears that such artifacts belong to very last
stage of production of Sahidic manuscripts in Egypt. Similar codices contain scalae (i.e.
grammars and lexica),24
lectionaries but also some peculiar literary works like the Triadon25
or
21
On the dispersal of the White Monastery library see T. Orlandi, ‘The Library of the Monastery of St. Shenoute
at Atripe’, in A. Egberts, B.P. Muhs and J. van der Vliet (eds.), Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from
Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (PLB, 31; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002), pp. 211-31; A. Suciu and T. Orlandi,
‘The End of the Library of the Monastery of Atripe’, forthcoming in P. Buzi, A. Camplani and F. Contardi (eds.),
Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Proceedings of the Tenth
International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome, September 17th
-22nd
, 2012, and Plenary Reports of the Ninth
International Congress of Coptic Studies, Cairo, September 15th
-19th
, 2008 (OLA; Louvain: Peeters, expected
2015).
22
C. Louis, ‘The Fate of the White Monastery Library’, in G. Gabra and H.N. Takla (eds.), Christianity and
Monasticism in Upper Egypt vol. 1: Akhmim and Sohag (Cairo: the American University in Cairo Press, 2008), pp.
83-90 and more extensively in idem, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l’IFAO du
Caire. Contribution à la reconstitution de la bibliothèque du Monastère Blanc (Ph.D. diss.; Paris: École Pratique des
Hautes Études. Section des Sciences Religieuses, 2005), pp. 13-39.
23
An analysis of some manuscripts written in this peculiar script is available in A. Boud’hors, ‘L’onciale penchée
en copte et sa survie jusqu’au XVe
siècle en Haute-Égypte’, in F. Deroche and F. Richard (eds.), Scribes et
manuscrits du Moyen-Orient (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 1997), pp. 117-33 (120-4).
24
A. Sidarus, ‘La tradition sahidique de philologie gréco-copto-arabe (manuscrits des XIIIe
-XVe
siècles)’, in N.
Bosson (ed.), Études coptes VII. Neuvième journée d’études, Montpellier, 3-4 juin 1999 (CBC, 12; Paris – Louvain –
Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2000), pp. 265-304.
25
The Triadon is preserved in a single manuscript in Naples (IB.19, ff. 1-97), see the description in P. Buzi,
Catalogo dei manoscritti copti borgiani conservati presso la Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III” di
Napoli (Accademia dei Lincei – Memorie, Ser. IX, 25/1; Rome: Scienze e Lettere, 2009), pp. 353-4. Text edited in
O. von Lemm, Das Triadon. Ein sahidisches Gedicht mit arabischer Übersetzung vol. 1: Text (St. Petersburg:
Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1903); a German translation is available in P. Nagel, Das Triadon. Ein
sahidisches Lehrgedicht des 14. Jahrhunderts (Halle [Salle]: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1983).

7. 7
the so-called Mysteries of the Greek Alphabet (clavis coptica 0240).26
It seems reasonable to
suppose that these codices were originally intended for an audience who was not able to
understand Coptic anymore and needed an accompanying Arabic translation.27
At the same time,
they witness an attempt by the Arabized Coptic intellectuals to preserve the Sahidic idiom, which
had already been gone out of use for some centuries. As these manuscripts provide Arabic
translations of the Coptic texts, they served the European scholars of the seventeenth century as
philological tools to read the Coptic language.
Among the Copto-Arabic paper manuscripts, the fragment of 4 Ezra bears the closest
resemblance with several membra disjecta of a Holy Week lectionary from the White Monastery,
which are preserved in the Vatican and the National Library in Paris. The surviving folios of this
codex accommodate the following biblical lections,
Vatican, Borgia copto 109, cassetta 23, fasc. 98, ff. 1-428
= Mk. 14.25; Lk. 22.14-30; Ps. 100.6-7; Jn 13.21-30; Isa.
31.9-16
Paris, BnF Copte 102, f. 2 = Jn 17.17-26
26
This work has survived in the manuscript Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Huntington 393. The codex was
published in A. Hebbelynck, ‘Les mystères des lettres grecques d’après un manuscrit copte-arabe de la Bibliothèque
Bodléienne d’Oxford’, Le Muséon 19 (1900), pp. 5-36, 105-36, 269-300; 20 (1901), pp. 5-33, 369-414; reprinted as
a single volume, Les mystères des lettres grecques (Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1902). Cf. Hebbelynck’s report on the
manuscript in ‘Une page d’un manuscrit copte intitulé « Les mystères des lettres grecques » (description
cosmologique)’, in Mélanges Charles de Harlez (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1896), pp. 127-32; see also É. Galtier, ‘Sur les
mystères des lettres grecques’, BIFAO 2 (1902), pp. 139-62. For the original Greek version of the text see C. Bandt,
Der Traktat “Vom Mysterium der Buchstaben”: kritischer Text mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen (TU,
162; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007) (with a partial reedition of the Coptic version); see also J. Reynard, ‘Le
Mystère des lettres grecques: Un inédit à paraître aux Sources Chrétiennes’, in J. Baun, A. Cameron, M. Edwards
and M. Vinzent (eds.), Studia Patristica. Papers presented at the Fifteenth International Conference on Patristic
Studies held in Oxford 2007 (Louvain – Paris – Walpole: Peeters, 2010), pp. 277-82.
27
Cf. Crum, Catalogue British Museum, pp. xii-xiii.
28
Description in G. Zoega, Catalogus codicum Copticorum manu scriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris
adservantur (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1810), p. 189 (= no. 98).

8. 8
From the fragments mentioned here, the four leaves in the Vatican have received some attention
in scholarly literature.29
In their list of the Sahidic manuscripts of the gospels, Franz-Jürgen
Schmitz and Gerd Mink assigned them the siglum ‘sa 349L’.30
For his part, Karlheinz
Schüssler’s Biblia coptica designated the same codex as ‘sa 74L’.31
The fragment of 4 Ezra and those of the Copto-Arabic Holy Week lectionary are written in a
very similar, albeit slightly different hand. The paleographical differences between the fragments
are so superficial that, at first glance, one is tempted to ascribe all of them to the same codex.32
It
is only a careful examination of the two scripts that allows us to determine that they were
inscribed by different copyists. For example, the two arms of ⲕ never connect to the stem of the
letter in the surviving leaves of the Holy Week lectionary, unlike in the 4 Ezra fragment.
Moreover, the vertical stroke that forms the basis of ϫ is much longer in the lectionary, being
used as a ligature that connects with the preceding letter. This paleographical feature is absent in
the 4 Ezra fragment. Finally, the scribe of the Holy Week lectionary pointed out by a supralinear
stroke each autosyllabic vowel (e.g., ⲉ̇ⲃⲟⲗ, ⲁⲩⲱ̇, ⲉⲗⲟⲟ̇ⲗⲉ, ⲉ̇ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ̈), unlike the copyist of 4 Ezra,
who used a more classical system of supralineation. Therefore, despite their similarity, the two
manuscripts are arguably not the work of the same scribe.
29
A. Ciasca and J. Balestri, Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta copto-sahidica Musei Borgiani (3 vols.; Rome:
Propaganda Fide, 1885-1904), II, p. xlix; III, pp. lix-lx; G. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the
Southern Dialect (7 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911-1924), III, p. 360 (= no. l1
); A. Vaschalde, ‘Ce qui a été
publié des versions coptes de la Bible’, RB 29 (1920), pp. 241-58 (247); 30 (1921), pp. 237-46 (242). The Paris
fragment in the table above has been independently identified also by Matthias Schulz (University of Vienna),
during his research on Sahidic lectionary manuscripts (personal communication).
30
F.-J. Schmitz and G. Mink, Liste der koptischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (1 vol. in 2 parts; ANTF,
15; Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), I.2.2., pp. 1057-9.
31
K. Schüssler, Biblia Coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte (4 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998-2011), I.3, p.
70; D. Atanassova, ‘Zu den sahidischen Pascha-Lektionaren’, in Immerzeel and van der Vliet, Coptic Studies, II, pp.
607-20 (611-3).
32
My first hypothesis was actually that BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32 belonged to this lectionary manuscript. However,
Diliana Atanassova (Göttingen Academy) rightly pointed out some paleographical features that helped me to
differentiate the two hands.

9. 9
 The Date of the New Manuscript Fragment
Nevertheless, the close paleographical resemblance indicates that the two Copto-Arabic
manuscripts belong to the same period. Agostino Ciasca and George Horner tentatively dated the
Vatican fragments of the Holy Week lectionary to the thirteenth or fourteenth century.33
However, a date between the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century seems more palatable on
the basis of the extant evidence. This assumption is based on the similarity between the
fragments examined here and two dated bilingual Sahidic-Arabic manuscripts. Thus, Ms.
Huntington 393 (the Mysteries of the Greek Alphabet), kept in the Bodleian Library in Oxford,
and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Copte 44 (Scala)34
are dated Era of the Martyrs 1109 (= 1393
CE) and 1105 (= 1389 CE) respectively. On the basis of these two comparanda, we may
subscribe to the view that the manuscript from which the fragment of 4 Ezra was dismantled can
also be ascribed to the same period, that is, the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century.
 Text and Context
As noted above, the newly identified fragment contains 4 Ezra 5.33-35.37-40. The surviving text
features a part of the second vision of Ezra, during which the angel Uriel instructs him about the
fate of Israel. Ezra wants to know why the creator has abandoned Israel. The angel explains to
the seer that if humans cannot understand even the things surrounding them, they will not be able
to penetrate the mystery of the divine plans.
33
Balestri, Sacrorum Bibliorum, III, p. lix (thirteenth or fourteenth century); Horner, The Coptic Version, III, p.
360 (thirteenth century).
34
H. Munier, La Scala copte 44 de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris vol. 1: Transcription (BEC, 2; Cairo:
IFAO, 1930); A. Fouad Khouzam, La langue égyptienne au moyen âge. Le manuscrit Copte 44 de Paris de la
Bibliothèque Nationale de France (2 vols.; Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002).

10. 10
The recto preserves vestiges of sixteen lines in Sahidic, having the text of 4 Ezra 5.33b-35a. The
Arabic text is particularly damaged on this side, remnants of eleven lines being still visible, all
incomplete. The first three lines in Sahidic, pertaining to verse 5.33b, are the most heavily
damaged, but they can be safely restored with the help of the Latin version,
[…] [ϩ]ⲙⲡⲉⲕ̣[ϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲗ]ⲁ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ̣ ⲙⲡⲓ̄ⲏ︦ⲗ̄‧ ⲉⲁⲕⲙ̣[ⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ ⲛ]ⲧ̣ⲟⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲥ̣[ⲟⲛⲧϥ‧]
“[…] in your [heart about the] people of Israel? Have you [loved it] more than the one who [created it]?”
Valde in excessu mentis factus es in Israel; aut plus dilexisti eum super eum qui fecit eum?35
The following lines, which contain 4 Ezra 5.34-35a, also agree with the Latin translation and do
not contain significant variae lectiones. Although the doublet ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ (‘Lord, Lord’) on
recto’s line 5 (4 Ezra 5.34) is not supported in any other version, it is likely that this is not simply
a dittography committed by the Coptic scribe. One may suspect that the underlying Greek text in
this case was κύριε, κύριε, and that this formula was rendered differently from one version to
another. For example, the Latin text usualy has Dominator Domine (‘Sovereign Lord’) in those
places where the Syriac reads ‘Lord, my Lord’ (‫ܡܪܝ‬ ‫,)ܡܪܝܐ‬ together with the Arabic and Gǝʿǝz.36
However, the reading of the Coptic text seems to find support in Armenian, which has the same
repetition at 5.38, Տէր, Տէր.37
The verso preserves fifteen lines in Sahidic. The surviving text has 4 Ezra 5.37b-40, the verses
35b-37a being lost. The text is more difficult to reconstruct on this side because from verse 5.37b
only a few words and strings of letters have survived. One may tentatively restore the first part of
the lacuna as [ⲁⲩⲱ] ⲧ̣ⲟⲧⲉ [ϯⲛⲁⲧⲁⲙⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛⲉϩⲃ]ⲏ̣ⲩⲉ‧ ⲉ̇[-------------------ⲉⲃ]ⲟⲗ (‘[and] then [I shall
35
Klijn, Apokalypse des Esra, p. 36.
36
Cf. 4 Ezra 3.4; 4.38; 5.23.38; 6.11.38 (Syriac only).55 (Syriac only); 7:17.45 (Syriac only).58.75 (Syriac only);
8.6 (Syriac only).36 (Syriac only).45 (Syriac only); 9.29 (Syriac only); 12.7; 13.51.
37
J. Issaverdens, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian MSS. of the Library of
St. Lazarus (Venice: Armenian Monastery of St. Lazarus, 1901), p. 528.

11. 11
inform you about the] works that […]’) on the basis of the parallel Latin text, et nunc ostendam
tibi eum laborem quem rogas videre. However, the reconstruction of the whole text is further
complicated by the fact that the Sahidic continues with the preposition ‘and’, ⲙⲛ-, followed by
another lacunose sentence. This does not seem to be supported either by the Latin or by the
Arabic text on the parallel column, [‫وحينئ‬]‫ذ‬‫أنا‬‫أيضا‬‫ما‬‫قد‬‫يسألني‬‫[ف]ى‬‫األمور‬‫التي‬‫أنت‬‫تتألم‬‫في‬‫طلب‬‫مع‬‫رفته‬‫ا‬ .
The only versions that contain two phrases united by the conjunction ‘and’ in verse 5:37, and
could thus resemble more or less the Sahidic text, are the Syriac and the Arabic translation from
Mount Sinai, the latter being arguably based on a Syriac model,38
‫ܝܕܝܢ‬ ܿ‫ܘܗ‬‫ܐܘܕܥܟ‬‫ܥܠ‬‫ܥܡܐܠ‬‫ܘ‬‫ܙܒܢܐ‬‫ܝܬ‬ܼ‫ܕܒܥ‬‫ܕܬܚܙܐ‬
And then I will inform you concerning the work and the time that you asked to see. 39
‫وحينئذ‬‫تراها‬ ‫ان‬ ‫طلبت‬ ‫التى‬ ‫والدهور‬ ‫الدنيا‬ ‫بامر‬ ‫اخبرك‬
And then I will inform you concerning the world and the times that you asked to see.40
Based on these two versions, we may very carefully propose the following reconstruction of BnF
Copte 1321
, f. 32v, lines 3-4, ⲙⲛⲡⲉⲓ̈[ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲉⲧⲕϣ]ⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ, (‘and the [time that you] asked
to know’). However, due to the fragmentary state of the Sahidic text, this is hardly more than a
guess. It is thus possible that the Sahidic rendering of verse 5.37 included in the manuscript to
which BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32 originally belonged was made from a Greek text similar to that on
which the Syriac version is based.
In the absence of the Greek text of 4 Ezra, from which it was undoubtedly translated, the quality
of the Sahidic rendering is difficult to evaluate. There is only a small portion in our fragment that
38
The Syriac Vorlage of this Arabic version has been underlined for the first time in M.E. Stone, ‘A New
Manuscript of the Syro-Arabic Version of the Fourth Book of Ezra’, JSJ 8 (1977), pp. 183-4.
39
Syriac text in The Old Testament in Syriac, IV.3, p. 9.
40
Drint, The Mount Sinai Version, I, p. 13 (Arabic text); II, p. 21 (English translation). As Drint pointed out, the
Arabic text translates ‘world’ (‫)الدنيا‬ = ‫,ܥܠܡܐ‬ clearly a misunderstanding of the Syriac ‫,ܥܡܐܠ‬ ‘work’; see A. Drint,
‘The Mount Sinai Arabic Version of IV Ezra’, OCP 58 (1992), pp. 401-22 (405).

12. 12
has a Greek parallel, namely, in one of the passages of 4 Ezra quoted by Clement of Alexandria
in Stromata.
Clement, Stromata III.16 4 Ezra 5.35 – versio sahidica
(BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32r, ll. 14-16)
διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἐγένετο ἡ μήτρα τῆς μητρός μου
τάφος, ἵνα μὴ ἴδω τὸν μόχθον τοῦ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν
κόπον τοῦ γένους Ἰσραήλ
ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲣⲱ‧ ⲙⲡⲉϩⲏⲧⲥ ⲛⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲣⲧⲁⲫⲟⲥ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈‧
ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ […]
The Sahidic translation shows full congruity with the Greek text quoted by Clement, offering a
word for word parallel. Unfortunately, the text breaks off with the conjunction ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ = ἵνα and
we do not have the possibility to further check the accuracy of the translation. In any case, no
conclusion can be drawn on the basis of such a small amount of text.
 Indirect Egyptian Sources Concerning the Books of Ezra
Although the codex from which came the Paris fragment of 4 Ezra is a late product, the text itself
must be considerably older since it is unlikely that any literary works had been translated into
Sahidic for many hundreds of years before the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries. Unfortunately, the
age of the Sahidic translation of 4 Ezra is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.
The British Library fragment can tentatively be dated on paleographical grounds to the sixth-
seventh centuries, a fact which, even if reliable, would provide only a relative terminus ante
quem for the translation.41
Moreover, given that the fragments of the three manuscripts do not
overlap, we have no occasion to decide whether they belonged to the same translation from
Greek or, rather, more than one Coptic version of 4 Ezra existed.
41
Bethge, ‘Neue Bibelfragmente’, p. 198, opts for a sixth-century dating of the London fragment.

13. 13
Our evidence concerning the circulation of 4 Ezra in Coptic Egypt is meager. What is more, it is
not immediately clear if all the sources amassed below refer to our pseudepigraphon or rather to
one of the other books attributed to Ezra. For example, the Monastery of Apa Elias library
catalogue, inscribed on an ostracon tentatively dated to the seventh century, mentions among the
Old Testament writings ‘the (books of) Esdras’ (ⲛ̄ⲉⲥⲇⲣⲁ).42
Most likely, this oblique reference
pertains to what the Septuagint calls 1 and 2 Ezra, since the two books feature immediately after
the Chronicles (ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲗⲓⲡⲟⲙⲉⲛⲟⲛ). This order corroborates well with that supplied by Athanasius
of Alexandria in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter, in which he evokes the biblical canon of the
Egyptian church. Thus, Athanasius mentions among the canonical writings of the Old Testament,
‘First and Second Chronicles, … reckoned as one book; then First and Second Esdras, likewise
as one.’43
Similarly, the two Ezras are counted among the historical books and are named after
the Chronicles in some of the most important biblical manuscripts, such as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus,
Basiliano-Venetus, but also in the lists of canonical writings transmitted by Origen (= Eusebius,
HE vi.25; CPG 3495), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv.35) (CPG 3585) and others.44
According to
this order, 1-2 Ezra usually close the series of historical books.45
42
The location of the Monastery of Apa Elias remains unknown. The standard edition of this ostracon, kept in the
collection of the French Institute for Oriental Archaeology in Cairo (IFAO), is that of R.-G. Coquin, ‘Le catalogue
de la bibliothèque du couvent de Saint-Élie « du rocher » (ostracon IFAO 13375)’, BIFAO 75 (1975), pp. 207-39
(209).
43
Translation of the Sahidic version taken from D. Brakke, ‘A New Fragment of Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal
Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha and the Canon’, HTR 103:1 (2010), pp. 47-66 (60). Sahidic text in L.-T. Lefort, S.
Athanase, Lettres festales et pastorales en copte (2 vols.; CSCO 150-151. Scriptores coptici 19-20; Louvain:
Imprimerie orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1955), I, p. 18.
44
See the lists in H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd
ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1902), pp. 201-14. One should note that the list of Origen transmitted in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History is preserved as well in the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, whose author borrowed extensive
material from Eusebius, see B. Evetts, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria vol. 1: S. Mark
to Benjamin I (PO, I.2; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907), p. 172 [74].
45
M. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Old Testament
Studies, Edinburgh – New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2002), p. 59.

14. 14
The books of Ezra are mentioned as well on a damaged papyrus fragment written in Sahidic,
discovered by an archeological mission from the Macquarie University, Sydney, in the Theban
tomb TT233, situated on Ḏirāʿ Abū n-Naǧā, in Western Thebes (inventory number, TT233:
39).46
This tomb, dating from the Pharaonic times, was used in late antiquity as a monastic cell.
The fragment seems to provide a portion from a list of Old Testament writings. The surviving
text lists, on separate lines, the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Esdra (ⲉⲥⲇⲣⲁ), then again,
Esdraz (ⲉⲥⲇⲣⲁⲍ), and Judith. Unfortunately, as the original length of the lines remains unknown,
we cannot estimate with any degree of accuracy how much text has been lost on each line. As in
the case of the ostracon from the Monastery of Apa Elias, this document likely refers to the LXX
1 and 2 Ezra. This is suggested by the position of the books of Ezra, which follow Daniel, being
thus integrated among the prophetic texts. More or less similar orders are attested in
Alexandrinus (Judith, 1-2 Ezra), in Melito of Sardes (= Eusebius, HE iv.26) (Daniel, Ezekiel, 1-2
Ezra), Epiphanius, Adv. haer. (CPG 3745) (Daniel, 1-2 Ezra), Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila
(CPG 7794) (Daniel, 1-2 Ezras, Judith) etc.47
Notably, the succession of books in the Theban
papyrus closely resembles that extant in the fifth or sixth century Dialogue of Timothy, which has
the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel) followed by 1-2 Ezra and Judith.48
46
I am grateful to Malcolm Choat (Macquarie University) for sending me the photos of the fragment. The same
papyrus is cursorily mentioned as ‘list of Old Testament books’ in H. Behlmer and M. Underwood, ‘Coptic Textual
Finds from the Macquarie University Excavations at Dra Abu al-Naga (TT233)’, in G. Gabra and H.N. Takla,
Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt vol. 2: Nag Hammadi – Esna (Cairo – New York, NY: The American
University in Cairo Press, 2010), pp. 7-19 (17); cf. also F. Feder, ‘Coptic Translations (Ezra-Nehemiah)’,
forthcoming in A. Lange (ed.), The Textual History of the Bible vol. 1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill). The Greek and Coptic
texts discovered in TT233 will be published by Malcolm Choat, Heike Behlmer and Matthew Underwood.
47
See Swete, Introduction, 201-14.
48
Edition and translation in F.C. Conybeare, The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and
Aquila (Anecdota Oxoniensia. Classical Series, 8: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), pp. 66-104.

15. 15
Walter Ewing Crum published a Coptic ostracon preserved in the Papyrussammlung of the
Egyptian Museum in Berlin (Ostr. Berlin P. 1069),49
which features a list of extracanonical
writings, including ‘Esra of Southiel’ (ⲉⲥⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩⲑⲓⲏⲗ). Although the reference is vague, it is
reasonable to suppose that it refers indeed to 4 Ezra, as Crum suggested. In this case, ‘Southiel’
must be a variant of ‘Salathiel’ mentioned in 4 Ezra 3.1 as an alternative name of the seer (ego
Salathiel, qui et Ezras). Likewise, in the Georgian text his name appears as Sut‘ieli.50
A similar
form of the name is attested in the Gǝʿǝz version, which notes that the prophet is also called
Sutaʾel (አነ፡ ሱታኤል፡ ዘተሰመይኩ፡ ዕዝራ፡; ‘I, Sutaʾel, who am called Ezra’).51
This name was a
current way to designate the prophet Ezra in Ethiopic literature, no doubt as a consequence of the
inclusion of our pseudepigraphon in the biblical canon of the Tewahedo church. For example, in
the Acts of Bäṣälotä Mikaʾel, who lived in the fourteenth-century, it is said that Ethiopian saint
was a miracle-worker like Elisha and drunken spirit like Ezra Sutaʾel (ስኩረ፡ መንፈስ፡ ከመ፡
ዕዝራ፡ ሱታኤል፡).52
Similarly, the Life of the thirteenth century legendary king Näʾakkw
ǝto Läʾab
(ነአኵቶ፡ ለአብ፡) praise him by saying that he loved solitary life like Daniel and had a sharp
tongue like Sutuʾel.53
49
Winlock and Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius, I, p. 197; cf. also the description of the item in W. Beltz,
‘Katalog der koptischen Handschriften der Papyrus-Sammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Teil II)’, Archiv
für Papyrusforschung 27 (1980), pp. 122-222 (133). One should note that, although it was mentioned by Crum in his
study of the Coptic material found at the Monastery of Apa Epiphanius at Thebes, the Berlin ostracon did not come
from this location, as Denis wrongly stated more than once, see Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs,
198; A.-M. Denis and J.-C. Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique (2 vols.;
Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), I, p. 837.
50
Blake, ‘Jerusalem Manuscript’, pp. 311, 322-3.
51
Dillmann, Libri Apocryphi, p. 153 mentions that the form ሱቱኤል፡ (Sutuʾel) is also attested in the manuscript
tradition.
52
C. Conti Rossini, Vitae sanctorum indigenarum I. Acta S. Baṣalota Mikāʾēl, S. Anorewos (seu Acta Sancti
Honorii) (2 vols.; CSCO, 28-29. Scriptores aethiopici, 11-12; Louvain: Secrétariat général du CorpusSCO, 1961), I,
p. 3, II, p. 3.
53
C. Conti Rossini, ‘Gli Atti del Re Na’akuěto La-’Ab’, Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, n.s.,
2 (1943), pp. 105-232 (133, 196). ሱቱኤል፡ is also attested in the Ethiopic manuscripts of 4 Ezra, see note 51 supra.

16. 16
One may remark that in the Berlin ostracon quoted by Crum Southiel is not Ezra’s name, but
rather that of his father. This shows congruity only with two other sources. Thus, in the Arabic
translation of 4 Ezra published by Johann Gildemeister after Vaticanus arabicus 462 the seer
introduces himself in verse 3.1 as ‘I, al-ʿUzaīr (sic!), the son of Salaṯīāl (‫ساالثيال‬ ‫ابن‬ ‫العزير‬ ‫.)انا‬54
Similarly, in the Georgian version of Epiphanius’ De XII gemmis (CPG 3748), distinction is
made between Ezra the priest from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and another Ezra, who was the
son of Salathiel and lived approximately one hundred years later.55
However, the Latin and the Sahidic translations of the same work of Epiphanius probably have a
better reading at this point. The Coptic text of De gemmis is preserved in a single fragmentary
manuscript from the Monastery of Shenoute. We can establish on paleographical grounds that
this parchment codex dates from the tenth century and that it was copied in the Touton
scriptorium in the Fayyum.56
Unlike the Georgian, the Sahidic version of De XII gemmis refers
to ‘Ezra the one who is called Salathiel (ⲉⲥⲇⲣⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ ⲥⲁⲗⲁⲑⲓⲏⲗ) and the one who
was the fellow (ⲡⲉⲧϩⲓⲧⲟⲩⲱϥ) of Zorobabel, this being the son of Jeconiah’.57
M.R. James
speculated that Epiphanius did not know 4 Ezra, but he was rather using a venerable exegetical
tradition that identified Ezra with Salathiel because of a misreading of 1 Chron 3.17.58
However,
as none of the sources quoted by James predate Epiphanius, I think it is quite clear that the
Christian bishop referred to in the aforementioned passage of 4 Ezra 3.1, which identifies Ezra
54
Gildemeister, Esdrae liber quartus arabice, p. 3.
55
R.P. Blake and H. de Vis, Epiphanius, De Gemmis. The Old Georgian Version and the Fragments of the
Armenian Version. The Coptic Sahidic Fragments (Studies and Documents, 2; London: Christophers, 1934), p. 188
(English translation of the Georgian).
56
After the publication of the Sahidic text by de Vis, another fragment of De gemmis has surfaced, E. Lucchesi,
‘Un fragment copte ignoré du De XII gemmis d’Épiphane de Chypre’, OLP 31 (2000-2005), p. 82. The fragment is
kept in the collection of the Louvre museum (call number E 10 050 [R 168]) and belongs to the same codex.
57
Blake and de Vis, Epiphanius, De Gemmis, p. 274 (Sahidic text). The Latin text has Hesdra illo qui uocabatur
Salathiel, cuius erat pater Zorobabel. For the Latin text see O. Günther, Epistulae Imperatorum Pontificium Aliorum
inde ab A. CCCLXVII usque ad A. DLII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio (2 vols.; CSEL 35.1-2; Prague –
Vienna – Leipzig: F. Tempsky – G. Freytag, 1895-1898), II, p. 770.
58
James, ‘Salathiel qui et Esdras’.

17. 17
with Salathiel. Therefore, the Sahidic translation on De gemmis must be added to the attestations
of 4 Ezra in Coptic literature, although nevertheless through the intermediary of a translation
from Greek.
In addition to the sources examined above, 4 Ezra 5.44 is quoted in Ps.-Athanasius of
Alexandria’s sermon on Mt. 20.1-16 (CPG 2181; clavis coptica 0060), which is preserved only
in Sahidic, ‘It is well said in Ezra, “for the creature cannot hasten more than the creator”’ (ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ
ⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲩϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲥⲇⲣⲁ ϫⲉ‧ ⲡⲥⲱⲛⲧ ⲅⲁⲣ ϭⲉⲡⲏ ⲁⲛ‧ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲛⲧ).59
This passage conforms well
to the Latin non potest festinare creatura super creatorem.60
The quotation is relevant because
Ps.-Athanasius explicitly attributes the saying to Ezra, a fact which seems to imply that the
author of the sermon took the pseudepigraphon as scriptural authority. It is possible that Ps.-
Athanasius’ sermon on Mt. 20.1-16 goes back to a lost Greek original. This is suggested by the
fact that the only manuscript preserving this text (London, BL Or. 5001) is a papyrus codex
which contains a series of patristic homilies, whose Greek original is known in almost each
case.61
Therefore, although transmitted only in Sahidic, the quotation in Ps.-Athanasius must be
added to the scanty attestations of the use of 4 Ezra in patristic literature.62
Other documents attest the circulation and reception of 4 Ezra in Coptic Christianity, albeit they
are written in Arabic. Nevertheless, the bilingual manuscript to which BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32
59
Sahidic text in E.A. Wallis Budge, Coptic Homilies in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum,
1910), p. 86.
60
Latin text in Klijn, Apokalypse des Esra, p. 37.
61
The entire manuscript was published by Budge, Coptic Homilies. It features the following texts, John of
Constantinople, De poenitentia et abstinentia (clavis coptica 0182); John Chrysostom, In Susannam (clavis coptica
0178; CPG 4567); Athanasius of Alexandria, De misericordia et iudicio. In Rom. 1.28 (clavis coptica 0079; CPG
2180; CPG 2929); Theophilus of Alexandria, De poenitentia et abstinentia (clavis coptica 0393; CPG 2623);
Athanasius of Alexandria, In Mt. 20.1-16 (clavis coptica 0060; CPG 2181); Proclus of Constantinople, De
Incarnatione (clavis coptica 0317; CPG 5822); Proclus of Constantinople, De Pascha (clavis 0318; CPG 5812);
Basil of Caesarea, De templo Salomonis (clavis coptica 0076; CPG 2965); Athanasius of Alexandria, De anima et
corpore (clavis coptica 0223; CPG 2004); Eusebius of Caesarea, De Chananaea (clavis coptica 0147; CPG 4529).
62
The patristic quotations from 4 Ezra were gathered by Albert-Marie Denis, cf. n. 4 supra.

18. 18
belonged represents a juncture in the history of the reception of 4 Ezra in the Coptic church, as it
gives the text both in Sahidic and in Arabic. Thus, it demonstrates that Sahidic manuscripts of 4
Ezra were still available in the Arabized Egypt even as late as the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries,
a period in which it is certain that the Copts already possessed at least a couple of Arabic
versions of the same text. Thus, the two Arabic codices of Egyptian provenance used by
Gildemeister for his edition of 4 Ezra, Vat. ar. 462 (1311 CE) and Oxford, Bodl. 251 (1335 CE),
are slightly older than the Copto-Arabic fragment that interests us here.63
Similarly, the Egyptian
codex published by Heinrich Ewald, which contains a different Arabic version of 4 Ezra, is
roughly contemporary with the manuscript edited by Gildemeister, being dated 1051 Era of the
Martyrs = 1354 CE.
The Copts were familiar with 4 Ezra in Arabic even earlier than the fourteenth century. Thus,
Buṭrus Ibn al-Rāhib’s Kitāb al-Burhān (thirteenth century) includes several extracts from 4
Ezra.64
Finally, in an entry note dedicated to the celebration of Uriel in the Copto-Arabic
synaxary it is written that the angel taught the righteous prophet Ezra about the divine mysteries.
We have here, unambiguously, a reference to the revelation of Uriel from 4 Ezra.65
Although nothing speaks in favor of the inclusion of 4 Ezra in the biblical canon of the Coptic
church, it seems likely to suppose that the Copts considered this Jewish pseudepigraphon as an
inspired text, worthy to be copied and quoted as scriptural authority.
63
Description of the Vatican manuscript in A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio (4 vols.; Rome: Typis
Vaticanis, 1827-1833), IV, p. 522. Mai mentions only that the manuscript dates to the fourteenth century. For his
part, Graf, GCAL 1, p. 220 gives the precise date, 1311 CE. The Oxford manuscript is dated 1051 Era of the
Martyrs, which corresponds to 1335 CE, see A. Nicoll and E.B. Pussey, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum
orientalium Bibliothecae Bodleianae: Arabicos complectens vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1821), pp. 13a-4b
(13a-b) (= no. 6).
64
A. Sidarus, ‘Les sources d’une somme philosophico-théologique copte arabe (Kitāb al-burhān d’Abū Šākir ibn
al-Rāhib, XIIIe
siècle’, Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 17 (2010), pp. 127-63 (130-2). It remains to
be studied from which Arabic version of 4 Ezra were extracted the fragments.
65
R. Basset, Le Synaxaire arabe jacobite (rédaction copte). Le mois de Toubeh et d’Amchir (PO, 11/5; Paris:
Firmin-Didot, 1916) 710 [676].

19. 19
Edition of Paris, BnF Copte 1321
, f. 32 (= 4 Ezra 5.33-35.37-40)
Recto
5 33
[…] [ϩ]ⲙⲡⲉⲕ̣[ϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡ]
2 [ⲗ]ⲁ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ̣ ⲙⲡⲓ̄ⲏ︦ⲗ̄‧ ⲉⲁⲕⲙ̣[ⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ ⲛ]
ⲧ̣ⲟⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲥ̣[ⲟⲛⲧϥ‧]
4 34
[ⲁ]ⲓ̣ⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲓ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ̣ [ⲙ]
ⲙⲟⲛ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ‧ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ
6 ⲉⲓⲙⲟⲕϩ ⲛ̇ϩⲏⲧ‧ ⲉⲩϩⲩⲇⲁⲍⲉ66
ⲙⲙⲟⲓ̈ ⲛϭⲓⲛⲁϭⲗⲟⲟⲧⲉ‧ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ
8 ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲛⲓⲙ‧ ⲉⲓⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ
ⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱϣ‧ ⲉ{ⲧⲁ}ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ ⲙ̇ⲡⲡⲉⲧ
10 ϫⲟⲥⲉ‧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̇ⲧⲁϩⲟ̣ⲧϩⲉⲧ
ⲛⲥⲁⲟⲩⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ‧ ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥⲕⲣⲓⲥⲓⲥ‧
12 35
ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲙⲛ̇ϭⲟⲙ ⲙ̇ⲙ̣ⲟⲕ
ⲉⲉⲓⲙⲉ‧ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲱ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ‧
14 ⲏ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲣⲱ‧ ⲁⲩϫⲡⲟⲓ̈‧ ⲏ ⲉⲧ
ⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲣⲱ‧ ⲙⲡⲉϩⲏⲧⲥ ⲛⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ
16 ⲣⲧⲁⲫⲟⲥ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈‧ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ
5 33
[…] in your [heart about the]
2 people of Israel? Have you [loved it]
more than the one who [created it]?’
4 34
I answered and said to him,
‘No, Lord, Lord, but
6 grieving, my reins
are testing me
8 every hour while I look and
desire for the way of the
10 Most High, and I search
for a part of his judgment.’
12 35
He said, ‘You cannot
understand.’ I said, ‘O Lord,
14 then why was I born? Or
then why my mother’s womb
16 did not become a tomb for me, so that
66
The manuscript reads ⲉⲥϩⲩⲇⲁⲍⲉ but the feminine singular does not go well with the plural ⲛⲁϭⲗⲟⲟⲧⲉ, ‘my
reins/my kidneys.’

20. 20
Verso
37
[-----------------] [ⲁⲩⲱ] ⲧ̣ⲟⲧⲉ
2 [ϯⲛⲁⲧⲁⲙⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲛⲉϩⲃ]ⲏ̣ⲩⲉ‧ ⲉ̇
[-------------------ⲉⲃ]ⲟⲗ ⲙⲛⲡⲉⲓ̈
4 [ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲉⲧⲕϣ]ⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ‧
38
[ⲡⲉϫⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ]ⲁ̣ϥ̣ ⲡⲁϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛⲓ̈ⲙ
6 [ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϣϭ]ⲙ̄ϭⲟⲙ ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲁⲓ̈
[ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ] ⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲙ̇ⲡⲉϥⲙⲁ ⲛ̇
8 [ⲛⲉϥ]ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲛ̇ⲛ̇ⲣⲱⲙⲉ
39
[ⲁ]ⲛⲟⲕ ⲁⲛⲅ̇ ⲟⲩⲁⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ
10 [ⲉⲓϣⲟⲟⲡ] ϩⲛⲟⲩⲑⲃⲃⲓⲟ‧ ⲡⲱⲥ ϭⲉ
[ⲉⲓⲛⲁ]ⲧⲁⲙⲟⲕ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ̈‧ 40
ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ
12 [ⲡⲉϫ]ⲁ̣ϥ ⲛⲁⲓ‧ ϫⲉ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲙⲛϣ
[ϭⲟ]ⲙ̣ ⲙ̇ⲙⲟⲕ‧ ⲉⲣ̇ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛ̇ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲁⲓ ⲟⲛ
14 [ⲧⲉ] ⲑ̣ⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲙⲛϭⲟⲙ‧ ⲙⲙⲟⲕ‧ ⲉⲥⲟⲩⲛ
[ⲧ]ⲉⲕⲣⲓⲥⲓⲥ‧ ⲏ ⲡϫⲱⲕ ⲛⲧⲁⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ‧
37
[----------------------] [and] then
2 [I shall inform you about the] works that
[------------------------------] and the
4 [time that you] asked to know.’
38
[I said to] him, ‘My Lord, who
6 [is the one who will be] able to know these
[except] one whose place
8 is not with humans?
39
As for me, I am an ignorant one
10 [that lives] in humility, then how
[shall I] teach you about these?’ 40
He replied
12 [and said] to me, ‘If
you are not able to do any of these,
14 likewise, you are not able to know
[the] judgment or the fullness of my love