a.The Coptic Fragment: Br. Mus. Or. 9271 (Copt.) 2-4 cm.; the left margin (where it is best preserved) is
cm. by 12 cm. Between the two columns is a space of 2-4 cm.; the left margin (where it is best preserved) is
2.5 cm., and between the right edge of column 2 and the edge of the sheet there is a space of 11 cm. The verso
(vertical strands) contains only one column; this (col. 3) has only 18 lines measuring 12.5 cm. by 11 cm. The text breaks off about halfway down the page,6 and in the middle of a sentence. The whole right side is blank (leav ing about 29 cm. to the right edge).7
4. The Versions a.The Coptic Fragment: Br. Mus. Or. 9271 (Copt.) In the spring of 1923 there appeared in Cairo a papyrus sheet of unusual size and style of writing, written on both sides in Coptic (with a lavish waste of space). L.Theophile Lefort examined it but chose not to acquire it. The sheet ultimately came into the possession of the British Museum, where it remains, designated Or. 9271.
The editio princeps was by G. Horner.1 Carl Schmidt was able to prepare a better edition based on a photo graph, followed by an inspection of the original.2 Finally,
Lefort offered a new edition of the Coptic text with an extensive introduction and notes, as well as a French translation in separate volume.3
It seems that the scribe changed his calamus (and ink?) at line 14 of column 1. Beginning with line 14, he writes in somewhat larger letters.8 Nevertheless, the whole text is certainly from the same hand. The scribe frequently uses the apostrophe as a signum dispositions.9
At the end of column 1, the scribe has filled out the line with five symbols. The manuscript probably comes from the fifth century. Horner adds: "the Greek authorities at the British Museum would put it even as early as A.D.
400."10 Schmidt did not want to go that far.11
We find here the Coptic text of Did. 10.3b—12.2a.
From what has been said, it is clear that this cannot be a section of a complete manuscript of the Didache, but only a more or less casual excerpt.12 How should we
This papyrus leaf, which when Lefort first inspected it was still in good condition, apparently suffered by being transported to Europe.4 It appears to come from a papyrus scroll, and could have been the last part of it.
The sheet has a remarkably large format: 44 cm. long, 28.5 cm. high. It is written on both sides but with a strange arrangement. The recto (horizontal strands) con tains two columns. Column 1 has 29 lines measuring
21.5 cm. by 17 cm. Column 2 has 32 lines5 measuring 23 1 "New Papyrus Fragment," 225-31. On p. 225,
Horner gives a brief description of the sheet, and, on pp. 226-29, the Coptic text with notes; at pp. 230-31 there is an English translation.
2 "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 81-99. Schmidt pre sents a description of the papyrus with notes (8183), an edition of the Coptic text with German translation and notes (84-89), and additional dis cussion (90-99).
3 Peres apostoliques, introduction on pp. ix-xv; Coptic text with notes on pp. 32-34 (though it should be noted that Lefort has normalized the orthography of the original); on pp. 25-28 Lefort presented a French translation with notes. [Ed. Most recently see F. Stanley Jones and Paul A. Mirecki, "Con siderations on the Coptic Papyrus of the Didache
(British Library Oriental Manuscript 9271)," in Jefford, Context, 47-87.] 4 On this, and on the whole history of its discovery as outlined above, cf. Lefort, Peres apostoliques, ix-x.
5 Column 2 begins one line above col. 1 and ends one line lower.
6 There remain about 13-14 cm. between the end of the text and the bottom of the sheet.
7 Audet (Didache, 31) gives some strong arguments for thinking that text has been lost from what is now col. 1. Schmidt ("Koptische DidacheFragment," 81) differs. In lines 25 and 26 it is possi ble that one can really discern fragments of letters on the outer edge, which would mean that there was a column before col. 1.
8 Most of the letters are now about 3-4 mm. tall. <f clearly reaches above and below the line, f slighdy above, y extends slightly above and below the line, as does e in some cases.
9 For the supposed initial letters in col. 1, line 27 (Horner), see the correction by Audet, Didache,
30-31 n. 4. The e in strs is really not an initial, but only (like other es) somewhat enlarged.
10 "New Papyrus Fragment," 225. Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 112: end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century. Cf. also Wengst, Didache, 11.
11 "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 82.
12 "Mr. Bell of the British Museum suggests that the papyrus may be a casual extract" (Horner, "New
Papyrus Fragment," 225).
13 "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 82.
14 Peres apostoliques, xii.
15 Adam ("Herkunft," 26) has proposed the hypothesis that this is the project for a translation (from Syriac, he thinks): "the pages with the completed transla tion were, in turn, to serve as a source for copyists, and could then be thrown away; therefore they could be written on waste scraps." This is highly