F. H. A. Scrivener; rev. Edward Miller
From the work itself
The Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faithful to the original than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to judge, it pays more respect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently omitting the conjunction and leaving the sentences disconnected. As regards the vocabulary, it adopts Greek words with as great facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This we should hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been comparatively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher and less polished version than the Bohairic. The real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present circumstances be assigned with any certainty. What would be received by one school of critics would not be admitted by another. But the Editor readily records the verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that the text of it, though very ancient, is inferior to the Bohairic, and less pure; that it exhibits a certain infusion of readings which were widely spread in the second century, and may very probably have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin; that it differs very largely from the Traditional text; and that both in text and in interpretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic. The coincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited by two separate translations in allied dialects from independent texts of the same original. Of any mutual influence of the versions of Upper and Lower Egypt on each other no traces are discernible. The following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to illustrate the independence of these two versions.
Quoted verbatim from the library, as an answer would quote it.
In the library
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament
Classic · 35 parts
Ask about F. H. A. Scrivener; rev. Edward Miller
Amos Standard answers theological questions from a curated library and cites the work behind every claim. It is in a closed beta; leave your address and we will write when there is room.