# Reading Joshua in Sahidic **URL:** \ **Category:** Coptic Corner\ **Created:** [August 14, 2022, 10:04am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/reading-joshua-in-sahidic/19240 "2022-08-14T10:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![Shenoute](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@Shenoute](https://www.textkit.com/u/Shenoute)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 10:04am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/reading-joshua-in-sahidic/19240/1 "2022-08-14T10:04:12Z")
The state of Sahidic Joshua is pretty typical for the Sahidic Old Testament, i.e. no manuscript of the book has been preserved in full. The reader has to hop between several partially preserved witnesses to read (almost) the whole text. As with any other OT book, the simplest solution is to go [https://data.copticscriptorium.org/texts/old-testament/](https://data.copticscriptorium.org/texts/old-testament/) and just start reading. Note though that, despite a massive update last year, Coptic Scriptorium does not (yet?) offer a complete picture of what has been preserved for Joshua. Another “problem” with the text there is that no source is given, which may not be a problem to all. But since we’re dealing with a composite text, made from bits taken from various manuscripts, I like knowing where the individual parts comes from. So what if you want to read Josh. in Sahidic? The two most important witnesses manuscripts are: - British Library Add. 17183, a 7th c. manuscript, published in [Thompson (1911)](https://archive.org/details/copticpalimpsest00thom/page/n15/mode/2up) - P. Chester Beatty 1389/P. Bodmer 21, a 4/5th c. manuscript, published by [Shore (1963)](https://chesterbeatty.ie/collections/research-services/collections-information/monograph-series/) and Kasser (1963). As far as I can see, Kasser’s publication is not available online but high resolution photographs of the manuscript can be found at [https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri/barcode/1072205359](https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri/barcode/1072205359). P. Chester Beatty 1389/P. Bodmer 21 is older and the language is not Standard Sahidic. Shore notes that its text differs a lot from British Library Add. 17183 but underlines that “nevertheless the variations are insufficient of themselves to warrant the assumption that the version is an independent one” (p. 14). Later he also notes that “the new text of Joshua is exceptional in the number of places in which it is clearly following a textual tradition distinct from the later Sahidic version” (p. 15). To fill the small gaps left by the two main witnesses, fragments can be found in: - [Ciasca (1885: 148-158)](https://archive.org/details/sacrorumbiblior00balegoog/page/n188/mode/2up) - [Maspero (1892: 129-136)](https://archive.org/details/MMAF6.1/page/n152/mode/1up) - [Wessely (1914: 61-62)](https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/wessely1914bd4/0071/image,info), not really filling a gap but it has 2,13-2,24 in apparently the same recension as Thompson (1911). Using Thompson (1911) as the base text, a possible reading plan would then be: 1,1-2,13: Thompson 2,13-3,6: Shore (Wessely as an alternative for 2,13-2,24) 3,6-10,25: Thompson 10,25-10,36: Kasser 10,37-17,16: Thompson 17,16-18,1: Ciasca 18,2-18,6: no witness? 18,7-19,50: Thompson 19,51-21,1: Maspero 21,2-21,6: no witness? 21,7-22,14: Thompson 22,14-22,19: Shore 22,20-24,33: Thompson. --- _[View the full topic](https://www.textkit.com/t/reading-joshua-in-sahidic/19240)._