Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:50:51.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Citing the Sahidic Version of Hebrews: Theoretical Reflections and Examples from Textual Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2021

Peter Malik Open the ORCID record for Peter Malik [Opens in a new window]
Peter Malik*
Affiliation:
Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel, Missionsstraße 9a/b, 42285 Wuppertal, Germany Matej Bel University, Ružová 13 974 11 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia Email: peter.malik@isbtf.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Sahidic Coptic is one of the earliest and most important versions of the New Testament. Thus, it is essential that its witness be related to the Greek tradition with adequate methodological precision. This article attempts to pave the way for such an undertaking in the Epistle to the Hebrews, a New Testament book which, currently, lacks a major critical edition of its Greek text or an edition of its Sahidic version. Firstly, the present study offers methodological reflections on citing the Sahidic version, with a particular focus on transmissional, editorial, linguistic and translation-technical issues. And secondly, a selection of the most significant variant units in Hebrews is examined with a view to relating the Sahidic evidence to the Greek variant spectrum at each point.

Keywords

SahidicCopticHebrewsversionscritical apparatus
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 61 - 75
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 C. Tischendorf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, vols. i–ii (Leipzig: Giesecke and Devrient, 1869–728), vol. iii: Prolegomena (scripsit C. R. Gregory; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1894).

2 Tregelles, S. P., ed., The Greek New Testament, Edited from the Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome (7 vols.; London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1857–79)Google Scholar.

3 Williams, P. J., ‘“Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together”: The Witness of the Early Versions’, The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. Hill, Charles E. and Kruger, Michael J.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 239–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 240. He further observes: ‘Tischendorf and Tregelles, as we are aware, spent most of their time locating and editing Greek manuscripts. Von Soden had a team of workers collecting evidence from the various Greek witnesses. However, we do not have evidence that these editors undertook major studies of the translation method employed by the creators of the early versions.’

4 A major step forward in the rigorous study of New Testament versions was the publication of K. Aland, ed., Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare: Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte (ANTF 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972). In the English-speaking world, the classic handbook is still B. M. Metzger's Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).

5 The ECM volumes that have been published so far are: B. Aland, K. Aland, G. Mink, H. Strutwolf and K. Wachtel, eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior, vol. iv: Catholic Letters / Die katholischen Briefe, Part 1: Text, Part 2: Supplementary Material / Begleitende Materialen (2nd rev. edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013); H. Strutwolf, Georg Gäbel, Annette Hüffmeier, Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior, III: Die Apostelgeschichte / The Acts of the Apostles, Part 1: Text, Part 2: Supplementary Material / Begleitende Materialen, Part 3: Studien / Studies, (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2018); H. Strutwolf, G. Gäbel, A. Hüffmeier, G. Mink and K. Wachtel, eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior, vol. i.2: Die synoptische Evangelien: Das Markusevangelium / The Synoptic Gospels: The Gospel according to Mark, Part 1: Text, Part 2: Supplementary Material / Begleitende Materialen, Part 3: Studien / Studies (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2021).

6 See further C. Askeland, John’s Gospel: The Coptic Translations of its Greek Text (ANTF 44; Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2012) 61–4. For a more general overview, see Williams, ‘Early Versions’; J. Barr, review of The Early Versions of the New Testament by B. M. Metzger, JTS n.s. 30 (1979) 290–303.

7 Horner, G., ed., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic (7 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911–24)Google Scholar.

8 The manuscript is currently housed in seven institutions, catalogued as a number of separate fragments: Cambridge, University Library Ms. Or. 1699 P x + London, British Library Or 3579 B.56 (fol. 88) + Or 3579 B.57 (fol. 89) + Or 3579 B.59 (fol. 92) + Moscow, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts ii.1.B 299 + Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Ms. I. B. 14 fasc. 459 (fol. 25–6) + Oxford, Clarendon Press b 2 fr. 11 (fols. 35–8) + Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Copte 129 (11) (fols. 52, 53, 69, 70, 85–7, 89–93, 95) + Copte 132 (2) (fol. 5) + Copte 133 (1) (fols. 9, 9a, 10, 11, 18, 18a, 18b) + Vienna, Nationalbibliothek K 1111 a–b + K 16 + K 17 + K 2711 + K 9078–81.

9 For a full index of fragments used in the Paul volumes, see G. Horner, ed., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, vol. v: The Epistles of St Paul (continued), Index of Fragments, Etc. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1920) 580–7.

10 Thompson, H., ed., The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932)Google Scholar.

11 The manuscript is accessible online at https://viewer.cbl.ie/viewer/object/Cpt_813/147/ (accessed 4 June 2021).

12 The Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) currently catalogues the following Sahidic manuscripts of Hebrews: sa 4, sa 35, sa 37, sa 38, sa 45, sa 79, sa 368, sa 371, sa 400. Besides the continuous-text manuscripts, the INTF database currently lists twenty-four Sahidic lectionaries that contain portions of Hebrews: sa 15L, sa 16L, sa 291L, sa 293L, sa 293L, sa 295L, sa 296L, sa 300L, sa 302L, sa 303L, sa 304L, sa 305L, sa 306L, sa 308L, sa 322L, sa 331L, sa 332L, sa 357L, sa 404L, sa 406L, sa 410L, sa 420L, sa 440L, sa 638L; one Fayyūmic lectionary containing Hebrews is catalogued as fa 5L. And finally, the database contains one fragmentary manuscript in the Middle Egyptian, namely mae 4. In addition to these, several further Coptic manuscripts are still being processed for cataloguing in the INTF database. I owe my thanks to Katharina Schröder for this information (personal correspondence, 8 June 2021).

13 This is not to say that individual New Testament books have not been critically edited. For most recent works, see C. Askeland, ‘An Eclectic Edition of the Sahidic Apocalypse of John’, Studien zum Text der Apokalypse ii (ed. M. Sigismund and D. Müller; ANTF 50; Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2017) 33–79; H. Förster, K. Sänger-Böhm and M. H. O. Schulz, eds., Kritische Edition der sahidischen Version des Johannesevangeliums: Text und Dokumentation (ANTF 56; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2021).

14 The classic study of the Greek–Coptic linguistic equivalence is still G. Mink, ‘Die koptischen Versionen des Neuen Testaments: Die sprachlichen Probleme bei ihrer Bewertung für die griechische Textgeschichte’, Die Alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, 188–273. For briefer treatment, see Plumley, J., ‘Limitations of Coptic (Sahidic) in Representing Greek’, Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (ed. Metzger, B. M.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) 141–52Google Scholar.

15 Mink, ‘Die koptischen Versionen’, 272–3; Plumley, ‘Limitations’, 148–9.

16 Mink, ‘Die koptischen Versionen’, 252–72; Askeland, John’s Gospel, 54–5.

17 Coptic does not have a case system and lacks the neuter and a gender-specific plural determinator.

18 For a compelling discussion and examples, see Williams, ‘Early Versions’, 243–5.

19 With regard to the Coptic versions of John, Askeland, John’s Gospel, 43 observes: ‘Although the translators probably operated with a formal translation technique as a default, intending to reflect the structures of the source text as closely possible, they did not ruthlessly parallel the smaller elements of their source texts.’ On the whole, such translational behaviour may also be observed throughout the Sahidic Hebrews.

20 This is best observed at places where no variation takes place in the Greek tradition. See e.g. J. Moffatt, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924) lxxi, who mentions a handful of ‘curious renderings’ like 10.20, where the Sahidic translator rendered ἐνɛκαίνισɛν with ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲉϩⲕⲱϩⲥ̄ (‘carved out’); 12.4, where μέχρις αἵματος is rendered as ⲡⲙⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲛⲟϥ (‘place of blood’); and 6.12, where ἵνα μὴ νωθροὶ γένησθɛ is translated as ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲛⲛⲉⲧⲛⲛ̄ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲱϣϥ̄ (‘so that you may not become worn down’). Whereas the first two are examples of paraphrastic/more idiomatic translation, the third one exhibits a clear shift in lexis.

21 So Askeland, John’s Gospel, 44.

22 For an Ausgangspunkt for the study of exegetically significant variation units in Hebrews, see e.g. M. Karrer, ‘Der Hebräerbrief’, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (ed. M. Ebner and S. Schreiber; Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008) 474–95, at 487. Given the absence of a major critical edition, I have confined the citation of witnesses to those listed in B. Aland, K. Aland, E. Nestle, E. Nestle, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini and B. M. Metzger, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th rev. edn, edited by the Institute for New Testament Research Münster Westphalia under the direction of H. Strutwolf; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012) (henceforth: NA28), occasionally with comment and/or corrections.

23 As regards the manner of presentation, in each case the entire verse is cited, with the variant in question underlined.

24 The first-person possessive is also found in the Bohairic (likewise not cited in NA28).

25 Pace J. R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008) 237, who posits that ‘[t]he addition of ημων [in 𝔓46c] is perhaps natural enough that coincidental agreement is likely, so that we may again have simply a result of the corrector's initiative’. The versional support, now further corroborated by the Sahidic, makes this scenario unlikely. And even Royse observes that several of 𝔓46's corrections by the second hand reflect another Vorlage. If the corrector used that particular Vorlage throughout, it seems simpler to assume that here, too, the reading was inherited rather than introduced arbitrarily.

26 A more precise date of the version's origin has yet to be determined. For a critical overview, see Mink, ‘Die koptischen Versionen’, 181–6. See also C. Askeland, ‘The Coptic Versions of the New Testament’, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. B. D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes; NTTSD 42; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013) 201–29, at 209; W.-P. Funk, ‘The Translation of the Bible into Coptic’, The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. i: From the Beginnings to 600 (ed. J. Carleton Paget and J. Schaper; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 536–46, at 538–9.

27 The only variation recorded in the Göttingen Septuagint volume of Psalms at this point is an omission of τόν attested in Codex Vaticanus.

28 NA28 only lists B 33 t vgms. B. Weiss, Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe (TU 14.3; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1896) 89, rightly notes that τοῦ αἰῶνος was simply dropped ‘durch Schreibversehen’.

29 Cf. Heb 5.6, where the Sahidic renders ɛἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in a formal-literal manner with ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ.

30 The same holds for the Bohairic, which, too, attests a longer reading here.

31 For an illuminating analysis of the reception of both variants, see G. Gäbel, ‘Separated by Grace?! Heb 2:9 and the Mutual Interdependence of Christological Debates and Textual Transmission’ (forthcoming). I am grateful to Georg Gäbel for sending me a pre-publication version of this work.

32 For instance, Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (The Schweich Lectures 1946; London: The British Academy, 1953) 34Google Scholar asserts that χάριτι θɛοῦ ‘yields what can only be called a preposterous sense in stating that Jesus suffered “through the grace of God”’. Even more forceful argument against this reading is advanced by Weiss, Textkritik, 54, who regards χάριτι θɛοῦ as ‘exegetisch ganz unmöglich’. Contrast this with H. W. Attridge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia 72; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 77, in whose view χωρὶς θɛοῦ ‘does not fit well in the context of the psalm that had spoken of God's concern for humanity’. As one can see, intrinsic probabilities are – at least occasionally – in the eyes of a critic.

33 The Bohairic version follows suit at this point.

34 Often it is the ensuing context that gives rise to harmonisations. Cf. Jongkind, D., Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3.5; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007) 245–6Google Scholar; P. Malik, P.Beatty iii (P 47): The Codex, its Scribe, and its Text (NTTSD 52; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017) 143. Harmonisation to the immediate context was one of the major factors in the rise of textual variation. For a general discussion, see E. C. Colwell, ‘Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75’, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (ed. E. C. Colwell; NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 106–24, at 113. Important corroborating evidence from the six early Christian extensive papyri is furnished in Royse, Scribal Habits, 189–94, 343–53, 396–7, 537–41, 605–8, 692–6, 902–6.

35 By contrast, Weiss, Textkritik, 52 posits that the accusative plural arose by a grammatical attraction to ἐκɛίνους.

36 So BDAG, s.v. συγκɛράννυμι 2.

37 The entire Sahidic clause reads as follows: ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄ ϯϩⲏⲩ ⲛ̄ⲛⲏ ⲛ̄ϥⲕⲩⲣⲁ ⲁⲛ / ⲛ̄ⲥⲉⲕⲉⲣⲁ ⲁⲛ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄.

38 See F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. i: Phonology, vol. ii: Morphology (Testi e Documenti per lo Studio dell'Antichità 55; Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino – La Goliardica, 1976–81) i.275–7. The same cause may be attributed to the origin of 12.28/10 and 12.28/18, both discussed below.

39 The same shift takes place in several strands of the Vetus Latina, including the Vulgate. On this interpretation, see further Attridge, Hebrews, 126 and references there (esp. n. 46). Note, however, that Attridge – rightly, in my mind – rejects the futuristic interpretation of ɛἰσɛρχόμɛθα, arguing that the present indicative refers to ‘the complex process on which “believers” … are even now engaged, although this process will have an eschatological consummation’.

40 Cf. Malik, P.Beatty iii, 204.

41 By contrast, the Bohairic reads ⲟⲩⲛ, reflecting the text of Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus and a handful of other not insignificant manuscripts.

42 At 4.11, there is also a variant ἀληθɛίας, attested (as it seems) only in D*.

43 See further Attridge, Hebrews, 123.

44 Incidentally, this led Moffatt, Hebrews, lxx to cite the Coptic versions for the reading ἀπιστίαν.

45 Cf. Rom 11.30, 11.32; Eph 2.2, 5.6. At Col 3.6, the Sahidic drops the entire segment ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπɛιθɛίας with 𝔓46 B b.

46 That ⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ was sometimes used to render ἀπɛιθɛῖν is also noted in W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1939) s.v. ⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ ii.

47 The same applies to the Bohairic.

48 Interestingly, however, the Bohairic version is (roughly) equally split, thus supporting both competing variants.

49 Note that NA28 cites 𝔓46vid for this reading, but this seems dubious. Most of the line where this word once stood is defective, hence only a few letters are genuinely legible. As it is, there do appear to be traces of a letter similar to chi, so that the papyrus may have read ἀρχιɛρɛῖς just as likely.

50 See further Attridge, Hebrews, 230, 232–5.

51 So also the Bohairic attests the majority reading in both variation units under consideration.

52 In the case of more substantial interventions to the text such as omissions, additions or substitutions, one may typically cite versions with greater confidence.

53 In such cases, the Coptic would use a circumstantial rather than relative conversion; see B. Layton, A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic dialect (3rd rev. edn; Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie 20; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011) §404. By contrast, the Bohairic reads ⲑⲏ ⲉⲑⲩⲁⲃ (lit. ‘that which is holy’). Since the version does not reflect a plural, it may potentially support the reading ἁγία, currently attested only in 365 629 b vgmss. Even so, the possibility of a translational misunderstanding of αγια in the scriptio continua is equally possible.

54 NA28 lists the following variants: τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων ℵ2 B D2 K L 0278 1241 1505 ¦ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων P 1739 ¦ ανα 𝔓46 ¦ ἅγια ἁγίων ℵ* A D* Ivid 33 81 104 365 630 1881 2464 𝔐. The singular reading of 𝔓46 seems to be nonsensical in context and hence falls out of consideration. Interestingly, the Bohairic reads ⲑⲏ ⲉⲑⲩⲁⲃ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲑⲩⲁⲃ (‘that which is holy of those which are holy’), thus, perhaps, reflecting the translator's misunderstanding of the anarthrous αγια – either in the reading ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων or, perhaps more likely, the majority reading ἅγια ἁγίων.

55 See e.g. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 119, who considers μɛλλόντων to be the more difficult reading, while Attridge, Hebrews, 244 notes that it might be ascribed to a ‘misunderstanding of the relationship between the “present time” and the “time of correction” in vss 9–10’. A similar line of argument had already been pursued by Weiss, Textkritik, 31. On the other hand, Moffatt, Hebrews, 244 argues that it is μɛλλόντων that was altered ‘either owing to a scribe being misled by παραγένομɛνος or owing to a pious feeling that μɛλλόντων here (though not in 10.1) was too eschatological’.

56 A similar rendering (ⲛⲓⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲓ) is found in the Bohairic.

57 Cf. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 23, who includes this among instances of ‘ingenious conjectures, witnessing to attentive study of the text and perfect command of the Greek language’. He adds: ‘Our scribe found them in his copy and it is most unlikely that he should have been alone in propagating them.’ In support of the latter remarks he adduces Merk's citations of Ephrem and Clement.

58 See further Attridge, Hebrews, 267.

59 The Bohairic's use of deixis (ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲓϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ ⲁⲛ) may be a translational attempt at rendering αὐτήν with a more formal precision.

60 So Attridge, Hebrews, 267. Cf. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 131, who regards the plural as a simple ‘scribal slip’. See also Weiss, Textkritik, 37, who suggests the influence of δύνανται in v. 11 as a possible cause of the reading's origin.

61 Atridge, Hebrews, 278.

62 Of 139 occurrences in the Sahidic, τότɛ was probably rendered literally in 138 instances, the one exception being Heb 12.27, where ⲧⲟⲧⲉ results from a phonetic confusion of τὸ δέ. For further details, see Malik, P.Beatty iii, 162–5.

63 Cf. Layton, Grammar, §337, who notes that the Coptic aorist ‘often co-occurs with the discourse perspective of timeless truth … so as to express generalizations and gnomic assertions about habitual actions or propensities; and about what does or does not, will or will not, can or cannot, did or did not, happen by nature’.

64 So Kenyon, F. G., ed., The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, vol. iii: Pauline Epistles, Plates (London: Emery Walker, 1937)Google Scholar, who notes in the Preface: ‘Fortasse omittendum τω θ̅ω̅, ut 𝔓13, propter spatium.’ See Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 33, who, in fact, regards the omission as original, noting that, in Hebrews, the otherwise frequently occurring verb προσφέρɛιν is never accompanied by a direct reference to God – save for this instance.

65 The Bohairic, too, supports the longer reading.

66 As noted earlier, this is a legitimate translation and it appears in several widely used modern English versions including NIV, ESV and NET. Interestingly, NRSV includes both ‘God himself’ and ‘his gifts’, probably ascribing possessive force to the article before δώροις. Incidentally, an intensive rendering ‘himself’ is also favoured by Attridge, Hebrews, 305.

67 This reconstruction agrees fully with the text of Thompson's edition. Thus, unless new evidence brings a more radical rewording, we may be confident regarding the Sahidic support for the majority reading.

68 On this common scribal tendency, see Royse, Scribal Habits, 755–6; Colwell, ‘Scribal Habits’, 116.

69 S. E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010) 28–36.

70 So already Weiss, Textkritik, 66.

71 In a similar vein, the same sequence of particles appears in the Bohairic, which is also not cited in the NA28 apparatus. Incidentally, this exclusion of Coptic is particularly odd here, given the citation of Latin as well as Syriac.

72 On the Sahidic jussive, see Layton, Grammar, §340, who defines it as expressing ‘a command to one or more 1st or 3d person entities (jussive command)’. This usage fits squarely with the semantics of the Greek hortatory subjunctive.

73 See Layton, Grammar, §352. Particularly instructive is his observation that ‘the closeness between conjunctive and preceding verb varies from relatively looser sequential, consequential, cumulative, or synonymous relationships … to a much closer kind, with nuances of purpose and result’ (p. 278).

74 In a similar vein, the NA28 apparatus cites bo for λατρɛύσωμɛν, where the Greek is rendered with a future tense (‘we shall minister’), clearly exercising some degree of interpretive freedom. Likewise, the citation of boms for λατρɛύωμɛν seems untenable. In fact, the Bohairic construction ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲛⲁϣⲉⲙϣⲓ, which includes the future auxiliary, is more likely to reflect the indicative λατρɛύομɛν found in the majority of witnesses. This possibility seems especially appealing in view of the nature of the Coptic future; cf. Layton, Grammar, §311: ‘the future auxiliary expresses an imminent future envisaged from the speaker's present, enduring situation’.