ARTICLE On Citing the Sahidic Version of Hebrews: Theoretical Reflections and Examples from Textual Practice Peter Malik 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 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 preci- sion. 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 trans- lation-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: Sahidic; Coptic; Hebrews; versions; critical apparatus In earlier Greek New Testament editions such as those of Constantin Tischendorf 1 or Samuel P. Tregelles, 2 the place occupied by ancient versions was rather prominent, given the comparatively sparser knowledge of, and a more limited access to, the Greek manuscript tradition. The rationale behind this prominence would seem clear enough: seeing that the manuscripts could take the critic no further than the fourth century, it was patristic quotations and versions that provided additional (and at times only) early evidence for many a Greek variant in the apparatus. With the discoveries of early papyri as well as improved access to manuscripts due to further editing, cataloguing and digit- isation, this situation has changed substantially. That is to say, the Greek manuscript evi- dence currently at our disposal is considerably broader in both age and number than it was in Tischendorf’s days. Importantly as well, more refined approaches to the citation of versions have been developed. For one thing, most versions cited in the aforementioned editions had not been critically edited, so that the versional citations therein were often based on sources of uncertain text-historical value. Moreover, a dearth of specialised studies on translation technique and linguistic equivalence at that time meant that, as Peter J. Williams © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press 1 C. Tischendorf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, vols. I–II (Leipzig: Giesecke and Devrient, 1869–72 8 ), vol. III: Prolegomena (scripsit C. R. Gregory; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1894). 2 S. P. Tregelles, 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). New Testament Studies (2022), 68, 61–75 doi:10.1017/S0028688521000308