Rebecca Krawiec and Caroline T. Schroeder: Digital approaches to Studying Authorial Style and Monastic Subjectivity in Early Christian Egypt

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The study of religion in late antiquity sits at the crossroads of multiple disciplines: Classics, History, Papyrology, Linguistics, Literature, Religious Studies, Egyptology, Archaeology, Art History. Across all of these, research into the literature and culture of Egypt plays an important role. During the Roman period of Egyptian history, at the same time Christianity rose to prominence in the region, the Coptic language emerged. Coptic is the last phase of the Egyptian language family, having evolved from Demotic and ultimately from the hieroglyphs. Important, even irreplaceable, sources for the history of religion – Roman, traditional Egyptian, and Christian—survive to us in Coptic. The library of Nag Hammadi, which contains early Christian apocryphal and non-canonical texts, is in Coptic. Our largest corpus of early monastic sources from a single monastery was composed in Coptic. Magical spells, saints’ lives, letters, sermons, homilies, prayers all exist in Coptic and provide a rich and understudied source for Religious Studies research. Moreover, Coptic documentary sources in papyri and ostraca, such as wills, letters, and contracts, provide detailed records of daily life and social history in late antiquity. In linguistics, the study of Coptic historically facilitated the eventual translation of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and continues to be an important language for research in historical linguistics, bilingualism, and language change. Indeed, studying Coptic language and literature allows us to study the layers of social and religious dynamics that characterize late antiquity.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 In creating the project Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, we sought to produce a resource that would enable research across disciplines, especially in these three—Linguistics, Religious Studies, and History (Schroeder, Zeldes, et al., 2013-2018). As we have realized during our research, an interdisciplinary digital and computational environment enables more than conducting research in multiple disciplines; it enables using multiple disciplinary methods simultaneously for particular Religious Studies research questions.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 In what follows, we will describe the structure, data models, and principles in the creation of Coptic Scriptorium.[1] We will then provide a case study using Coptic Scriptorium’s tools and corpora to research the writing style of a figure often cited as Coptic’s most important author, Shenoute of Atripe. As researchers of early Christianity, especially asceticism and monasticism in Egypt, we work with primary sources under-researched when compared to Greek and Latin ascetic authors such as Augustine or Jerome. For these ancient authors, multiple editions and studies exist, which explore their rhetoric, social context, gender ideologies, ascetic theory, and biblical interpretation (to name a few research areas). Minimal similar scholarship exists for Egyptian monastic sources. Much of Coptic literature survives in a dismembered form; pages from the same codex and even the same work reside in different libraries, with extensive lacunae and scattered publication records (See for example Emmel 2004, Orlandi 2002, Buzi and Emmel 2015). We need a platform that will bring together sources previously published in print volumes (books or articles) and born-digital editions of primary sources still unpublished, all searchable in one location. Coptic Scriptorium provides a more efficient tool than paging through a cribbed corpus of different editions of published texts and purchased photographs of unpublished manuscripts. Even more, though, it provides context and linguistic analysis that enables researchers—ourselves included—to make connections among various parts of a text we might otherwise miss. The natural language processing tools (born of the field of Linguistics) that tag for lemma and morphologically analyze Coptic enable digital philological research core to scholarship in Religious Studies. For example, Caroline T. Schroeder’s research on children in early Egyptian monasteries can be greatly enhanced by access to a large digital corpus where we can find key words associated with the terms for boys or girls or use algorithmic methods to detect how often those references to children appear in quotations or citations of earlier texts (such as biblical passages). Rebecca Krawiec’s research on gender and discourse benefits from digital corpus tagged by lemma and parts of speech to understand the rhetorical strategies authors use when talking about gender and sexuality. Thus, collaborative interdisciplinary methods enrich even disciplinary scholarship.

Tools and Technology of Coptic SCRIPTORIUM

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 The premise of Coptic SCRIPTORIUM is to provide a digital environment for digital and computational research into Coptic language and literature using a variety of methods and for multiple disciplinary questions, beginning with the classical dialect of Sahidic (Schroeder and Zeldes, 2016). The project originally was conceived and designed by Amir Zeldes and Caroline T. Schroeder, but quickly expanded with collaboration from others. While our goal was to produce a full suite of processing tools (including natural language processing tools) and a substantial digitized corpus annotated with these tools, we faced a significant first hurdle: when we began, few digitized Coptic texts existed in the Unicode. Thanks to projects such as the Perseus Digital Library, researchers in Greek and Latin have access to large scale, open access digitized texts for their reuse. In addition, several databases (such as the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Brepols Latin Library, among others) provide large corpora of ancient texts for search and querying, albeit behind subscription services. For Coptic, a few projects began digitization of texts on the open web. The Papyrological portal, papyri.info, created and maintained by papyrologists, contained a few Coptic papyri. The Marcion site, a hobby project of a non-academic programer, had begun to put documents online in Unicode. The New Testament was available at the Sahidica site created by Warren Wells, another non-academic interested in Coptic. Other scholars and heritage groups had also digitized Coptic texts, especially biblical texts, on CDs; the St. Shenouda Society sold CDs, and the Packard Humanities Institute CDs contained the New Testament and Nag Hammadi. While these resources enabled more access to Coptic sources, they were either limited, not encoded in Unicode characters, or not formatted consistently for robust search. The Corpus dei Manuscritti Copti Litterari (CMCL), created by the early digital humanist Tito Orlandi, had also digitized a number of Coptic manuscripts, albeit not in Unicode; in addition, to support its work, the CMCL was a subscription site. (For a more detailed history, see Schroeder forthcoming.)

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Our second challenge was developing tools for processing Coptic text. We were embarking on creating the first open source natural language processing tools for any phase of the Egyptian language family. Such a task was complicated by Coptic being an agglutinative language; to create a searchable database, we would need to break bound groups of text into individual words and morphemes (called tokenization in natural language processing). Linguist Wolf-Peter Funk and staff at Université Laval had developed a lemmatizer for Coptic, which separated terms and linked them to their dictionary forms in order to create concordances. This software operated only on an old laptop with a long defunct operating system; it was neither open source nor easily ported.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Our work was significantly advanced by the generosity of colleagues. Tito Orlandi shared with us a digital lexicon, with each word annotated for part of speech, which he had created for the CMCL. This resource shaved a year or more off of our work as we created natural language processing tools dependent on this information (see more below). Coptologist Stephen Emmel contributed digitized transcriptions of some text. Additionally, Rebecca Krawiec joined the project, providing a translation and expertise in a text we chose for a pilot. Janet Timbie also transcribed and annotated some text. In March 2013, we released a pilot, proof-of-concept corpus: digitized text of most of the manuscript witnesses to Shenoute’s letter known as Abraham Our Father and a few apophthegms from the Coptic Sayings of the Desert Fathers, tokenized, with annotations for normalization, loan word vocabulary from Greek and other languages, manuscript information, an English translation aligned by sentence or phrase, and rich metadata.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Our pilot corpus and subsequent corpora were annotated with technology known as natural language processing tools. We developed a tokenizer to break Coptic text into words and a normalizer to normalize orthography, spelling and punctuation. We trained an open source, cross-language part-of-speech tagger on a set of Coptic training data (Zeldes and Schroeder, 2015).   and a language of origin tagger to annotate loan words originating from Greek, Latin, and other languages. Each of these tools required substantial manual development of either lexica to inform these automated tools and/or training corpora to “teach” the automated tools the patterns of Coptic. A handful of sayings from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers were also manually annotated for dependency syntax and entities. In addition, prior to any of this processing, all texts needed to be saved as text files using the Unicode Coptic character set; thus, we created and applied our own converters to convert texts transcribed in legacy fonts into Unicode. To enable the querying of all this annotated data, we customized an open source search and visualization tool (ANNIS), which Zeldes had helped design for linguistics research (Krause and Zeldes, 2014); all the text and annotations (words, language of origin tags, part of speech tags, etc.) can be searched online in a web-based installation of ANNIS.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 As an open source project, Coptic Scriptorium’s textual data and annotations are freely available on GitHub (http://github.com/CopticScriptorium/corpora) In order to facilitate the sharing of our textual data, we both adapted and created converters to convert our data into various archival formats. Our full dataset—all Coptic text and annotations (manuscript information, normalization of text, part of speech tags, language of origin tags, etc.)—is available for download in PAULA XML, a format of XML (extensible markup language) used especially by linguists. We also archive the text with core annotations in the most popular encoding format for digital editions in digital humanities, TEI- XML. TEI-XML is a type of mark up language created by the Text Encoding Initiative; while TEI-XML cannot handle all linguistic annotations (especially for syntax), it is ideal for archiving essential metadata, manuscript information (where applicable), and some linguistic annotations. Finally, we also release our relational database files (the relANNIS format for the ANNIS search and visualization tool); this way, interested users can install the ANNIS tool on their own computers and create their own relational database for search and querying.

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 As of this writing, we have expanded substantially, again due to collaborations and building on prior work in the field. A significant outcome of the project has been to develop a diverse network of researchers working together, each contributing in different degrees and to different aspects based on interest, availability, and scholarly training (see also Bellar and Campbell in this volume). Over a dozen editors and translators have contributed to the publication of 152 documents with over 84,000 words (Schroeder, Zeldes, et al. 2018, v.2.5.0, April-June 2018). The documents have been machine-annotated by our suite of tools and manually edited and corrected by experts in Coptic who have volunteered to contribute to our site, or in a small number of cases have been funded by one of our grants. Metadata, including reference identifiers for citation, was added (Almas and Schroeder 2016). Each document was then peer-reviewed by a senior editor on the team. Anyone who has worked on a document is named in the metadata, and all past and present contributors to the project as a whole are named on our “About” page (http://copticscriptorium.org/about). In addition, the full New Testament in the Sahidic dialect and existing digitized books of the Coptic Old Testament in Sahidic have been published with only machine-annotations (corpora totalling over 400,000 more words). This biblical data is messier, since it has not been manually edited, but we re-publish these two corpora with every significant update to our tools. We have a full natural language processing pipeline for most of our textual annotations, complete with both an API and an online web service (Zeldes and Schroeder, 2016; Zeldes 2016). Consequently, any researcher can use the NLP pipeline to process, analyze, and annotate their own Coptic text.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Our corpora are now annotated for lemmas, and each lemma links to an online dictionary (accessible at https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/coptic-dictionary/). The lexicon file for the Egyptian vocabulary in the dictionary was designed and created primarily by Frank Feder. The lexicon for the Greek loan words was produced from the Database and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic, led by Tonio Sebastian Richter with contributions by many other researchers. Thus, scholars and students at multiple institutions “contributed lexical data” and worked on the online implementation (Feder et al., 2016-2019; Feder, Kupreyev et al. 2018; Burns et al. 2019; Richter et al.).

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Additional tools are enabling us to expand collaboration and annotations. An online environment allows for collaborative transcription and annotation of Coptic texts (Zhang and Zeldes, 2017). A corpus of seventeen documents has been annotated for linguistic dependencies following the standards of the cross-language Universal Dependencies project (http://universaldependencies.org/cop/; http://copticscriptorium.org/treebank.html).

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Many research possibilities are enabled by our tools and corpora; this essay examines only philologically oriented research enhanced by digital and computational methods. Other applications include use of our tools in So Miyagawa’s and Marco Büchler’s digital methods for detecting text reuse (quotations, citations, and allusions of other work) in Coptic literature and Paul Dilley’s “distant reading” of the Coptic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi Corpus (Miyagawa and Büchler, 2016; Dilley, 2016). Linguistics, loan words, and digital codicology have also been studied using Coptic Scriptorium (on the latter see Zeldes, 2015).

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 In what follows, we provide a case study using CS to research the writing style of the figure often cited as Coptic’s most important author, Shenoute of Atripe. To provide readers with a sense of how the research may be conducted, we have attached an appendix, which includes the queries used in this paper, along with links to the online corpora queries and results. The digital philology undertaken in this essay is not exhaustive; we do not examine in depth all instances of terms under study. Rather, we seek to show how CS can provide the basis for such investigations and help develop understanding of Shenoute as writer and as monastic leader. Coptic literature, even the writings of Shenoute, is fairly understudied. Many important texts have not yet been published in print, and even more have not been translated into a modern language. One fragment of Abraham Our Father and many fragments of I See Your Eagerness have never been published before CS published them. The digital and computational methods used in this paper will be especially fruitful for further study of Coptic, since patterns in style and recurrent themes made evident in vocabulary have not been substantively studied in this literature.

Writerly Subjectivities in the Work of Shenoute of Atripe

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Coptic Scriptorium, particularly with its capacity to query and visualize the multi-layered annotations, provides scholars of late antique monasticism with a resource that expands traditional philological analysis. This section focuses primarily on two works of Shenoute: a letter written to monks, Abraham, Our Father, and a sermon, I See Your Eagerness, that was delivered to a mixed audience of monks and lay people, who have sought Shenoute’s advice on several matters (Brakke and Crislip, 2015: 83-85). For the letter, we show how the deeply layered annotations from Coptic Scriptorium expand understanding of the rhetorical structures of the letter and so also the monastic issues that were under debate. The sermon, which is significantly longer, covers more topics, likely due to the different audience and to the change in genre. Like the letter, however, the sermon uses extensive quotation and allusion to Scripture, here to examine trustworthy leaders of Christians and to illuminate the general expectation of how to live in order to achieve salvation. For the latter, Shenoute includes a discussion of those who have taken on a monastic life and what that requires. Further, he debates the role of teaching and the question of prophetic performance, both important themes in Abraham Our Father as well. Throughout this essay, we cite from the online publications of the Coptic text of both works at Coptic Scriptorium; English translations come from the online publication of Krawiec’s translation of Abraham Our Father and the print publication of David Brakke’s and Andrew Crislip’s translation of I See Your Eagerness (Krawiec et al., v 1.3.0, 2015; Krawiec et al., v 2.3.0, 2017; Brakke and Crislip, 2015:91-105). Coptic Scriptorium allows comparison of the works in order to ask whether there are markers for what Derek Krueger has called a particular “writerly subjectivity,” that Christians wrote in ways that were “part of their identities as disciple, monk, priest, deacon, devotee, pilgrim, prophet and evangelist, and even sinner” (Krueger, 2004:191).

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 In Abraham, Our Father, Shenoute extensively discusses what constitutes correct monastic “labor,” ϩⲓⲥⲉ (hise). This word can also mean “suffering” and it is central to Shenoute’s understanding of what is necessary to achieve salvation (Brakke, 2006:100-114; Krawiec, 2002:52-72). Shenoute locates such labor in biblical examples of barren couples longing for children, which he then reinterprets in a monastic context. The monastery serves as a new family, but since there is no sexual reproduction, the parent-child relationship is now based on monastic rank. Because Shenoute links biblical sources to his monastic re-definition, a list of his variation in citations, which encompass a variety of grammatical phrases, helps to discern the range of rhetorical structures for the use of Scripture as an authoritative source. Janet Timbie (2007) argues for a particular set of markers for citations in Shenoute’s Discourses, and these provide a template that maps onto Scriptorium’s tools. Three main searches in Abraham, Our Father (Appendix, queries 1-3) produce a visualization of how he refers to his biblical sources: according to “scripture” (ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ graphē ), “written” (ⲥⲏϩ sēh), and simply ϫⲉ (je), a conjunction often used to indicate speech; je is not used exclusively for quotations, but including je in the query allowed a check to make sure all quotations were located, even if not linked to Scripture. While remains to be seen, with an increase in the texts in Scriptorium’s corpora, whether the patterns that appear here are characteristic of his texts written to monks as a whole, for Abraham, Our Father Krawiec has used these three searches to argue for several potential conclusions (Krawiec 2017). First, at certain points in his argument, Shenoute moves from quotation to quotation, including some unidentified texts. This particular use of Scripture is important because Shenoute’s successor, Besa, has often been described as an inferior monastic writer for stringing together quotations. Instead it is possible that such a use of quotations assumes an audience would be able to make the connections and discern the correct teachings. Second, searching the various citations digitally creates a visual contextualization. The list of search results provides the key word searched in context, enabling a visual comparison between when Shenoute makes a general allusion to the authority of Scripture and when he cites a specific passage. Both uses provide insights into the role of Scripture in Shenoute’s arguments and thus its association with the formation of monasticism as a social institution. Krawiec has argued, based on these lists of quotations and allusions, that when Shenoute wants to combine a variety of biblical references he tends to use a general allusion. The use of specific quotations has a wider range of uses, including identification of a biblical figure as the speaker of the passage and hence as the authority being referenced.

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 More significantly, digital querying of these terms in Abraham Our Father reveals more interconnections among the use of Scripture and some of the key terms for the letter—interconnections that had not been evident in earlier traditional analyses of the letter (Krawiec 2002). Queries for ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ link it to other terms that create the rhetorical structures of Shenoute’s argument and definition of monasticism. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of search results as they appear in Coptic Scriptorium, with the search term offset in red and additional phrasing to a set number of characters on either side. Each result includes links to be able to see larger contextualization within the work or for linguistic analysis. Exploring these connections leads to additional queries of these key terms, such as “teaching” (ⲥⲃⲱ) which can be either a noun or part of a compound verb “to teach” (ϯⲥⲃⲱ). “Teaching” is a more prominent term and theme in Abraham Our Father than in I See Your Eagerness. “Teach” and related terms appear thrice as many times in the former as in the latter (12 vs 4), even though the surviving text of the latter is over 25% longer (see Appendix, query 4).

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Figure 1: results in the ANNIS search and visualization tool of the query for the Coptic term for “writing” (or “scripture”) in Shenoute’s Abraham Our Father. The query appears in the upper left; the “hits” appear on the right as key words in context. Hit #6 includes “teaching of scriptures”.

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Examining these query results more closely, both independently and in relationship to each other, Krawiec showed that “teaching of Scriptures” is one of the works monks are to undertake as part of their relationship to each other. Further, it also becomes an area of contestation, specifically about proper interpretation of Scriptural passages as the basis for monastic identity. Shenoute’s arguments with monks in his monastery about correct monastic practice are well-known. Examining the variety of references and uses of Scripture in the letter as a whole, a process made more efficient by using Scriptorium, extends this understanding by making it evident that Shenoute places himself in the role of correct heir to the biblical and monastic fathers because he understands Scripture correctly. The queries for “teach” reveal that this instruction is also contested, with Shenoute also expressing concern about people who refuse teaching (mntatsbō/ⲙⲛⲧⲁⲧⲥⲃⲱ and atsbō/ⲁⲧⲥⲃⲱ) (Krawiec 2017).

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 This summation of Krawiec’s earlier analysis contributes to the current notion of a “writerly subjectivity.” In this letter Shenoute’s “writerly subjectivity” includes being a correct teacher of Scripture. CS and the textual investigations it provides thus lead to a depth of understanding of how Shenoute created a monastic language. It allows scholars to track the complexity of Shenoute’s language that reveals the connections between his terminology and his use of Scripture to define proper monasticism in the White Monastery.

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Using these same digital strategies for I See Your Eagerness reveals both additional evidence of writerly subjectivities as well as exploration of monastic terminology. It also provides a comparison between a letter aimed at an internal audience, that of monks in the White Monastery, versus a sermon to an external one, albeit one that still has monks (perhaps from the White Monastery) present. At first, searches for these scriptural markers indicate simply that these citation techniques are representative of Shenoute’s rhetorical style, particularly when his oratorical or written performance has a Christian audience. In contrast, for example, Shenoute directs Not Because a Fox Barks to an elite man in his region named Gesios, a man who has identified as Christian but whom Shenoute accused of still harboring traditional Egyptian idols to be worshipped. Not Because a Fox Barks contains allusions and references to biblical works, but it lacks the term “scripture” (Appendix, query 53) and the phrase “as it is written” (Appendix, queries 13 and 34). Here instead Shenoute favors the term “words” to refer to passages from the prophets or Jesus (Appendix, query 22). Digital searching of morphologically tagged text makes more visible the shifting rhetorical moves of one author in texts for different audiences.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 For I See Your Eagerness, Scriptorium’s queries and visualizations again make possible exploration of the connections between Scriptural citation, or allusion, and key elements of the sermon. A query for the phrase “as it is written” (ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ/katathe etsēh), which appeared as a distinct phrase three times in Abraham Our Father, reveals no hits in I See Your Eagerness (Appendix, query 6) . A query just for “written,” however, reveals first, that the word appears in a different formulation than it appeared in Abraham, Our Father, as ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ (nthe etsēh); and second, that one use of the term “written” specifically links to the Gospel as a written source.

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Figure 2: results of search for the Coptic term for “written” (sēh) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness in ANNIS. The upper left shows the query, and the lower left shows the corpus searched/queried. The “hits” from the query in that corpus appear on the right, showing repetition of the phrase “in the way that it is written (nthe etsēh).” Hit #6 includes a reference to “the Gospel”. Appendix, query 13.

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 Shenoute challenges anyone who might disagree with what he is preaching as having “the abomination of God, arrogance” (ⲙⲛⲧϫⲁⲥⲓϩⲏⲧ/mntjasihēt) within him “as it is written in the Gospel”. He then gives an example of such arrogance: for his audience (“you”), questioning that Shenoute would teach (ϯⲥⲃⲱ/tisbō) them is arrogance (mntjasihēt). Shenoute admits to his own arrogance, as well. When he does, the source of arrogance is the same—refusing to be taught— but he uses a different term for his arrogance, ⲕⲁⲑⲏⲅⲉⲓ (kathēgei), which appears only once elsewhere in Coptic Scriptorium’s digitized corpus (1 Cor 14:19) (Appendix, queries 8-10). In contrast, mntjasihēt is a far more common term, appearing at least once in several works in Coptic Scriptorium (appendix, queries 36-39). This passage is important in pointing to some sort of dispute about teaching, specifically submitting to teaching authority. Both Shenoute and his audience are at fault for their arrogant refusal of this submission (see also Emmel’s discussion a teaching dispute in an undigitized fragment of the sermon; 2004: 631).The sinfulness of this arrogance then leads Shenoute to imagine how people will account for themselves at their judgement before God. He lists the various acts that will be received positively, one of which is that “in your name we proclaim the Scriptures.” This use of “Scripture” is not his usual citation method for Scripture; here he emphasizes an action about Scripture, namely proclaiming or possibly preaching, just as in Abraham, Our Father where “teaching of Scripture” is a deed that monks are to take on. Shenoute’s argument in this section of the sermon is complex, as is apparent through the intersection of various key terms, “it is written” and “Scripture,” and the appearance of unusual terms, “Gospel” (Appendix, queries 29-31) and the Greek loan word for “arrogance.” This complexity raises the possibility that this section uses language that establishes Shenoute’s writerly subjectivities as both preacher and teacher.

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Computational methods assist in investigating the ways in which particular ideas and concepts recur at various points throughout a work. Although fragmentary at its beginning, I See Your Eagerness opens with the idea that some people have received (ϫⲓ/ji) the title (ⲣⲁⲛ/ran) “leader” (ⲁⲣⲭⲏ/arxē); this same claim occurs later in the text, in the passage we just discussed about declarations on judgment day. These two occurrences are easily found using the query syntax of Coptic Scriptorium’s database (Appendix, query 32). When Shenoute lists the things that one can say to God at the hour of judgment, the first is “In your name (ran) we accepted (ji) positions of leadership (arxē)”. The reoccurrence of this language functions as a rhetorical call back to the opening of the sermon. Digital methods allow us to trace uses of terms and phrases to see how they are connected to larger themes in the sermon.

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Another writerly subjectivity we can discern using digital queries is Shenoute’s prophetic persona. Shenoute references the prophets, along with other figures like the apostles, to create generic appeals to sacred models. This rhetorical technique is the basis of Abraham Our Father, as the very opening referencing the biblical patriarch suggests, and which he then develops by positing that these figures create the “pattern” (ⲥⲙⲟⲧ/smot) for monastic life (Krawiec, 2002). This motif is less significant in I See Your Eagerness; despite the longer length of the text, it contains four usages of the word “prophet” (Appendix, queries 25-6) as opposed to twenty-six in Abraham (Appendix, query 27). Two of the four instances in I See Your Eagerness involve mentions of the prophets along with other figures (e.g., “fathers” and “apostles”) to create a collective authority. One reference links an unnamed “prophet” to a particular saying (ϣⲁϫⲉ šaje). The last usage attaches the title “prophet” with the name of an individual, here Moses. The occurrences of the term “prophet” in Abraham can be classified into these three types of usages, as well. The difference is thematic rather than rhetorical or stylistic. Abraham examines the distinction between prophets and false prophets. I See Your Eagerness, however, examines the actions of prophets to determine whether they ever revealed the location of hidden, particularly stolen, items (see also discussion in Brakke 2007). Shenoute decries this definition of being a prophet, noting that Moses never did such a thing, even as God himself kept nothing hidden from Moses. Shenoute then uses more biblical quotations, without using the term “prophet,” to argue against the definition of prophetic actions as revealing hidden things. This debate focuses on interpretation of Scripture, which Shenoute concludes by listing several biblical passages with only the introduction “and also.” Since this listing technique is one that appears in Abraham, Our Father (above), it creates the opportunity to examine how lists work in Shenoute’s overall rhetorical reliance on Scriptural passages. Further, a query for “to prophesy” (Appendix, queries 40-1) shows that this verb is not used to describe any of the actions of the prophets; rather it appears in the list of actions, from earlier in I See Your Eagerness, that some might claim at judgment day. Whereas “in your name we proclaim the Scriptures” would lead to salvation (above), “prophesying” “in your name” leads to condemnation. The need to determine what are proper, and salvific, actions surrounding prophecy connects to another writerly subjectivity for Shenoute, that of prophet.

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 One last area of comparison between the two works is their shared use of a specific biblical passage, “Let him who can receive, receive” (Matthew 19:12). Shenoute cites the passage in Abraham Our Father in service to his larger project of constructing a monastic orthodoxy by defining terms and constructing biblical models. In I See Your Eagerness, Shenoute uses the reference as he develops language that defines different types of Christian religiosity (including lay piety). In Abraham, Our Father, Mt 19:12 describes those who were able to “receive” the call to be “eunuchs and virgins”—this could include a range of people: monks, but also those who lived celibate lives outside the monastery, even if such celibacy was embraced after marriage. This call also required a renunciation of other family ties, and possessions. In I See Your Eagerness, Shenoute distinguishes between those things all Christians must do, even if they have not specifically promised (ⲉⲣⲏⲧ) to do them, and those things which only need to be done if promised. Thus he creates a category of universal Christian expectations, and a separate category of promises. He links the biblical passage to this latter category: only those who can bear, or receive, this level of piety need take it on. The piety involving promises includes: “to practice virginity, to take up your cross and follow God (Lk 9:23/Mt 10:38), to be a priest in his house, and to be a monk”. Violating these promises is the same as apostasy.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 The pledge of virginity/celibacy applies to both genders, as Shenoute goes on to explain. In the Coptic of this passage, practicing virginity is a compound word containing the verb for “to do” (Coptic verb eire in the form r) combined with the noun “virgin” (parthenos): ⲣ-ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ (r-parthenos). Syntactically in Coptic, this compound verb is one word, one verb, and so in Scriptorium’s data model, it is annotated as one linguistic unit. To enable computational study of particularly Egyptian and Coptic compound word forms (such as verbs like r-parthenos formed by joining the morpheme “r” of “to do” with any noun to create a new verb), we have another layer of annotation that annotates “r” and “parthenos” as individual morphemes; anyone wishing to study the linguistics of the morpheme “r” may do so easily in this data model. In the texts we have digitized so far, including the Coptic bible, I See Your Eagerness contains the only use of parthenos as a part of a verb (Appendix, queries 16-19). Men are here told to “be virgin” whereas women simply claim the status of “virgin,” saying, “I am a virgin” (ⲁⲛⲅⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ/angouparthenos). It remains to be seen, as more texts are added to the corpus, how the various uses of “virgin” appear in Coptic linguistic constructions as part of the language of monasticism in late antiquity.

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 The third and fourth vows Shenoute lists—being a priest and a monk— are recognizable offices, perhaps the sort of “leader” (arxē) Shenoute references elsewhere in the sermon. The second category, however, turns a biblical passage (“take up your cross and follow”) into a “promise.” Classifying the biblical command of Mt 10:38 as a vow turns imitation of Christ into a social rank, albeit without a clear title; these people are those who vow to “take up your cross and follow God.” Shenoute does not explain what such a vow entails in I See Your Eagerness; but he uses the same biblical citation in Abraham Our Father to describe those who are “eunuchs,” who either did not have biological children or renounced those they did have. In short, Scriptorium provides tools that allow for the rapid and detailed investigation of the use of particular terms in different texts, including patterns of terms and combinations of terms, even in texts previously never before published or studied to this extent. Its various layers of annotation also allow exploration of the use of these terms alongside other rhetorical features of Shenoute’s writing, leading to an increased understanding of the development of the language and definitions of monasticism.

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 Two other examples show the exploratory potential of Scriptorium: examining the term “written” in works of Shenoute beyond these two, and searching the annotation of language tags for so-called “loan words,” that is, words whose origin is non-Coptic. The first example recalls the searches for the term “written” which is often used as part of an overall construction to refer to Scripture as a written source (Layton, 2009). As noted above, Shenoute almost exclusively uses the construction “the way it is written” (nthe etsēh) in I See Your Eagerness.[2] In Not Because a Fox Barks, Shenoute does not use this full phrase (Appendix, query 34) and the term “written” only appears in reference to things being written on papyri, apparently as a public announcement (Appendix, query 14). Further, Coptic Scriptorim has another Shenoute text, an untitled text that Shenoute grouped together with Abraham Our Father in one of the books of writings for his monks to read as instruction. In the section of that text that has been digitized, ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ appears but in addition there are varied references to things being “written” (Appendix, query 35). Things written are the “words of the Lord Jesus” in the Scriptures; are “in the papyri” “from the beginning”; in the “book”; and in the “letters” or “this letter.” An area of debate within scholarship on Shenoute currently is what sort of written sources he used, their origins, and whether we can determine the extent to which he treated written sources as fixed or mutable (Krawiec, 2017). Coptic Scriptorium, here specifically being able to combine the various grammatical combinations of referring to written sources, provides not just an efficient but a multi-layered approach to cataloguing the variety of citations that can help contribute to investigating this area of Shenoutean studies.

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 Finally, because Coptic Scriptorium includes tags for “loan words,” terms with origins another language—i.e., Greek, Latin, Arabic—one can engage in computational research for of multilingual character of Coptic. Many of these tagged terms are biblical names. Since Scriptorium also includes a tag for proper names in its annotations for part of speech, one can construct a query for all loan words, only loan words from a particular language, or loan words from any/all language(s) excluding proper names. Coptic linguists have examined the interrelationship of Greek and Coptic, particularly how Greek influenced Coptic syntax. Papyrologist Sarah Clackson (2010) argues for the bilingualism of Greek and Coptic in late antique Egypt, and to resist ideas of separating the two languages. In particular, she rejects theories of a “monolingual” Coptic monastic population or of Coptic as a “nationalist” Egyptian language. She and linguist Chris Reintges (2004) agree that one can trace Greek influence on Coptic syntax, and Clarkson provides a list of morphology of “Copto-Greek” words. Here Scriptorium provides multiple tools that would prove useful to advance such linguistic analysis. One can query for patterns or combinations of part of speech tags, to investigate syntax. One can add into the analysis language of origin, to see if certain combinations or patterns co-occur more frequently with “loan word” vocabulary (or not). We can compare the simple number of Greek tags in various works; thus, for example, there is not a significant difference in the percentage of loan word tags in Not Because a Fox Barks, a public letter addressed to an educated local governor (Appendix, query 47), and I See Your Eagerness, a public sermon (Appendix, query 50). When proper names are excluded (a query easily made possible since both language of origin and part of speech are annotated in Coptic Scriptorium), loan words appear 57.97 times per 1000 words in Not Because a Fox Barks (Appendix, query 48) and 59.59 times per 1000 words in I See Your Eagerness (Appendix, query 51). Abraham Our Father, with a monastic audience, however, contains 44.28 loan words, excluding proper names, per 1000 words (Appendix, query 44). As we digitize and annotate more texts, we can study this pattern of loan word use further in Shenoute’s corpus, to see if 44-60 loan words per 1000 is his general range, if the variance in these three texts is a result of audience (monastic versus public) or something else. The part of speech tags combined with language of origin tags also enable research into what Reintges calls “the ‘Hellenisation’ of Egyptian syntax, by which I mean the restructuring of the native sentence patterns according to a Greek model” (2004). Since Scriptorium includes lemmas and normalized text as annotations of the original text, when one searches for a normalized word form or for a lemma, the search results can visualize each hit of the normalized text or lemma within an annotation grid that also displays in parallel the original text—including original orthography, spelling, punctuation, abbreviations, etc., to enable study of dialect and morphology across space and time.

31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 These case studies are meant to show the diverse ways in which Coptic Scriptorium can be used to advance Coptic studies, which encompasses both linguistics and the production of religious literature in Coptic. In this section, the main area of interest explored is the potency of Scriptorium for sorts of historical analysis of the development of monasticism as a social movement in late antique Egypt. While Shenoute’s works can be, and have been, analyzed with traditional methods of linguistic and historical research, Scriptorium provides exploratory tools that allow researchers the ability to create combinations of words, word and part of speech, and frequency of Greek “loan words” in ways that encourage creativity in research. Ultimately, with the expansion of the corpora and an increase in usage, deeper understandings of the connections and choices of Shenoute’s rhetorical structures will help us better understand the formation of his monastic literacy.


32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 Coptic Scriptorium shows the potential for furthering religious studies by created a richly annotated corpus of late antique Christian texts particularly related to the development of monasticism. For some scholars, Coptic Scriptorium will allow a more efficient tool for asking traditional questions about the development of monasticism for which these texts serve as evidence. The digitized text and basic annotations such as normalization and lemmatization will enable simple search of researchers’ primary sources. In addition, however, our case study has also shown the creative potential to see new questions by visualizing these texts through digitization. Here this creativity, and its results, are in regard to two works of Shenoute, but they apply to Egyptian monastic texts as a whole. As more texts are digitized, questions regarding a shared, or perhaps differentiated, monastic language and terminology among the texts can contribute to our understanding of a diversity of meanings of “monasticism” among late antique authors. The linguistic annotations can enable research into writing styles across genres of monastic texts (letters, sermons, rules, hagiograpy, etc.) For texts that have received little scholarly study, our research environment can facilitate rapid searches for textual reuse: quotations, allusions, and citations of other works (including but not limited to the bible).

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 Moreover, additional research questions beyond the history of monasticism can also be examined. For example, because Coptic Scriptorium includes works translated from Greek (e.g. the Bible), those composed in Coptic, and those about whose original language is a matter of debate, the linguistic tools it provides can help explore issues of bilingualism and its social role in late antiquity. As texts of questionable authorship are digitized, and previously unpublished texts are digitized, a larger corpus can enable research into authorship—who wrote these unattributed or questionably attributed texts? Thus this project shares objectives with other projects examined in this volume (see Bingenheimer 2019 and Elwert 2019), while also enabling research into issues specific to late antique Egypt or Coptic linguistics. Linking our data to other digital projects in late antiquity through the Pleidaes gazetteer and Pelagios online portal for ancient places enables research into space and place across the Mediterranean (https://pleiades.stoa.org/; http://commons.pelagios.org/). The possibilities of what we can learn remains to be seen as the corpus, and so its collaborators and users, increase.


34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 Almas, B. & Schroeder, C.T., (2016). Applying the Canonical Text Services Model to the Coptic SCRIPTORIUM. Data Science Journal. 15, p.13. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2016-013

35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 Brakke, D. Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.

36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Brakke, D. Shenoute, Weber, and the Monastic Prophet: Ancient and Modern Articulations of Ascetic Authority. In: Camplani. A. and Filoramo, G. editors. Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism. Leuven: Peeters, 2007: 47-73.

37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 Brakke, D. and Crislip, A. Selected Discourses of Shenoute the Great: Community, Theology, and Social Conflict in Late Antique Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 Brepols Library of Latin Texts. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005-2019. Online. https://about.brepolis.net/library-of-latin-texts/. Last accessed 18 September 2019.

39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 Burns, D. M., F. Feder, K. John, M. Kupreyev. Comprehensive Coptic Lexicon: Including Loanwords from Ancient Greek. 2019. Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-2333.

40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 Buzi, Paola, and Stephen Emmel. “Coptic Codicology.” Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi et al. Hamburg: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies, 2015, pp. 137–53.

41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 Clackson, S. Coptic or Greek? Bilingualism in the Papyri. In: Papaconstantinou, Arietta, editor. The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolomies to the Abbasids. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010: 73-104.

42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 Emmel, S. Shenoute’s Literary Corpus. CSCO 599-600, Subsidia 111-12. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 Feder, F., et al. “Coptic Dictionary Online.” Coptic Dictionary Online, 2016-2019, https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/coptic-dictionary/about.cgi.

44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 Feder, Frank, Maxim Kupreyev, Emma Manning, Caroline T. Schroeder, Amir Zeldes. A Linked Coptic Dictionary Online. Proceedings of LaTeCH 2018 – The 11th SIGHUM Workshop at COLING2018. Santa Fe, NM, 2018, pp. 12-21.

45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 Krause, T., and A. Zeldes. “ANNIS3: A New Architecture for Generic Corpus Query and Visualization.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, Oct. 2014, p. fqu057. llc.oxfordjournals.org, doi:10.1093/llc/fqu057.

46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 Krawiec, R. Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery: Egyptian Monasticism in Late Antiquity. New York: Oxford, 2002.

47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 Krawiec, R. Reading Abraham in the White Monastery: Fathers, Sources, and History. In: Brakke, D., Davis, S., and Emmel, S. editors. From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity. Leuven: Peeters, 2017: 455-73.

48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 Krueger, D. Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 Layton, B. Some Observations on Shenoute’s Sources: Who Are Our Fathers. Journal of Coptic Studies 2009;11: 45-59.

50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 Miyagawa, S., and M. Büchler. Computational Analysis of Text Reuse in Shenoute and Besa. 11th International Congress of Coptic Studies, 2016.

51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 Orlandi, T. “The Library of the Monastery of Saint Shenute at Atripe.” Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Leiden: Brill, 2002, pp. 211–31.

52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 Reintges, C. H. Coptic Egyptian as a Bilingual Language Variety. In: Badenas, Pedro, et. al., editors. Lenguas en contacto: el testimonio escrito. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2004: 69-86.

53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 Richter, T. S., et al. Database and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic. Online. https://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/en/e/ddglc/index.html.

54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 Schroeder, C. T. “Cultural Heritage Preservation and Canon Formation: What Syriac and Coptic Can Teach Us about the Historiography of the Digital Humanities.” In: Holman, Frank, and Jacobs, editors. Garb of Being. New York: Fordham University Press, 2019: 318-345

55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 Schroeder, C. T., A. Zeldes, et al. “Coptic SCRIPTORIUM.” Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, 2013-2019, http://copticscriptorium.org/.

56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 Schroeder, C. T., and A. Zeldes. “Raiders of the Lost Corpus.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, 2016, http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/2/000247/000247.html.

57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 Shenoute. Abraham Our Father. Edited by Rebecca Krawiec, Caroline T. Schroeder, and Amir Zeldes. Translated by Rebecca Krawiec and Heike Behlmer. Coptic SCRIPTORIUM. urn:cts:copticLit:shenoute.abraham. v. 1.3.0, 8 September 2015.

58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 Shenoute. I See Your Eagerness. Edited by Rebecca Krawiec, Caroline T. Schroeder, David Sriboonreuang, and Amir Zeldes. Coptic SCRIPTORIUM. urn:cts:copticLit:shenoute.eagerness. v. 2.3.1, 5 April 2017.

59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Digital Library. Ed. M. C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. Online. http://www.tlg.uci.edu.

60 Leave a comment on paragraph 60 0 Timbie, J. Non-Canonical Scriptural Citation in Shenoute. In: N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors, editors. Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 163). Leuven: Peeters, 2007: 625-634.

61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0 Zeldes, A. “Duplicitous Diabolos: Parallel Witness Encoding in Quantitative Studies of Coptic Manuscripts.” Proceedings of the Symposium on Cultural Heritage Markup, vol. 16, 2015, doi:doi:10.4242/BalisageVol16.Zeldes01.

62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 Zeldes, A., and C. T. Schroeder. “Computational Methods for Coptic: Developing and Using Part-of-Speech Tagging for Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, vol. 30, no. suppl 1, Dec. 2015, pp. i164–76, doi:10.1093/llc/fqv043.

63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0 Zeldes, A., and C. T. Schroeder. “An NLP Pipeline for Coptic.” Proceedings of the 10th ACL SIGHUM Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities (LaTeCH2016), 2016, doi:10.18653/v1/W16-2119.

64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 “KELLIA.” Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance, 2017 2016, http://kellia.uni-goettingen.de/.

Appendix: Coptic Scriptorium Data and List of Queries/Searches

65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0 All queries derive from the following corpora. URLs link to current versions of the data for reading and querying, which may differ from the data and annotations used when this article was written. All data, including past versions of the data, are regularly archived for download on our GitHub site (https://github.com/CopticScriptorium/corpora); the version of data used for this paper is at https://github.com/CopticScriptorium/corpora/releases/tag/v2.4.0.

66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, apophthegmata.patrum, v. 2.4.0, 9 November 2017. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:ap.https://github.com/CopticScriptorium/corpora/releases

67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, besa.letters, v. 2.2.0, 8 December 2016. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:besa.

68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, sahidica.nt, v. 2.1.0, 12 May 2016. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:nt.

69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, sahidic.ot, v. 1.0, 8 June 2016. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:ot.

70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, shenoute.abraham, v. 1.6.1, 29 January 2016. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:shenoute.abraham.

71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, shenoute.a22, v. 1.6.1, 29 January 2016. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:shenoute.a22.

72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, shenoute.eagerness, v. 2.3.1, 5 April 2017. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:shenoute.eagerness.

73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, shenoute.fox, v. 2.2.0, 8 December 2016. http://data.copticscriptorium.org/urn:cts:copticLit:shenoute.fox.

74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 The following listed queries of our corpora were used to conduct research for this article. Links to each query provided below will take you to the current results in our ANNIS database using current data, whose version dates and version numbers are listed in the above corpus citations.

  1. 75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 0
  2. “Writing” (ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ) in Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=68c16fe6-af71-486b-ae0d-736cddcca563.
  3. ⲥⲏϩ (“written”) in Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=e379b63c-e31a-4c24-a2c0-928bc0f97bd4
  4. The word ϫⲉ in Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=2f6ec0bf-e1e0-42b9-bf3d-5a43d12cfd6f.
  5. “Teach” and related terms in Abraham Our Father and I See Your Eagerness; double” hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=651de225-f9b6-4b0f-88f1-617830865dc2; https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=37dd72c1-047e-4cbd-9741-4f1bb9083715.
  6. “As it is written” (ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ/ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲧϩⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ, ) in Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=83c2b0d5-6d4a-4395-8ac5-5f608730504d.
  7. “As it is written” (ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ/ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲧϩⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ) in I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax (no hits): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=9d87b60c-b37a-4695-994c-f204eabe44e9
  8. “Arrogance” (ⲕⲁⲑⲏⲅⲉⲓ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=b4032f28-b9a9-4ff5-a446-2dae33008b56
  9. “Arrogance” (ⲕⲁⲑⲏⲅⲉⲓ) in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father, Not Because a Fox Barks, A22, and I See Your Eagerness: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=3911c1e2-9da2-4e76-95e3-cd6aab1a8a10
  10. “Arrogance” (ⲕⲁⲑⲏⲅⲉⲓ) in digitized selections of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers (hereafter digitized AP), and Letters of Besa (no hits as of this writing): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=b32dc4e9-f317-43a2-aaa2-ac74b34433a2
  1. 76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0
  2. “Arrogance” (ⲕⲁⲑⲏⲅⲉⲓ) in the Sahidic New Testament, digitized Sahidic Coptic Old Testament books: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=aa209b4d-756f-4e80-8e0e-b84fdf8d95f6
  3. “Vow”/“promise” (ⲉⲣⲏⲧ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=3284f91e-26d3-49a8-a43b-5e34e1fa9eab
  4. “Writing”/“scriptures” (ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=dacf39bc-6a58-49ed-aac1-dcb71b782632
  5. “Written” (ⲥⲏϩ) in I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=401ec056-bfc5-4cd3-978f-dffc00fb0f5e
  6. “Written” (ⲥⲏϩ) in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=be027de5-218c-49a0-a03b-c7690b5e329e
  7. “Written” (ⲥⲏϩ) in Shenoute’s Acephalous Work #22 (A22): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=32e8e147-4dd6-42a7-9dd1-a782e82a6186
  8. “Virgin” (ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ) as a word or as a term within compound words in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=abd42888-fd79-4941-860f-1d40ded854c7
  9. “Virgin” (ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ) as a word or as a term within compound words in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father (no hits for compounds as of this writing): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=e5a1b76b-f9a2-4900-82c0-ec2fb8bc4a7e
  10. “Virgin” (ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ) as a term within compound words in Shenoute’s A22: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=2e372570-579a-4994-aa61-c2db80afa77c
  11. “Virgin” (ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ) as a term within compound words in the Sahidic New Testament, digitized Sahidic Coptic Old Testament books, digitized AP, and Letters of Besa (no hits as of this writing): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=d5ae80e7-3abb-4daa-8834-071f329a2bde
  12. “Speak” (ϣⲁϫⲉ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=1fd6f58a-0a65-4f38-81d6-7bd3b8fd3a7a
  13. “Speak” (ϣⲁϫⲉ) in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=2748e6b2-b725-41dc-980c-7b4a7c6db3d8
  14. “Speak” (ϣⲁϫⲉ) in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=12df40a8-e718-4365-8ae9-fab55210d150
  15. “Speak” (ϣⲁϫⲉ) in Shenoute’s A22: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=94ca8272-f0f5-487b-8ce5-afb246a0582f
  16. “Speak” (ϣⲁϫⲉ) followed by the converter “ⲛⲧⲁ” in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=c3861813-77e5-419d-b501-d7aa142a2ef3
  17. “Prophet” (ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have NOT been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=53cca8a1-81ab-40a2-aa81-1e854f47ee2a
  18. “Prophet” (ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=a8546f66-324b-476e-80d1-e0a3b74296c6
  19. “Prophet” (ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ) in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father (twenty-nine hits but three are in a parallel witness in manuscript MONB.XL 93-94): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=11dca10c-d588-4a84-a547-fdc66208e03e
  20. “Pattern” (ⲥⲙⲟⲧ) in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=bf74927c-3248-444b-a4b0-4d74f2f37822
  21. “Gospel” (ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲉⲗⲗⲓⲟⲛ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=f2910fd8-2c6a-42bd-bb25-f39d4fd670a2
  22. “Gospel” (ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲉⲗⲗⲓⲟⲛ) in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father (no hits): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=c161dab1-41ba-4fb5-9fe1-615c659287f8
  23. “Gospel” (ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲉⲗⲗⲓⲟⲛ) in all the digitized works of Shenoute: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=5099368a-8ff5-4851-8636-997496a2fab1
  24. “Leader” (ⲁⲣⲭⲏ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=4510050d-8612-4132-84dc-d8ccfccad8b5
  25. “False prophet” (ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩϫ) in Abraham, Our Father: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=664b8c68-db32-4996-8e41-de10ecf7f019
  26. “…which is written” (ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ) in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks (no hits): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=b4d55664-b450-45e0-a084-4fcb5535c933
  27. “…which is written” (ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ) in Shenoute’s A22: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=85f50f32-f238-4a6a-80b8-54df6ead23f1
  28. “Vanity”/“arrogance” (ⲙⲛⲧϫⲁⲥⲓϩⲏⲧ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=a0ba9fa0-c565-4f80-bf5c-6a5ad8e11455
  29. “Vanity”/“arrogance” (ⲙⲛⲧϫⲁⲥⲓϩⲏⲧ) in all the digitized works of Shenoute: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=16bbbe85-ae30-4010-9f5e-59cbd6d8ad9c
  30. “Vanity”/“arrogance” (ⲙⲛⲧϫⲁⲥⲓϩⲏⲧ) in the digitized AP and Letters of Besa: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=10a83d74-acd6-4e62-83ac-0b4ddd970a35
  31. “Vanity”/“arrogance” (ⲙⲛⲧϫⲁⲥⲓϩⲏⲧ) in Sahidic New Testament and digitized Sahidic Coptic Old Testament books: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=e385cb74-22ce-4de7-9880-634bc65065a2
  32. “Prophesy” (ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ) in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness; double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=10910f08-833c-4791-a3b9-67289ac5814b
  33. “Prophesy” (ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ) in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father, A22, and Not Because a Fox Barks; Letters of Besa; AP (no hits): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=fc19ca03-85d0-4582-a810-8d4497f65bcf
  34. Greek language tags in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father, not including parallel witness in manuscript MONB.XL 93-94)=316 hits (44.71 per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=e59d3363-2979-4742-a911-3191303a554f
  35. All loan words/language tags in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father (not including parallel witness in manuscript MONB.XL 93-94)=405 hits (57.30 per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=5b342b10-67ac-4714-94f2-7d6cf211bfab
  36. All loan words/language tags in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father, excluding proper names (not including parallel witness in manuscript MONB.XL 93-94)=313 hits (44.28 occurrences per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=07b00260-d458-4a05-9e1b-f4686cd8a422
  37. All words in Shenoute’s Abraham, Our Father (not including parallel witness in manuscript MONB.XL 93-94) = 7068: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=59c49ae4-7ee7-41df-8540-2a0ffe29f75f
  38. Greek language tags in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks = 150 hits (58.75 per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=0d513875-6595-411a-9ecf-f29dbc3d19c1
  39. All loan words/language tags in in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks = 162 (63.45 per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=99bf848d-29d0-4699-9fb5-9488dc9bcaf3
  40. All loan words/language tags in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks, excluding proper names= 148 hits (57.97 occurrences per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=640e502e-2348-4a67-b061-b1cb64980085
  41. All words in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks = 2553: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=0103916e-7139-4738-94ba-c9e335aa8e42
  42. All loan words in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness (double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax) = 628 hits (64.41 per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=2d1f9453-fc50-4fef-87ff-2e56fbfeba20
  43. All loan words in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness (double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax) excluding proper names = 581 hits (59.59 per 1000 words): https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=0eb858ce-8787-402d-bb0f-0ba5844ff6ac
  44. All words in Shenoute’s I See Your Eagerness (double hits in parallel manuscript witnesses have been eliminated in the query syntax) = 9750: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=6f9a4c01-8e86-4493-a361-123eeb585e6d
  45. “Writing”/“scriptures” (ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ) in Shenoute’s Not Because a Fox Barks: https://corpling.uis.georgetown.edu/annis/?id=dff453ae-8697-4507-90e1-b6b60545cf1f

77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 [1] Funding for this research has been provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities Division of Preservation and Access, the NEH Office of Digital Humanities, the German Research Federation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung), the University of the Pacific, Georgetown University, and Canisius College. We also thank the Perseus Digital Library (especially Greg Crane, Bridget Almas, Alison Babeu, and Lisa Cerrato), Amir Zeldes, Anke Lüdeling, Thomas Krause, Tito Orlandi, David Brakke, and Heike Behlmer.

78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0 [2] There is one use of ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ (katapetsēh)—a slightly different construction than ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲏϩ— in I See Your Eagerness (Appendix, query 13).

Source: https://opr.degruyter.com/digital-humanities-and-research-methods-in-religious-studies/rebecca-krawiec-and-caroline-t-schroeder-digital-approaches-to-studying-authorial-style-and-monastic-subjectivity-in-early-christian-egypt/