Atkinson — On Prof. Eossi^s South- Coptic Texts. 31 



This word k n h e occurs in a curious passage, Amos viii. 3 : 

 auo senaos ebol nci Smestibs mpfpe [tn] mmelate nknlie, 

 where the last three words seem a mere gloss, for the LXX has only 

 KOL oXoXvicL TO. (f>aTV(i)[jiaTa Tov vaov ; but I do not think that it is 

 found in any other passage of the South-Coptic version. At any rate, 

 kooh nwei would certainly have been a better conjecture if the 

 textual usage be adhered to. 



15. A wrong case-government is suggested in his conjecture on 

 XXV. 23, who de natsipe s[afnw]cs nhenlas, " una faccia im- 

 pudente irrita le lingue " ; for nwcs is followed by the directive e, 

 cf. Gen. xl. 2, afnwcs epefsiwr snau ; -Job xxxii. 2, afnwcs 

 e-eiob; Isai. xii. 1; xxviii. 28. He should have given saftinwcs, 

 of course. 



16. He suggests a wrong preposition on xxvi. 7, wparanomia 

 [hits] row nnathet, where hitn should be ebolhn, to cor- 

 respond with the LXX ck aTOfiaros acj^poviov. 



17. l^or does he understand the principle which guides the use of 

 the definite prefix et, for he has suggested, xxv. 28, [nthe nwpolis 

 et]ere nessobt (srsor), "like a city whose walls are broken," 

 where etere cannot be used, but only ere, as it is in connexion 

 with an indefinite noun. 



18. "We now have a proof of his ignorance of the meaning of 

 common Coptic words, for he suggests, xxvii. 7 : — 



sare tepsykhe ettsieu Vanima satolla 



[rhal] epebio ebol disprezza il miele. 



To this suggestion of fhal, there are the following objections: it 

 could not be followed by ebol; it does not govern the directive e; 

 and it does not mean LXX e/xTrac^et, "loathe", disprezza, for it 

 means "to deceive," cf. Gen. iii. 14, phof pentaffhal mmoi, 6 o(^is 

 7jTra.TTq(T€ //.e. 



[Here, too, Ciasca's text is somewhat doubtful, for he edits : sare 

 wpsykhe etsieu jer nstste pebio ebol, i{/vxr] iv TrXrjcr/jiovrj ovcra 

 KTjpLOLs ifiTruLieL, with the following note : "etsieu = etsew; 

 nstste (sic) abundat." But one does not see why either {sie) or 

 dbundat should appear here, for tsTte is quite correct in form, and 

 1 5 1 e ebol is the translation of i/x-n-aLiei. The difficulty lies in 

 etsieu, where the prefix is wrong: either tepsykhe et-t., or 

 with the indefinite wpsykhe es-t., should have been found ; [and 

 in the use of the paraphrase sare ... jer nsfste ebol, which the 

 Copt evidently used to express the element in e/xTrac^et, "the satiated 



