32 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



soul plays with so as to reject the honeycomh" ;] where too it may- 

 he noted that Ciasca's = etsew is also a mistake, for the verb is 

 tsio, "to satiate," and not tso, "to give to drink," a mistake to 

 which something is added by the {sic) which he appends in his note 

 to the word epettsieu, "better than ^Ae sffimi^ef? man," xxvi. 16.] 



19. As he edits the full form of the verb sometimes in place 

 of the short form, so he performs the counter operation, and gives 

 impossibilities like his text at xxvii. 17 : prome pe saftbs [mpho 

 m] p ef sb e r , avrjp Se irapo^vveL TrpocrwTroi/ kraipov. Here tbs is the 

 proclitic form, and could not be followed by the connexive m, which 

 must be deleted as an unwarrantable intruder. 



[It is remarkable that Ciasca's text on this verse contains two 

 errors of a related kind, for we find there saftom ppenipe, where 

 torn cannot be right, and also saftobs pho, where tobs is also 

 wrong, being the form of the verb used with the suffix pronoun, as 

 Job vi. 9, maref-tobs. t , Tpcocrara) /xe.] 



20. Nor is it easy to see why he has left the text as it stands^ 

 xxvii. 21 : 



[t]doki[inioii] mpbat la prova dell' argento 



mil pnwb e dell' oro 



.... a WW e [il fuoco"]. 



The LXX has hoKijXLov apyvpLio kol -^pvcrio Trupwcrts, but the Coptic for 

 the last word he has not attempted to suggest. I^ow, the phrase is 

 not unknown elsewhere in the Bible, cf. Zech. xiii. 9 : koX Trvpwa-oy 

 avTous (i)S TTvpovraL to dpyvpiov, which the Coptic renders ntapastw 

 nthe mphat esaupastf ; so that it is obvious that the unmeaning 

 .... WW, which he gives as the reading of his papyrus, was a totally 

 different set of letters, not .... CYOT, but .... CXOT, for Ciasca's 

 text fits the letters like a glove : pe pastw^ a good instance of the 

 infinitival noun with following suffix. 



21. And what is to be said of the following text and translation? 



xxvii. 27 : 



ps[ere wn]tk hennoc nsa 



je mpekonh 



So runs his conjectural reading, with the following version, "figliuolo, 

 tu hai [da me] parole utili alia tua vita." Now, I want to call 

 attention to this translation : the LXX has vu, Trap i/xov e^^'^ pijo-ei^ 

 Lcrxypas ek TTjy ^w)]v (tov, and his Italian version keeps close to that, 

 hut at what cost ? He had to insert da me, and utili had also to be 

 extracted, for there is nothing whatever to represent it in the text 



