72 Proceedings of the Royal Lnsh Academy. 



119. And it is not easy to see why he has lavished the asterisks of 

 silence over much of the following text ; e.gr. he puts not a syllable 

 of this, at [16)8 12]: 



"for not alone shall sinners render account to God, but he who 

 shall consent with them ; even though they do not sin [themselves, 

 but they rejoice in others when they are sinning] ", the parts in 

 brackets being supplied from the Borgia text. Just afterwards, all 

 this is left out by Prof. Eossi : " [it befits] the priest of God to become 

 sober, so as not to make naught of his primogeniture for the sake of 

 eating and drinking." Not a word of this in his version, but there is 

 a note to the effect that M. Revillout reads mntsrpmise instead of 

 mntsrpmmise, "primogeniture"; [as a matter of absolute correct- 

 ness M. Eevillout's spelling is the proper one, with the proclitic sfp, 

 but both forms are found, cf. Gen. Ixviii. 14 ; Num. iii. 2 ; xxxiii. 4, 

 where the incorrect mmise follows, but Levit. xxvii. 26 has the 

 normal srpmise]. 



120. One does not see why M. Hybernat has the note "ypaSs] 

 omitt. Copt.^% because the Coptic text has hllo, [16 a 16]; and 

 where does Prof. Rossi get his following preti ? 



What can be the meaning of rendering the mutilated word 

 [17a 19], which his text gives as syn .... dion, by "reunion", 

 " assembly" ? This was simply taking the text of M. Revillout, who 

 suggests syn[edri]on, but Prof. Rossi was surely debarred from 

 such a translation by his own reading. 



The next piece of text, of the Life of St. Athanasius is too frag- 

 mentary to be worth discussion here, but the following text of the 

 Martyrdom of Joore contains one of the most startling mistakes ever 

 made by an editor. 



121. The short story is in the easiest style of Coptic, but never- 

 theless I have to register such a monstrosity as the following [27a 2] : 



nim r ntk die fax tu ? 



There is no conceivable explanation for such a translation save an 

 almost unpardonable ignorance of the very elements of Coptic gram- 

 mar: nim f ntk, "what doest thou"? The curiosity is that the 

 three words might be equated : 



nim = interrogative pronoun, 

 f = do(est), 



ntk = thou. 



And yet, though the Coptic words do separately mean the English 



