Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 265 



do'! The Coptic version in Ciasca may possibly have obscured his 

 perception, for it differs slightly in construction, with its e -u - eow , 

 '■tending to glory', Prov. xxvi. 11, though Ciasca gives everything 

 rightly here, jpe, and V5^n separately &c. 



112. ITor can he defend his version at [205, ^\je n^ai jamais adore, 

 les idoles, mais si je voulais foheir et f adorer en meme temps, je serais 

 pmeil d, ceux qui ont passe leur vie a les adorer. The lexicon and 

 the logic are opposed to such a rendering of the words: kan esje 

 nipismse eidolon eneh , alia eisanwos esotm nsok tawost nak 

 nwsop nwot, sauopt &c., " even though I never idolatrized, but 

 were I willing to listen to thee so as to worship them [nau , rather 

 than nak] a single time, I should le counted &c." It is obvious that 

 the logic demands this contrast of a single act of homage, and it is 

 certain that the words wsop nwot can only mean "a single 

 time," not en meme temps. 



And similarly just after, [205, 12] there is a clause, eksaje w 

 on hS nai nkesop, tinatreusolp ebol mpeklas, which is 

 translated, que veux-tu encore dire cette fois ? Je te ferai arracher la 

 layigue. But nkesop could not mean cette fois; it means '■another 

 time I will cut out thy tongue '. 



113. A curious misconception is found in his version of [208, x], 

 tous ceux qui ont traite de la puissance de ce monde en ont parte en ora- 

 teurs ; but the Coptic has, won nim ntaumatheteue harats 

 Etexwsia mpeikosmos, which means, "all who have learnt under, 

 at the foot of, the authority of this world" ! 



114. I doubt whether M. Bouriant understands the particle ahro . 

 Here is not the place to write an article on the word, but it must not 

 be treated as if it were simply the preposition nahrn, as he has 

 obviously done in the following passage ! It is an interrogative 

 particle which takes a pronominal suffix indicating the agent affected 

 by the question. Is'ow we find, at [209, z], fai des le commencement 

 rencontre en toi la franchise, aussije te croirai. Cependant tu me dis : '■je 

 suis etr anger '. That is certainly tiot the meaning of the Coptic text, 

 epide aiarkhei ncm parresia ahrok etbe pai tmapithe 

 mm ok, " since I have begun to get boldness of speech, why am I to 

 believe thee on this account (that thou hast declared thyself to be a 

 stranger)". It is utterly impossible to render ahrok, 'en toi'; it 

 means ahro-k, t6 crot, 'why, in reference to thee'. He has made 

 another mistake at [186, 6], with ahrau! 



115. There is no force whatever in the reason alleged by Victor 

 for not giving the stranger bread, je ne puis pas sortir oiivertement a 



