Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 269 



note of the kind ! Moi aussi, ^^oiir tine parole que f avals dite, le servi- 

 teur du grand pretre m'afrajipe au visage, car c^est ainsi que chdtiait le 

 grand pretre. I do not know of any authority for the statement in the 

 last clause; the Coptic says, (218, 7] tai te the nwosf inparkhie- 

 reus, and "wosf means 'to answer', of. Gen. xxxi. 43; it was the 

 high-priest's mode of ansioering, hut the text says nothing of its being 

 his method of chastisement. 



126. Of course there are multitudes of small errors here and there 

 which I am not attempting to catalogue: haroi [217, x] rendered 

 ' speaking to me ', instead of ' on my behalf' ; aurokh [218, 8] which 

 is wrong and unintelligible without the suffix -/, ' they burnt him ' ; 

 eres invariably rendered dans le Sud [259, 5], au Sud, though it is 

 often only the adverb 'iip^; afrbol eneucij, [219, 10] ilfut tomhe 

 aux mains de ceux qui &c., whereas it means, " [and so] he escaped 

 out 0/ their hands"; [219, z] tout cela est ecrit avee d^autres choses 

 encore, mn netwotb enai, " along with things that S2<r/;«s-.s these 

 things ". 



And why does he put his parenthesis marks, d un {de mes) disciples, 

 when the text has plainly [220,3] nwmathetes ntai? What 

 did he think ntai meant? Or how does efkeb 'duplex' come to 

 mean centuple [220,3]? And where is the justification for his au 

 lanquet des rniUiers d^anne'es, as the translation of hmpdipnon mpso 

 nrompe, [220, 12]? This was of course the SetTrvov of a thousand 

 years, the ITillennium of Eev. xix. 17 ; xx. 4. 



But these are only provocative of a little discomfort, and would 

 call for no mention at all, save that it is difficult to say precisely where 

 the line is to be drawn between the venial and the mortal sin where 

 the offences are perpetually recurring ; to which category does this 

 belong? [220, i] mpfmeeue je eitauo nnai eico je ebol 

 nnekhise ajn byke, ne va pas croire quefaidit tout cela pour 

 laisser tes souffrances satis recompiense. Here his words pour laisser 

 show that he read c6! But what was the next word je? The 

 text should have read eicoje ebol, 'I cut ojf\ 



127. Nor is it permissible to ignore so utterly the laws of the 

 language as to render, as at [220, 10], en echange des Mens de ce monde 

 . . .je fen donnerai qice les yeux ne peuvent voir. The text says diffe- 

 rently, tinati nak nnetmpebal nau erow, 'I will give thee 

 things that eye hath not seen ' ; for it is most assuredly not any com- 

 bination with tm and t\].Q present tense, but i\\e perfect negative, mpe 

 lal nau . But M. Bouriant repeats this present in the following clause, 

 ' que les hommes ne peuvent imaginer'' , although the words are plainly, 



