Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 277 



rendered ; for when the LXX describes Jacob's agitation at the prospect 

 of encountering Esan, i(fio(^rjOy] 8e IaKw/3 <r(j>6Spa, koI •^TropeiTo, 

 Gen. xxxii. 7, the Coptic gives precisely this word aferhba to express 



^TTOpeiTO. 



The meaning invitus, coadiis, found in Parthey for hba, is based 

 on Mingarelli's guess, p. 236, who adds in his note : Nam ^E.A. 

 memphitis est violentia, vis. But the South-Coptic word has nothing 

 to do with khba, which becomes kba, of course. The speculation, 

 therefore, invitus, coadtis, must fall ; and in fact it was quite out of 

 place, for the passage in Mingarelli is petmmau de afwahf nsof 

 efo nhba eflypei je w petnasope, 'he followed him, in per- 

 plexity and grief, as to what would happen.' 



147. On the same page he has rendered mpekwes tmntrmmao 

 [240, ii] hj tu ne fes pas prosterne devant la richesse, showing that 

 he did not understand his own text : it is " thou didst not love riches", 

 wes ; whereas he translates as if he read west, 'to pay worship to', 

 which could not be so used. 



148. How could the Coptic writer have brought himself to indite 

 so unorthodox a proposition as this which M. Bouriant has credited 

 him with ? quel saint parmi les saints, si je te compare d lui, 71' est 

 a c6te de toi miprisdble ! Of course each community preferred its 

 own particular saint, whose biography naturally was the letterpress 

 description of the museum-relics preserved by each monastery, but 

 they were not wont to speak of the character of a rival saint as being 

 meprisalle ! And as a matter of fact, it is not said so here, for the 

 text has, [241,6] nim hn netwaab petinatntong erof ngtmsos 

 nmmaf, where the root sos, 'to be equaV , is not to be confounded 

 with SOS, 'reproach, contumely', for the sos which does mean 

 ' reproach &c.' is a North Coptic root ! The writer only meant to say 

 that his saint was as good as any other. 



[An instructive example occurs at Levit. xxvi. 24, where the 

 expression ^u/x,(3 TrAayto) of the LXX is rendered by hnwthemos auo 

 hn w-s6s an, 'not on a level, equal, straight &c.' and so = TrXaytu.] 



149. And M. Bouriant does not hold the balance fairly in the 

 discussion between the respective merits of the saints and martyrs ; 

 for he states the case as follows : no doubt the saints are good, but 

 the martyrs are better, mais les martyrs auront le coeur et Vdme fermes, 

 eux qui pour ront dire, ' Seigneur, tu as verse ton sang pour nous, mais 

 nous aussi notes avons vers^ le notre pour toi\ That reads very per- 

 suasively, but it is quite wrong ! 



The text urges just the opposite side : it is not the martyrs but 



