Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 281 



pai de ne w-axotos pe nreftiswmbwle ; and the desire grows 

 strong to discover the precise relations between text and translation ! 

 What was the word axotos ? There is no Greek word corresponding 

 to that, and there is just as little critical handling of swmbwle. 

 Anyhow this is what we have to discuss : 



w-a^oTos un liomme de qualite 



5 refti-(rov|ipov\i] qui n'avait pense &c. 



Now, I do not think any Greek scholar will be able to tolerate 

 such a version of Greek vocables ; but it is still less tolerable considered 

 in the light of Coptic structure! For the word refti s. can only 

 mean " a man who gives o-v/xftovXrj ", and if it were so taken, it might 

 have to mean, that this person was one who used to give advice at his 

 meals ! The version pense is quite out of the question : it was a-vfx^oXri, 

 " a man who gives crviJ.fio\d<;'\ But what about the a^oros? It was 

 probably only acrcoros, ' a profligate ' ; but I shall be willing to accept 

 any better emendation. 



Then [259, 8] we get a quotation which is not satisfactory, toufe 

 imprudence irreflechie est en dbomiyiation a Bieu. The Coptic has : 

 tbote mpnwte pe jar bal nim natsbo, where there is certainly 

 no reference to imprudence. Por the jar bal was a person who 

 stiffened his eye, the passage being simply a memory quotation from 

 Prov. sxvii. 20, arripLloiv ocfiOaXfjiov. The words mean, "the abomi- 

 nation of the Lord is every stiif-eyed person, [and] the indocile who do 

 not restrain their tongue ". But here is the version presented : car il 

 est e'crit, " Toute imprudence irreflechie est en abomination a Dieu", 

 a propos de ceux qui ne savent retenir leur langue. But the Coptic text 

 is wrong ; for the LXX has kclI, auo natsbo ete meu-a., "the 

 stLff-eyed and the indocile who do not &c." 



Nor does there seem to be any good in rendering il cut He incapable 

 de distinguer, for the words ns-wonh ebol an mean, "it does not 

 appear", [262,4], 



I rather think that some very instructive criticism is possible on 

 such a line as he presents at [263, i], 



tinawaje hm pitak inpat^Io. 



Here he renders : si tu veux queje te guerisse, je perce cette masse (?) 

 avant de te guerir. He saw that this was unmeaning ; hence his (?). 

 Whence came masse ? The dictionary gave it, not under tak, but under 

 tac! Then whence has he je perce, for tma-waje? Per as the 

 verb must have an object, or be passive, it is clear that waje must 



