Annotation (magical, formulary)

Egyptian (Coptic)

Coptic

Here the scribe adds a scribal note, apparently to explain the text added and then deleted at p. 9 ll. 18-20 (T676). At first glance, it looks like we have a number of continuous lines, but a more careful look seems to reveal two separate columns; this division makes the most sense of the number of lines, their disposition, and their contents. The scribe probably wrote the text on the right first, wanting to indent the text to make it clear that it did not belong to the previously copied prayer, but then added a second column in the narrow space on the left in order to further clarify the meaning of the note. The sense of the note is not entirely clear, in part because of the unusual grammar and spelling employed by the scribe, in part perhaps because it was only ever intended as a private note. The scribe tells us that the “names” (the voces magicae on pp. 7-9, probably used metonymously for the whole invocation) are finished, that they ended at the three crosses, and that the additional text which was copied did not really belong to this, but rather was part of another page of the model (“outside”). In the second column, the scribe seems to be talking about the texts of p. 10, the back of this sheet, and to be noting that they are from a different manuscript than the one he has just finished copying. For similar, though more abundant, notes in Greek magical formularies, see Dosoo 2024
22. ⲧⲉ Here we would expect ⲡⲉ to agree with ⲡϫⲱⲕ, but in Theban Coptic we sometimes find an “invariable ⲧⲉ” where we might expect another form of the copula; see Crum and White 1926, I 250, II 243 (note to l. 7 to text 338).
23. ⲙⲙ⧹ⲟⲟ̣ⲩ⧸ This word seems to be written in a spiral, with the second omicron placed low, an unclosed omicron placed above it to its left, and then a simple upsilon to the left. Alternatively, read ⲙⲙⲟⲩⲥ, but this would seem to make less contextual sense; the plural would most clearly seem to refer to the “names”
25. ⲥⲁⲛⲉ The word ⲥⲁⲛⲉ seems to appear twice in the construction ⲛ-ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲁⲛⲉ (ll. 25, 30). It might be possible to parse it otherwise (i.e. ⲛ-ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲁ ⲛⲉ), but no other parsing seems to make sense in both contexts. The meaning is uncertain; Crum only notes this as a form of Sahidic ⲥⲟⲟⲛⲉ (“robber”), but we might otherwise understand a hitherto unattested form of ⲥⲟⲛ (“brother”) or ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ (“agreement, contract”). Since the context implies a type of manuscript, the last of these would fit best, but the exact meaning does not seem right; we would expect a meaning along the lines of “manuscript, document, copy”. Perhaps compare the poorly-attested Demotic word snn(e) “official document” (see Johnson, vol. “s”, p. 269), which does not, however, seem to be attested in Coptic. We hesitantly translate “copy” based on the context.

col. 2

31. ⲧⲉ̣ For the ‘invariable ⲧⲉ’, see the note to l. 22 above.

KD, MPS, RBS (23/7/2026)