A Magical Request for Revelation - Coptic

8/18/2019 A Magical Request for Revelation - Coptic

1/14

Collections de l’Université de Strasbourg Études d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienneCahiers de la Bibliothèque copte 19

Coptica Argentoratensia

Textes et documentsTroisième université d’été de papyrologie copte(Strasbourg, 18-25 juillet 2010)

(P. Stras. Copt.)

Réunis par Anne B’, Alain D,

Catherine L, Tonio Sebastian R

É B


2/14

É l é m e

n t s s o u s d r o i t d ’ a u t e u r – ©

É d i t i o n s d e B o c c a r d

Coptica Argentoratensia, Troisième université d’été de papyrologie copte (Strasbourg, 18-25 juillet 2010)éd. par A. Boud’hors, A. Delattre, C. Louis, T. S. Richter

(Cahiers de la bibilothèque copte 19), Paris, 2014

9. A MAGICAL R EQUEST FOR R EVELATION

P.STRAS. I NV. K OPT. 550 IS a manuscript of a magical Christian nature, comprisingof text as well as diagrams on paper; both sides of the paper are fully covered.The sheet is 28,5 cm wide by 18,7 cm high at its greatest extents. It has been foldeddown the central vertical axis. The two “sides” this folding has created have different

texts upon them which are, respectively, written in opposing vertical directions. Thesize of one of these pages created by the folding is thus approximately 14,3 cm wide

by 18,7 cm high.For ease of reference, I have marked the recto as the side with the “Kopt. 550”identifying label. The top right of the left-hand page, which carries the main text, has

a roughly inverted triangular piece missing which, at its largest extent, measures 5cm wide and 7 cm deep. The top left is missing a section which is 7 cm wide and 4cm deep. The bottom left is missing a triangular section 4 cm wide and 5 cm deep.Another rectangular piece, which carried text for both the sides of the folded sheetand is on the bottom right, is lacking; this measures 6 cm across and 8 cm deep.

Regarding the side of the recto leaf written in an opposing vertical direction to the

main text – which in the case of both recto and verso consists primarily of images andvoces magicae – the top right (that is, the top right when viewed from the positionof reading the opposing side’s text) is missing a large rectangular section 7 cm wideand 4 cm deep; the bottom left is missing a rectangular section 2 cm wide and 2,5cm deep. The left-hand side is also missing a thin rectangular section 1 cm acrossand 7 cm deep.

It is not possible to state denitively which is the true recto or the true verso, noreven to be conclusive as to whether the main sections on each side are part of thesame spell.

There is some evidence of holes for a binding-cord in the centre of the leaf, thoughthe damage to the manuscript makes it difcult to be certain of this. But it is likelythat there were indeed other leaves and this page was part of a larger book ratherthan a single folded leaf. Since the main text on the left-hand side of the recto andthe right-hand side of the verso share the same vertical textual alignment as eachother, and the right-hand side of the recto and the left-hand side of the verso alsoshare the same vertical textual alignment as each other, it is possible that the bookmay have been double-sided, with two different ways to open it, with the “front” half

containing textual magical spells and invocations, whilst the “back” half would have

had a selection of magical diagrams and voces magicae for various uses.


3/14

DAVID TIBET132

É l é m e



The fact that the phrases ⲛⲁⲧⲉⲣϩⲁϯ and ⲛⲁⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ, amongst others words,occur on both sides of the piece may imply a continuation of the same spell. However

they may just be stock words used in this grimoire. Perhaps more notice should be paid to the use of ϭⲱⲗⲡ, which also features on both sides of the paper, whichsuggests a specic desire for “revealing”. I could posit that, as ϭⲱⲗⲡ does occur on both sides, and the majority of the voces magicae are on what I have referred to asthe recto, that this building up of magical intensity may perhaps point to the rectoas in fact being the verso. Or it may be that this is just a page from a section dealingwith nding buried treasure and so on, and the putative other pages of the book hadsections dealing with different topics. But as all these are unprovable hypotheses, Ihave kept to the initial labelling of the page.

P.Stras. Inv. Kopt. 550 contains a magical request for revelation of such things as precious metals, garments and jewellery, though it is not clear whether these thingsare lost property, or hidden treasures, this is to say, whether our text has its place ineveryday worries, or rather in the ‘trade’ of treasure-hunting. The latter context might

be suggested by the formulas “without deceit, without fear, without illusion but intruth and in decisiveness and uprightness” (ro 14-17) and “without deceit, withoutdisturbance without fear, without illusion” (vo 20-21), which sound rather like a kind

of venture than just household cleansing.

Description of the text

P.Stras. Inv. Kopt. 550 is written in black ink on paper, with no other colours used

for highlighting or as decoration. It is dated approximately to the Xth-XIth century onthe basis of its writing material. There are many lacunae as well as considerable lossof ink to many sections, making a substantial part of the text – on both sides – verydifcult to read.

However, it is evidently a magical manuscript which consists, beyond the mainincantations themselves of the main written text itself, of several magical diagrams

on both sides written, as mentioned above, in an opposing vertical direction to themain body of the spell’s, or spells’, texts. On one side one sees text – mainly vocesmagicae – within double-bordered rectangles. On the other side is a diagram showing

a human gure having magical bolts being directed at its head – or possibly its hair pulled! – by a gure (whose head is either missing or lacking) made of two interlockingcircles and surmounted by a third semicircular “head” with the sacred monogram ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ ̅within the top of the semicircle. The sacred monogram surely identies the gureas a representation of Christ, as is seen in other such Coptic magical texts, despiteits lacking any of the usual iconographic elements associated with Christ. There is

extensive use of text written in Brillenschrift , kharaktêres as well as several magicalsquares with symbols within them.

Due to the many lacunae it is difcult to state absolutely the nature of what exactlythe spells are for beyond noting that it/they express a desire for God to reveal, swiftly,


4/14

A MAGICAL R EQUEST FOR R EVELATION 133

É l é m e



things to the invoker, most notably in the section in which the magician lists various precious metals, as well as other desirable material goods.

Writing and dialect

A condent, though unskilled hand, with its writing inclining to the right. It isoften difcult to distinguish between ⲛ and ⲏ which are frequently very similar; to alesser degree ⲙ and ⲡ are also similar to ⲛ and ⲏ, and also to each other. ⲁ and ⲟ arevery often ligatured to the following letter, especially ⲓ. The only correction, likelyto have occurred due to lack of space at the end of the “side”, was the addition of a ⲃabove the ⲛⲟⲩ to give us ⲛⲟⲩⲃ, “gold”. Supralinear strokes appear only over nomina

sacra and voces magicae. No abbreviations of actual words are used except for thenomen sacrum of God in the phrase ⲫ̅ϯ̅ ⲓⲱ̅ⲧ̅, in which ⲓⲱⲧ, “father”, also carries thesupralinear stroke used for nomina sacra.

Written in a form of Coptic which shows a mixture of Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayumicand Mesokemic) inuences, the language frequently shows considerable variationin its spelling, such as the replacement of unstressed nal ⲉ with ⲓ or ⲏ as well as inthe (variable) spelling of a signicant portion of its vocabulary. Regarding Fayumicinuence, note however that no lambdacism is displayed in the text. One can seethe prevalence of the spelling ⲉⲃⲁⲗ (and one ⲏⲃⲁⲗ) for Sahidic ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; ⲉⲣⲁⲓ for ⲉⲣⲟⲓ

and ⲉⲣⲁⲕ for ⲉⲣⲟⲕ; ϩⲁϯ twice and ϩⲁⲧⲏ once for ϩⲟⲧⲉ; ⲧⲉϥⲛⲏ for ⲧⲃⲛⲏ; ⲥⲁⲩⲧⲉⲛfor ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲧⲛ; ϭⲁⲗ for ϭⲟⲗ; ϭⲁⲙ for ϭⲟⲙ; the rare spelling of the word ⲙⲉ as ⲙⲓⲏⲓand so on. Notice also ϩⲓⲧⲁⲧⲟⲩ for ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲟⲩ and ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲧⲉⲩⲧⲉⲛ for ⲛⲧⲛ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ and ϩⲓⲧⲁⲧⲉⲩⲧⲉⲛ for ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ. Also noticeable is the use of the shortened formof the Conjunctive without the initial ⲛ: ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛⲉⲓ for ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛⲉⲓ, ⲧⲉϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ forⲛⲧⲉϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ and so on.

Ariel Shisha-Halevy, in a private communication to me, suggested that the

adverbial phrase I transcribed as ⲟⲩϭⲓⲉⲛⲑϫⲱⲙ (Sahidic ⲟⲩϭⲓⲛⲧϭⲟⲙ) shows Bohairicinuence 1.

1. “ϭⲓ, ϫⲟⲙ and the aspiration in ⲑ are Bohairisms (ⲑ “inappropriate” in Bohairic). So perhaps alsoⲉⲛ- for the nota relationis ⲛ-. However my suggestion takes no account of the dialectal nature ofthe whole text, and presupposes the orthographical peculiarity in ⲑϫⲱⲙ; moreover, the aspirationof ⲑ would not occur in Bohairic before ϫ”.In a separate private communication, Wolf-Peter Funk writes “If this (i.e. ⲑϫⲱⲙ = ⲧϭⲟⲙ), aswell as ϩⲏⲛⲟⲩϭⲓⲉⲛ to be taken as ϩⲏⲛⲟⲩϭⲓⲛ, displays an amazing mix of late-ME-Sahidic andquasi-Bohairic elements (half-false), this is precisely what can be found in many ‘magical’ texts,no matter what their basic dialectal afliation may be (mostly undenable). I would only add thatany use of the verb ϫⲓ (status absolutus!) in such a nominal adverbial formula would be extremelyunusual – if this were a ‘literary’ text, which it isn’t; here it may well have been triggered by thedesire of having ‘the good power’ as a denite object (the author probably knew which power hehad in mind).


5/14

DAVID TIBET134

É l é m e



I mentioned above that both ϩⲁϯ and ϩⲁⲧⲏ appear; the Greek conjunction ἔτιappears as ⲉϯ, and the conjunction εἴτε appears as both ⲉⲓⲧⲏ and ⲉⲓϯ, suggesting

that, at least after nal ⲧ, ⲏ and ⲓ were interchangeable to the writer.The reduced vowel/ schwa represented by the supralinear stroke at the beginning

of a word is often, though not always, written with initial ⲉ-, hence for the prenominalform of ⲉⲓⲣⲉ we see ⲉⲣ- rather than ⲣ-; but we also see ⲛⲁⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ rather thanⲉⲛⲁⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ. In the non-initial position of words the supralinear stroke is neverused for schwa, but ⲉ is used (and, rarely, ⲏ): ⲙⲉⲛ not ⲙⲛ; ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲉⲣ not ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ;ϩⲉⲛ (as well as ϩⲏⲛ) not ϩⲛ etc. However, ⲡ and ⲧ occasionally carry a dot over theletter rather than the supralinear stroke, so we see ϭⲱⲗⲡ̇ not ϭⲱⲗⲉⲡ and also ϭⲟⲗⲡ̇ⲟⲩ,not ϭⲟⲗⲡⲟⲩ, showing that the dot also appears when the verb has a pronominal

sufx, ϭⲱϣⲧ̇ not ϭⲱϣⲉⲧ. ϣ also appears with this supralinear dot in ϯϣ̇ⲓⲛⲓ. ⲛ is notassimilated to ⲙ before ⲡ giving us eg ⲛⲡⲁⲉ[ⲙ]ⲧⲱ—as a result, my reconstruction isϩⲉⲛ ⲡⲕⲱⲥⲙⲟⲥ rather than ϩⲉⲙ ⲡⲕⲱⲥⲙⲟⲥ. Trema/diairesis never occurs. Interestingly,in the three occurrences of the phrase ⲛⲁⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ, it once occurs with the Coptic

privative ⲁⲧ- and twice with the Greek, and hence Græco-Coptic, privative ⲁ-. The phrase ⲛⲁⲧϭⲁⲗ occurs thus once but appears twice as ⲛⲁϭⲁⲗ. In one further occurrenceof the word it is not possible to reconstruct it as either ⲛⲁⲧϭⲁⲗ or ⲛⲁϭⲁⲗ, due to thelacuna before it.

As a result of the difculty of a continual reading of much of the text, there may

well be many errors I have made due to my misidentication of letters/prosodic units.If I had been able to reconstruct accurately all the angelic names I would have askedfor their help—but a little angelic knowledge is a dangerous thing 2.

P.Stras. Inv. Kopt. 550 28,5 × 18,7 cm Provenance unknownFig. 28-29 IX-Xth centuries

Recto (1)

------------------------------------[ ± 8] [ϩⲉⲛ ⲟⲩ]ϭ̣ⲏⲡ[ ± 12 ][ ± 8 ] [ⲡϭⲱϭⲱ]ⲡⲓⲧ̣ⲉ̣[ ± 10 ]ⲡ̣[ ± 8 ] [ϩⲉ]ⲛ̣ ⲟⲩϭⲏⲡ[ ± 10 ] ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲭⲏ[ ± 8 ] ⲧⲁⲟ̣ⲓⲕ : ⲕ[ ± 10 ] ⲟ̣ⲩⲣⲓ ̣

5 [ ± 3]ⲕ̣ⲁ[ ± 7 ]ⲇⲉⲁ : ⲩ̣[ ± 6 ] [ⲁ]ⲧⲟⲛⲁⲓ[ⲡⲓ]ⲱ̣ⲧ ⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ] ϩⲉⲛ ⲧⲉⲩⲙ̣[ⲉ]ϯ̣ ⲉ̣ⲕϭⲱⲗⲡ̇ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲁⲗ ⲉⲛⲡⲁⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲡ[ⲉϯ]ϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲉⲛ-

2. I remind myself constantly of Ariel Shisha-Halevy’s salutary observation that one should neverassume the fault one thinks one sees is the scribe’s fault, but far more likely to be purely a result ofthe paucity of the reader’s knowledge or their inaccuracy of identication and, thus, transcription.


6/14


É l é m e



ⲥⲱⲃ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲧⲉⲩⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲁϭⲁⲗ ⲛⲁⲧⲉⲣϩⲁϯ : ⲛⲁⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ : ⲑⲁⲣⲁ ⲯⲡⲣⲁ̣ [ ± 2]

10 ⲙⲁⲓⲑ̣ⲉ̣ⲥⲁϣ ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲣⲏⲱⲥ [ ± 2 ] ⲁ̣ⲙⲁϩ [ ± 4 ]ϩⲣⲁⲃⲁⲗⲧϯ ⲫϯ ⲓⲱⲧ ϩⲉⲛⲧⲉ̣ⲩⲙⲉϯⲥⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲉⲣⲁⲓ ⲉ[ⲛ]ⲡⲁⲟⲩ : ⲉⲓⲱϣ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲁⲕ

ϫⲱⲕ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲁ̣ⲗ̣ [ⲉ]ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲟⲗⲱⲕⲓⲁ ⲉⲛⲡⲁ-ⲗⲁⲥ [ⲉ]ⲛϩ̣ⲱ̣ⲃ̣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϯⲉϯ ⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ϩⲓⲧ̣̣ⲁ̣-

15 ⲧⲉⲩⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛⲁϭⲁⲗ : ⲛⲁⲧⲉⲣ ϩⲁϯ : ⲛⲁⲧⲫⲁⲛ-ⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϩⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲙⲓⲏ ⲙ̣ⲉⲛ̣ ⲟⲩϣⲱⲧⲉⲃⲁⲗ : ⲙⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲥⲁⲩⲧⲉⲛ : ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲡϭⲱϭⲱⲡⲓ

ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧ ϯⲉⲓⲛⲓ : ⲁⲓⲱ ⲁⲓⲱ ⲧⲁⲭⲏ ⲧⲁⲭⲏⲁⲛⲁⲣⲭ [ ± 3 ] ⲏⲭⲣⲁⲛⲱⲥ ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲅⲟⲥ

20 ⲏⲡⲁⲣϯⲗ̣[]ⲱⲑⲡ̣ⲁⲥ ⲙⲓⲛⲁⲏⲗ ⲁⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲓⲥⲁⲃⲁⲱⲑ []ⲁⲛⲁⲏⲗ ⲧⲏⲝⲟⲩ̣ⲏⲗ ⲥⲏⲫⲏⲃⲁⲛⲧⲗⲏⲗ ⲥⲁ[ ± 3 ]ⲁ̣ⲗ ⲏⲗ ⲏⲗ ⲏⲗ ⲏⲗ ⲏⲗ ⲏⲗ ⲏⲗⲙⲏ [ ± 5 ]ⲁⲧⲁⲏⲗ ⲉⲓⲉⲣϣ̣ⲉϩ ⲕⲁⲑⲓⲏⲗⲗⲁϯⲁ[± 6]ⲩⲏⲗ ⲙⲓⲥ̣[ ± 2 ] ⲥⲓⲫⲓⲏⲗ ⲣⲟ̣

25 ⲧⲁ[ ± 6 ]ⲩⲡⲏ ⲥⲁⲃⲁ[ⲱ]ⲑ ⲏⲧⲁⲩ[ ± 5 ]

[]ⲁ̣ⲓ[̣ ± 10 ] ⲁ̣ⲛⲁⲧ ⲗⲁⲗ̣ [ⲙ]ⲓⲭⲁⲏⲗ̣ [ ± 5 ] ----------------------------------------------

3. ταχύ 9. φαντασία 13. ἀπολογία 14. αἰτεῖν 16/15. φαντασία 18. ταχύ

“… speedily

… speedily … swiftly....taoik .... ouri

5 ...dea .... Atonai O Father, O God… in their midst, while you revealto me today that which I am seekingfrom you (plural) without deceit, withoutfear, without illusion : Thara Pspra

10 Maithesash MpourêôsHrabaltti O God O Father in their midstlisten to me today! Hereby I cry up to you!

Accomplish for me the invocation of mytongue in everything that I request from

15 you without deceit, without fear, withoutillusion but in truth and in decisiveness


7/14

DAVID TIBET136

É l é m e



and uprightness : may the hoopoe birdgive shape (to the things I ask for) : Verily, verily, swiftly swiftly

Anarch... ...nchranôs Pnagos20 Êpartil... ôthpas Minaêl come to me

Sabaôth Anaêl Têksouêl SephêbanTlêl Sa… al Êl Êl Êl Êl Êl Êl ÊlMê... Ataêl Eieršeh KathiêlLatia... uêl Mis... Siphiêl ro

25 ta ... upê Sabaôth êtau...ai... Anat Lal Michaêl”

1 I have not restored ϭ̣ⲏⲡ to ϭⲏⲡⲉ as there is a space where the nal ⲉ would appear. Moreover,the next letter does not at all resemble ⲉ. Nor is there evidence of a nal ⲉ in line 3 below. Crum, Dict ., 825a identies ϭⲏⲡⲉ as a Fayumic form of ϭⲉⲡⲏ. What we perhaps see here is an alternatespelling of ϭⲏⲡⲉ with loss of nal ⲉ.

2 ⲡϭⲱϭⲱⲡⲓⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧ Many thanks to Sebastian Richter for identifying the noun ϭⲱϭⲱⲡⲓⲧⲉ as theSahidic/Fayumic ⲕⲁⲕⲟⲩⲡⲁⲧ, Fayumic ⲕⲟⲩⲕ[ⲟⲩ]ⲡⲉⲧ Crum 102a. Note also ὁ κουκούφας, “hoopoe

bird”. It occurs in its full form in line 17 below. Anne Boud’hors suggested the restoration in thisline. Regarding the longer form ϭⲱϭⲱⲡⲓⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧ found here, see note to line 16 below.

4 ⲧⲁⲟ̣ⲓⲕ Perhaps another vox magica due to the bindestrich above it

5 I restore this word as ⲁⲧⲟⲛⲁⲓ i.e ⲁⲇⲟⲛⲁⲓ.

6 ϩⲉⲛⲧⲉ̣ⲩⲙ̣[ⲉ]ϯ̣ I have restored it thus as the word appears below on 11. I could make out the possible beginning of ⲙ and the nal vertical trace of ϯ as well as possibly the far left of its horizontal bar.ⲉ̣ⲕϭⲱⲗⲡ:̇ it is difcult to see whether there is a supralinear dot above the ⲡ but as it is clearly placedabove the ⲡ in the same word on lines 22 and 27 of the “verso” I have felt condent in adding it here.

8 ⲛⲁϭⲁⲗ This may be ⲛⲁⲧϭⲁⲗ, but due to the tear in the paper it is difcult to be sure. Howeverⲛⲁϭⲁⲗ does denitely appear in line 15, and both privative ⲁ- and ⲁⲧ- appear in Kopt. 550.

13 ⲁⲡⲟⲗⲱⲕⲓⲁ ἡ απολογία, “a speech in defence”, “a defence”. Literally “the apologia of my tongue”,for its translation as “invocation” see London Hay 10391 (K ROPP, Ausgewählte Zaubertexte I, p.56,

lower half) with Kropp’s translation in K ROPP, Ausgewählte Zaubertexte II, p.42 “und du vollendest

gemäß ... und allen Beschwörungen meiner Zunge”.

14 ⲉϯ i.e. αἰτέω. In ⲉϯⲉϯ we have the rst person singular relative form ⲉϯ followed by themorphologically identical Græco-Coptic verb ⲉϯ.

17-18 ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲡϭⲱϭⲱⲡⲓⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧ ϯⲉⲓⲛⲓ Evidently an Injunctive, but I could not initially identify therequired innitive after it, nor how what could be the nominalised ⲡⲉⲧϯⲉⲓⲛⲓ would work syntacti-cally in the clause. Wolf-Peter Funk sent me an ingenious solution, which is the most satisfactory

explanation that I can present for this difcult phrase. I repeat his words below. Regarding therelatively rare compound verb ϯⲉⲓⲛⲓ, he points out that it can be found in Eugnostos from NagHammadi Codex V in page 2, lines 16 and 17—ⲉⲩⲁⲧ̀ⲙⲓⲥⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉ ϥⲉⲛⲛⲁⲧ̀ϯⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲩⲁⲧ̀ϯⲉⲓⲛⲉⲇⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲡⲉ—and means “to provide form, shape”. He goes on to say that this leaves an “apparentlyredundant ⲡⲉⲧ because the word for the hoopoe seems to be complete with -ⲡⲓⲧⲉ as its ending. But


8/14


É l é m e



this is of course only a rarer variant form; Crum lists only the more common ones, which always end

in -ⲡⲁⲧ or -ⲡⲉⲧ, but there are many other hapaxes. Why not assume that the author was combining

both variants of the second part of the bird’s name, to end up with a ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲡϭⲱϭⲱⲡⲓⲧⲉ-ⲡⲉⲧ ?? Hecould have done so out of uncertainty about the correct form, or just to make sure (after his chosenversion, the more standard version?), or as a correction, or it may even be a more common combi-nation, nobody knows. In the nal result, I think the sentence may mean, ‘Let the hoopoe provideshape’ (understood: ‘to the things that I am asking for’).” On the hoopoe in Coptic magic, Jacquesvan der Vliet reminded me of the magico-alchemical recipe BKU I 26 lines 15ff. where a hoopoe(ⲕⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩⲡⲉⲧ) is somehow used to obtain possession of a diamond (ⲱⲛⲓ ⲁⲗⲙⲱⲉⲥ). A differentanalysis to be considered here is ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲡϭⲱ ϭⲱⲡⲓ ⲧⲉ-ⲡⲉⲧϯ ⲉⲓⲛⲓ: ‘May the ϭⲱ [i.e., the stay ?] seize[ϭⲱⲡⲉ, F ϭⲱⲡⲓ] and [conjunctive ⲧⲉ-) may the one who gives, bring’.

Recto (inverted) –--------------------------------[ ± 15 ]ⲱⲗⲓⲁⲙ [ ± 3 ] ⲛ̣ⲁⲩ[ ± 15 ]ⲃ̣ⲣⲥⲱⲛ ⲕⲁⲧ̣[ ± 15 ]ⲁ̣ⲱ ⲥⲁ[ⲃ]ⲁⲱⲑ [ ± 2 ]ⲗⲱⲛ[ ± 15 ]ⲑ ⲙⲓⲭ[ⲁ]ⲏⲗ ⲅ̣ⲁ̣ⲃⲣⲓⲏⲗ

5 [ ± 15 ]ⲕ̣ⲟⲩⲏⲗ ⲥⲁⲣⲁⲫⲟⲩⲏⲗ[ ± 15 ]ⲁ̣ⲡ̣ ⲓ̣ⲍ̣̣ ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲏⲟⲛ

[ ± 15 ]ⲉⲛϫ̣ [ ± 4 ] ⲉⲛ[ ± 15 ]ϯ ⲁⲩⲱ ϯⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲁⲗ-[ⲉⲓ] [ ± 13 ] ⲡⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲉⲛⲛ[ⲉ]

10 [ ± 15 ]ⲉⲛϭⲁⲙ ⲙⲉⲛⲛⲉ--------------------------------

6 .ἄρχων ? 8/9. παρακαλεῖν

... ôliam ... nau

...brsôn kat

... aô Sabaôth ...lôn

... th Michaêl Gabriêl5 ...kouêl Saraphouêl

... apiz narchêon

... and I besee-[-ch] ... the salvation of the

10 ... the powers and the ...


9/14

DAVID TIBET138

É l é m e



Verso (1)

[The rst 6 lines are very fragmentary. However there are some remnants of bindestrich on lines 1 and 2; it can be safely assumed these imply the presence of voces magicae].

---------------------------------------[ ± 8 ]ⲅⲉ[ ± 10 ][ ± 8 ]ⲥ̄ : ⲉ̣ [̄ ± 10 ][ ± 6 ] : ⲧ̄ ̣[ ± 2 ] : ⲛ̣ⲁⲓ [ ± 10 ][ ± 8 ] : ⲧ [ ± 9 ]

5 [ ± 8 ] ϯ : ⲧ [ ± 10 ] ⲡⲁ[ ± 5 ] ⲉⲧ̣[ ± 10 ]ⲉⲕ̣ ⲱ̣ [ ± 5 ] ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲛ̣ⲁⲩ ⲧⲉⲧ̣ⲉⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲣⲁ̣ⲓ [ ± 6 ] ϫⲉ ⲛⲛ̣ⲭ̣ [ ± 2 ] ⲉ̣ⲧ[ⲉⲙ]ⲙⲁⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲕⲏ ⲉϩⲣⲁ̣ⲓ ̣[][ ± 12 ] : ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛⲙⲁϩϥ ⲉ-

10 [ ± 10 ] ⲥ̣ⲁ̣ϣ̣ⲃ ⲉⲛⲥⲁⲡ : ϩⲉⲛ [ ± 3 ][ ± 7 ] ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛⲓⲱⲛ : ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲉⲣⲟⲩⲁ[ⲉⲓⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲟ] ⲉ̣ⲡⲣⲏ : ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲉⲣ̣ⲟⲩ̣ⲁ̣ⲉ̣[ⲓⲛ][ⲉϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲉ]ⲡ[ⲓⲁ]ϩ̣ ⲧⲉϥⲟⲩⲱ[ⲛ]ϩ ⲏⲃⲁⲗ ⲁ̣ [ ± 3 ]

ⲇ [ ± 4 ] ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲭⲓⲱⲛ̣ [ ± 4 ] ⲕ̣ⲱⲥⲙⲟⲥ [ ± 2 ] ⲣ̣ [ ± 4 ]15 ⲕⲁϩ ⲡⲱϣ ⲛⲡⲁⲉ[ⲙ]ⲧⲱ ⲉⲃⲁⲗ [] […]

ⲯⲓⲥ ⲡⲏϣ ϣⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲉⲛϯ̣ [ ± 5 ]ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛⲙ̣ⲟⲩϩ : ⲉⲛⲛⲉ[ ± 3 ] [ⲉⲩⲭⲁ]ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲱⲥ ⲉⲛⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓⲛ ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲍ ⲉ̣ⲛ[ⲥⲁⲡ] ⲍ ⲉ̣ⲛⲥⲁⲡ : ⲉϥϭⲱϣⲧ̇ ϩⲏⲛ ⲟⲩϭⲓⲉⲛⲑ̣ ̣ ϫ̣ⲱⲙ̣

20 ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲥ : ⲛⲁⲧϭⲁⲗ : ⲛⲁⲧϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲉⲣⲛⲁⲧⲉⲣ ϩⲁⲧⲏ : ⲛⲁⲫⲁⲛⲧ[ⲁⲥⲓ]ⲁ ⲧⲉϥ

ϭⲱⲗⲡ̇ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲃⲁⲗ ⲉⲛϩⲱⲃ [ⲛⲓⲙ] ⲉϯϣ̇ⲓⲛⲓ ⲉⲛⲥⲱⲩ : ⲉⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲁⲧ̣[ϥ : ] ⲉⲓⲧⲏ ⲛⲟⲩ̣⸌ⲃ⸍ⲉⲓⲧⲏ ϩⲁⲓϯ : ⲉⲓϯ ⲕⲱⲥⲙⲏ̣ⲥ̣[ⲓⲥ : ] ⲉⲓⲧⲏ ⲡⲛ̇ⲓ

25 [ⲓⲡⲉ : ] ⲉⲓⲧⲏ ⲃⲁⲣⲱⲧ : ⲉⲓ[ⲧⲏ] ⲧⲉϥⲛⲏ[ⲩ : ⲉⲓⲧⲏ ⲉ]ⲓⲧⲱⲥ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧ[ϩⲉⲛⲡⲕ]ⲱ̣ⲥ̣ⲙⲟⲥ[ ± 6 ] ϭⲟ̣[ⲗ]ⲡⲟ̇ⲩ ⲛⲁ[ⲓ] [ ± 6 ] ⲟⲩ---------------------------------------------------

11. οὐράνιος ? 14. ταχίων ? κόσμος 17/18 εὐχαρίστως ? 15/16 Compound of ὄψις ? 21. φαντασία

23. εἴτε 24. εἴτε (3) κόσμησις 25. εἴτε (2) 26. εἴτε εἶδος κόσμος


10/14


É l é m e



“ …(7) ... you... today and you (plural) come to me...

... that... which is laid down

... and you ll him/it ...10 ... seven times ...

... heavenly… may it shine[brighter] than the sun, may it shine[brighter] than the moon as to reveal …... without delay... world...

15 ... earth divides in my presence! [aff-]

… being divided up until the foundations … ,and you (may) ll the … grate-fully with light, seven times (by) seventimes, while he looks out in a manner of …

20 which is good, without deceit, without disturbancewithout fear, without illusion and he/itreveals to me everything which I am seekingafter from him; either gold

or garments; either adornment or ir-25 [-on]; either copper or animal-

-s; either all things which are in the world[or]... reveal them to me...”

12-13 The reconstruction of the lacunae follows a suggestion made by Jacques van der Vliet.

16 ⲡⲏϣ Notice ⲕⲁϩ ⲡⲱϣ in line 15 above. Thus ⲡⲏϣ is here likely to be the stative of ⲡⲱϣ.

19 ϩⲏⲛ ⲟⲩϭⲓⲉⲛⲑ̣ ̣ ϫ̣ⲱⲙ̣ ϩⲏⲛ ⲟⲩϭⲓⲉⲛ can condently be taken for ϩⲛ ⲟⲩϭⲓⲛ- ‘in a manner of …’due to the feminine resumptive pronoun in line 20 : ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩⲥ (although the relative referring toa indente precendent is odd). Given this assumption, what follows should be a verb, accordingto the syntactic requirements of ϭⲓⲛ-.

22-23 ⲉⲛϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϯϣ̇ⲓⲛⲓ ⲉⲛⲥⲱⲩ Compare with ⲉⲛϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϯⲉϯ ⲉⲛⲛⲁⲩ in line 14 recto.

23-26 ⲉⲓⲧⲏ and ⲉⲓϯ i.e. εἴτε

24 ⲛⲁⲧⲉⲣ ϩⲁⲧⲏ See note to Coptic text recto line 15.

ϩⲁⲓϯ: i.e. ϩⲟⲓⲧⲉ, “garments” (Crum, Dict., 720b), not ϩⲁϯ, “silver” (Crum, Dict., 713b), as I hadoriginally thought. Thanks to Wolf-Peter Funk for pointing out this.

ⲕⲱⲥⲙⲏⲥⲓⲥ: ἡ κόσμησις, “adornment”.


11/14

DAVID TIBET140

É l é m e



Verso (inverted)

1) Top left, within magical square------------------ [± 2 ]ⲁ̣ⲙ̣ⲏⲗ[ ± 2 ]ⲫ̣ⲁⲫⲁⲏⲗⲫ̣ ⲟ̣̣ⲣ̣ⲓⲏ̣ⲗⲉ̣ⲓⲅ̣̣ⲅ̣ⲏⲕⲓⲏⲗ

5 ϩⲁⲗⲁⲑⲓⲏⲗϩⲁⲛⲁⲏⲗ

“...amêl...phaphaêlPhoriêlEingêkiêl

5 HalathiêlHanaêl

2) Bottom left, surrounded by Brillenschrift

ⲑ̣ⲉϣ̣ⲙ̣ⲁ̣.ⲉⲛⲛⲓⲙ ⲩ

ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉ-ⲕⲣ̣ϯⲓⲛⲟⲩ̣

5 ϫ[ ± 5 ]ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ[ ±3 ] ⲧⲁⲗⲟ̣ⲙⲛ̣ⲓⲛⲁⲗ̣ⲓⲙⲟ̣ⲙ

“...of NN son of (NN)so thatyou do now

5 ...God...

...”

2:The sign ⲩ following ⲛⲓⲙ is the late Coptic abbreviation of ‘son of’, based on the Greek word υἱός.


12/14


É l é m e



3) Top right, within magical square

----------ⲟⲗⲁⲗⲁⲗ̣ⲱⲑϯ̣ⲉ̣ⲃ̣ⲓⲉⲛϩⲁ ⲛⲉⲟⲩⲣⲏϯⲓ ⲛⲓⲙ

“Olalaôththis wretched female (?)under the

feet of NN”

4) Just below top right, between magical squares and over Brillenschrift

ϣⲁⲩⲥⲧⲏⲥⲉϩⲏⲧⲟⲥ

“It will be written (?)……”

It is difcult to see what this could mean. Habitual third person plural acting as passive, surely.Perhaps ⲥⲧⲏⲥ incorrectly written for ⲥⲏⲧⲥ with ⲥⲏⲧ the status pronominalis ⲥⲏⲧ of ⲥϩⲁⲓ followed

by the feminine pronominal sufx -ⲥ acting for the neutral “it”? Crum 381b gives ⲥⲏⲧ⸗ as aFayumic prepronominal form of ⲥϩⲁⲓ. ⲉϩⲏⲧⲟⲥ as Greek ἡ αἴτησις, “request”, “demand” or ἡ αἰτία“responsibility”, “guilt”, “blame” “accusation” seems unlikely.

David TIBET


13/14

É l é m e



26

F i g .

2 8

: 9 . P .

S t r a s .

I n v .

K o p t . 5 5 0 r . P h o

t o e t c o l l e c t i o n s B N U

S t r a

s b o u r g


14/14

É l é m e



27

F i g .

2 9

: 9 . P .

S t r a s .

I n v .

K o p t . 5 5 0 v .

P h o t o e t c o l l e c t i o n s B N U

S t r a

s b o u r g

A Magical Request for Revelation - Coptic

Documents

Transcript of A Magical Request for Revelation - Coptic