On the Middle Egyptian Dialect of the Coptic Language*

There is a special difficulty with my topic since I am going to talk about

something of which I cannot say anything—that is to say, I cannot say
enough, nor everything, nor even the most important things. However,
since in our Colloquium we are not confined to the present state of Cop-
tology but are considering its future, trying to clear the way for it, it is
desirable to make the attempt to outline the great importance that the so-
called Middle Egyptian (or Oxyrhynchite) dialect of the Coptic language
will have. To be sure, in that area too, the future has already begun. And
something started the wrong way from the outset. Therefore it is our task
to correct some lines of thinking and procedures that have already taken
a false direction.
The term Middle Egyptian, of course, refers to the distinct variety of
Coptic dialects that P. E. Kahle discovered and so named,1 and which has
now attained a position with an identity of its own alongside the other
and earlier-known Coptic dialects. If we were to point out the distinct
character of this dialect in only a few words, we could say: In its less dis-
tinctive features it looks like Fayumic, but without showing lambdacism
and a final unstressed ⲓ. Additional unambiguous main features are the
occurrence of ⲟ, where all the other dialects have ⲱ, and the formation
of the Perfect on the conjugation base ϩⲁ-.
Two of the textual witnesses to this dialect, which were not yet availa-
ble to the public at the time of Kahle’s work, have since been edited; these
are: A parchment fragment with Genesis 6:8–18 (or 7–19, respectively)2
and a fragmentary papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, whose well estab­
lished linguistic standard displays essential features of Middle Egyptian,
while those features not typical for Middle Egyptian are accounted for by
Fayumic.3 But the current sensation concerning the witnesses to Middle

* Enchoria 8 (1978), Sonderband, 43*–58* (89–104).

I want to express my gratitude to W.-P. Funk and H. W. Attridge for their assistance in
finding a proper English shape for this paper.
1 Balaʾizah I, London 1954, 196. 220–227.
2 Cf. Balaʾizah I, 2204 = J. W. B. Barns/R. Kasser, “Le manuscrit moyen-égyptien B.M.OR.
9035,” Le Muséon 84 (1971) 395–401.
3 Cf. Balaʾizah I, 2251 = E. M. Husselman, The Gospel of John in Fayumic Coptic (P.Mich.
Inv. 3521), KMA.S 2, Ann Arbor 1962. The importance of that edition, to be sure, becomes
 on the middle egyptian dialect 425

Egyptian has been created by the fact that after the death of Kahle, there
suddenly appeared three long manuscripts written in this dialect, the
existence of which Kahle could not anticipate. On the one hand, they
completely affirmed his views, but on the other hand, because of their
value, they pushed all the material known to him to the background.
These are two completely preserved parchment codices of small size. One
of these—Ms. G 67 in possession of the Pierpont Morgan Library, New
York—contains the text of Acts 1:1–15:3, and a small portion of 4 Kings
(1:2end-3) on a front flyleaf.4 Its companion volume contains the whole
Gospel of Matthew with the addition of the angelic hymn in Greek and
Middle Egyptian. This was formerly in Schweinfurt, Germany, and has
now been acquired by the Scheide Library of Princeton, New Jersey.5 The
third manuscript is a fragmentary papyrus codex in Milan, which con-
tains the collection of the Pauline Epistles. Only this third manuscript has
already been published.6 The edition of the two others, which are even
more important because of their completeness, is still awaited. And it is
evident—at least to those who have already had the opportunity to take
a glance at them—that it is no longer or not yet possible to speak authen-
tically about Middle Egyptian without referring to these manuscripts of
Matthew and Acts. Nevertheless, the future has begun in so far as Kasser
was permitted to include the complete vocabulary and almost the com-
plete stock of conjugation elements of the two unpublished texts in his
“Compléments morphologiques au Dictionnaire de Crum” (BIFAO 64,
1966, 19–66), and thus to make them public. And from that material
many items have already reappeared in the Koptisches Handwörterbuch
by W. Westendorf (Heidelberg 1965/1977). On the other hand, H. Quecke
has used Kasser’s Middle Egyptian compilations based only on Matthew
and Acts as secondary assistance and reassurance in his excellent lingu-
istic description and analysis of the Middle Egyptian dialect primarily

really evident only in the reflecting mirror of its review by H. J. Polotsky, OLZ 59 (1964)
250–253 (= Collected Papers, Jerusalem 1971, 436–438).
4 Cf. Th. C. Petersen, “An Early Coptic Manuscript of Acts: An Unrevised Version of the
Ancient So-Called Western Text,” CBQ 26 (1964) 225–241; E. J. Epp, “Coptic Manuscript
G 67 and the Rôle of Codex Bezae as a Western Witness in Acts,” JBL 85 (1966) 197–212;
idem, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts, SNTS MS 3, Cam-
bridge 1966, esp. IX. 10f. 29f.; E. Haenchen/P. Weigandt, “The Original Text of Acts?,” NTS 14
(1967/68) 469–481.
5 Cf. B. M. Metzger, “An Early Coptic Manuscript of the Gospel According to Matthew,”
in: J. K. Elliot (ed.), Studies in New Testament Language and Text, NovT.S 44, Leiden 1976,
301–312.
6 T. Orlandi (ed.), Lettere di San Paolo in Copto-Ossirinchita, P.Mil.Copti 5, Milano 1974.
426 essays

c­ onstructed on the basis of the text of the Pauline Epistles, included in

the edition of the Milan text.7
Those studies of Kasser and Quecke on the Middle Egyptian dialect are
profitable prerequisites which we even now can use as a starting point
and foundation to explain here in some special respects and at some sin-
gle points the relevance of Middle Egyptian for future research in the field
of Coptology.8
But first of all we have to make some emphasizing and critical com-
ments on that very foundation. The most exciting aspect of Quecke’s
analysis of Middle Egyptian is his account of the vowel omicron, which
is so distinctive for Middle Egyptian. Quecke has made it probable that
this sign does not define the vowel in question as short, but as open.9
In other words, the Middle Egyptian omicron would be a phenomenon
comparable with the Fayumic lambda: it is probably only the graphic sign
that is completely different, not in the same degree the sound designated.
Quecke has also already found an explanation for the exception to the
rule, that in Middle Egyptian ⲟ is written where the other dialects have
ⲱ; it is when the o–sound occurs before a following aleph that it assumes
the form of ⲱ.10 The same principle results in the typical ⲏ at the end of
words, which, in principle, Middle Egyptian shares with Fayumic.11 And
ϣⲉ “go” is by no means an exception, contrary to Quecke’s opinion.12 This
ϣⲉ does not exist at all; the verb in question is always ϣⲏ. But with the
dativus reflexivus it becomes a compound losing its full stress and hence
is written ϣⲉⲛⲉ⸗. The alternation, depending on stress, between ⲉ and ⲁ,
which Middle Egyptian in accordance with Fayumic displays in the noun
ⲙⲉ/ⲙⲁ- “place,” and which Quecke points out with good reason,13 could be
taken into account even for some other phenomena of Middle Egyptian
that make us doubt whether the alternation in question is really connec-
ted with old ayin. In any case, the matter is obvious with the word “side”
(cf. in particular the expression ⲛ̇ⲥⲁⲟⲩⲥⲉ). Perhaps the Imperative prefix

7 Lettere di San Paolo, 87–108.

8 For permission to include at least some references and single passages of the two
unpublished codices I want to express my gratitude to Dom Paulinus Bellet, the editor of
the manuscript of Acts, and to the authorities of the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York,
as well as to Mr. William Scheide and the Scheide Library of Princeton, New Jersey.
9 Lettere di San Paolo, 87–89.
10 Lettere di San Paolo, 88.89.
11 Cf. Lettere di San Paolo, 90.
12 Lettere di San Paolo, 9025.
13 Lettere di San Paolo, 92.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 427

ⲙⲉ of the verb ϣⲉⲛⲉ⸗, which differs from the normal ⲙⲁ-, has a stress of its
own.14 The Imperfect, too, shows the same alternation; the unconjugated
converter is ⲛⲉ, while the Imperfect conjugation base has the form ⲛⲁ⸗; the
same relation is shown by the Circumstantial Imperfect introducing the
Irrealis: ⲉⲛⲛⲉ against ⲉⲛⲛⲁ⸗. Apparently there is an analogous alternation
between the vowels ⲁ and ⲟⲩ as well as ⲉ and ⲟⲩ, which seems obvious by
comparison of the Plural forms ϩⲗⲁⲓ̈ⲉ and ϩⲗⲟⲩⲓ̈ⲉ, ⲗⲉⲗⲁⲟⲩ and ⲗⲟⲩⲗⲁⲟⲩ
respectively. And in this perspective it is suggestive to regard the Middle
Egyptian ϣⲟⲩ-, which apparently has the meaning “it is necessary,” and
which Kasser, followed by Westendorf, placed within the lemma of ϣⲁⲩ
“use,” as nothing but the unstressed form of ϣϣⲉ, or Middle Egyptian
ϣϣⲏ, respectively, = (ⲥ)ϣⲟⲩ-. Cf.
2 Thess 3:7: ⲟⲩ [ⲡⲉ]ⲧⲉϣϣⲏ ⲉⲣⲟⲧⲉⲛ ⲉ[ⲧⲟⲛⲧⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲟⲧⲛ ⲉⲣⲁⲛ
1 Thess 4:1: ⲟⲩ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲏ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲩⲙ̣ⲁ̣[ϣⲉ]
In reviewing the arrangement of the Middle Egyptian linguistic material
in Kasser’s “Compléments morphologiques”—apart from some minor
objections—we have to object seriously to some of his “préfixes verbaux”
(63–66), above all to the “Imparfait II relatif ” and the “Parfait II relatif ”
(including the foregoing remark to “Parfait II”). While we can agree to the
“Futur II circonstanciel” we must object both to the “Présent II avec ⲉⲛⲉ-”
and the “Parfait I avec ⲉⲛⲉ-.” “Présent II avec ϫⲓⲛ-” looks very strange,
too. These special conjugations invented by Kasser are due to a confusion
of morphologic and syntactical perspectives. Regarding the two different
forms of the relative Perfect in Middle Egyptian, cf. H. J. Polotsky, OLZ 59
(1964), 251f. (= Coll. Pap., 437); with the Relative Imperfect the case is ana-
logous. With regard to the “Présent II” and “Parfait I avec ⲉⲛⲉ-,” I cannot
see—quite apart from the asymmetry—why it should not be possible to
take ⲉⲛⲉ- for the Circumstantial Imperfect.15

1.1
Proceeding from these preliminary notes to the subject itself I would first
like—in view of the prospective importance of Middle Egyptian—to make

14 At any rate, the explanation of Kasser (“Compléments morphologiques au diction-

naire de Crum,” BIFAO 64 [1966] 66) “pour éviter une confusion avec ⲙⲁϣⲉ <marcher>”
does not seem plausible.
15 The note 1 on page 63 remains enigmatic to me, and apparently also to Quecke (Let-
tere di San Paolo, 9897).
428 essays

some remarks on the conjugation system. The advantage of Middle Egyp-

tian within that area, an advantage which hardly can be overestimated,
lies in the fact that it is the only Coptic dialect which, by different forms
of the conjugation bases, distinguishes the Present II not only from the
Circumstantial Present I, but also from the Perfect I.16 The Middle Egyp-
tian morphological triad corresponding to the three syntactically different
functions of the three tenses, i.e.:
Circ. Pres. I Pres. II Perf. I
ⲉϥ- ⲁϥ- ϩⲁϥ-
is especially important because of the formal unambiguousness of the Pre-
sent II. The future investigation of the use of the Present II in completely
preserved Middle Egyptian texts will provide us with the possibility of
finally verifying the syntactic rules, discovered by H. J. Polotsky, to which
the second tenses are subject, and of exploring certain boundary zones of
their functioning.
Quite different are the problems and tasks raised by the Perfect I. Here
we have to put the Middle Egyptian ϩⲁϥ- in a reasonable synchronic and
diachronic arrangement with the Lycopolitan (= Subachmimic) ⲁϩϥ- and
with the ⲁϥ- of the other dialects. Regarding the designation of the Perfect
with ϩ, the term Perfect III introduced by P. Nagel17 ought to be given
up, since the usual distinction of I and II tenses does not point to merely
morphological but also syntactical differences. And the morphological
variation in the three appearances of the Perfect I, as it seems so far, has
absolutely no syntactical or semantic relevance, not even in those texts
where the Perfect with ⲁ and one of the Perfects with ϩ are found side by
side. Nevertheless, for a diachronic consideration it has to be appreciated
as a clear symptom of different roots in the older stage of the language. In
my opinion, the view is well established that both ϩⲁϥ- and ⲁϩϥ- derive
from the Demotic auxiliary verb wꜣḥ.f, which served to express the accom-
plishment of the action stated in the following infinitive,18 whereas—
according to common opinion—ⲁϥ- is the successor of the Demotic ι ҆r.f,
denoting the action itself. Accordingly, it would be legitimate to take up

16 Cf. P. E. Kahle, Balaʾizah I, 172.

17 “Grammatische Untersuchungen zu Nag Hammadi Codex II,” in: F. Altheim/R. Stiehl,
Die Araber in der Alten Welt, V,2, Berlin 1969, 444 § 44 .
18 Cf. R. Haardt, “Koptologische Miszellen,” WZKM 57 (1961) 96–97; H. J. Polotsky,
OLZ 59 (1964) 251f. (= Coll. Pap., 437).
 on the middle egyptian dialect 429

a very impressive suggestion of Polotsky19 and to consider both ϩⲁϥ- and

ⲁϩϥ- (with the original aspect of “have already done”) as the virtual posi-
tive counterpart of ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧϥ̄- (“have not yet done”). However, in reality, at
the Coptic stage of the language, aspectual difference between the two
Perfect constructions has been completely lost, and the different forms
have become simple variants. Either one group of dialects has standar-
dized one form and the other group the other form, or in a certain dialect
or text they are used promiscuously. That the special aspect of ϩⲁϥ-/ⲁϩϥ-
has disappeared so completely is perhaps not too surprising if we consi-
der that even its negative counterpart hardly exists as such. It is only the
Circumstantial of ⲙ̄ⲡⲁⲧϥ̄- that remained alive, since the language needed
it, by all means, to denote a special relation between two events.

1.2
Middle Egyptian as a new means of perceiving Coptic syntax not only
brings new evidence, but it also discloses new problems or makes already
existing problems actually known. One of these problems, the know-
ledge of which results directly from the unambiguousness of distinction
between Present II and Circumstantial Present I in Middle Egyptian, is
the following: The Sahidic epistolary prescript that connects the naming
of the sender (in the nominative) with the statement of the addressee (in
the dative) by the verb ⲥϩⲁⲓ, in principle, has the two forms:20
ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϥⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲛⲛⲓⲙ
ⲛⲓⲙ (ⲡ)ⲉⲧⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲛⲛⲓⲙ
This could seem to suggest taking the ambiguous Sahidic ⲉϥⲥϩⲁⲓ21 for
Present II, since a finite verb seemed to be indispensable. And this
interpretation could seem to be supported by the apparent interchange-
ability of ⲉϥⲥϩⲁⲓ with the Cleft Sentence.22 Now, in the Middle Egyptian

19 “The Coptic Conjugation System,” Orientalia 29 (1960) 3931 (= Coll. Pap., 2391); cf. also
P. Nagel, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des subachmimischen Dialekts, Leipzig 1964, 179.
20 Cf. P. E. Kahle, Balaʾizah, 183–186. There is also in Sahidic the form without verb ⲛⲓⲙ
ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ (e.g. NHC III p. 70,1f.: ⲉⲩⲅⲛⲱⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲛⲉ ϫⲉ ⲣⲁϣⲉ), which in
Bohairic—at least in the translation of the epistolary prescript of the biblical letters—is
obligatory.
21 The Bohairic, where Present II and Circumstantial Present I would differ, cannot
function as means of control, because, as just mentioned before (note 20), it does not use
a verb at all in the epistolary prescript.
22 Cf. e.g. D. Kirchner, Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha. Die erste Schrift aus Nag-Hammadi-
Codex I (Codex Jung) neu herausgegeben und kommentiert, Berlin 1977, 104f.
430 essays

collection of the Pauline Epistles, where in accordance with the Sahidic

New Testament, the form with the conjugated verb between sender and
addressee has been chosen in the epistolary prescript, the conjugation
of the verb ⲥϩⲉⲓ has been preserved in three instances: ⲉϥ- (Eph 1:1) and
ⲉⲩ- (2 Thess 1:1; Col 1:2). Consequently, these forms are Circumstan-
tial Present I. By the way, this realization was already possible without
the Middle Egyptian evidence, e.g. by means of the Achmimic material
(cf. the prescript of 1 Cl [A], and, as I was told, the fact is well known in
the school of H. J. Polotsky. Nevertheless, the fact is surprising. And how
it can be understood is another question, which cannot fully be answered
here. Perhaps the main verb has to be supplemented in a certain analogy
to the Greek model that is itself elliptic, e.g. “N.N. writing to N.N. (says:).”

1.3
I believe the most exciting item of the conjugation bases disclosed by
R. Kasser in his “Compléments morphologiques” on pages 63–66 is the
“Conditionnel (ou conditionnel primitif )” (p. 66). As a matter of fact, in
Middle Egyptian there exists a (affirmative) Conditional without ϣⲁⲛ,
the possibility and background of which Kasser had already dealt with
in his paper “A propos des différentes formes du conditionnel copte” (Le
Muséon 76, 1963, 267–270). This is a form which looks like Present II, but
which is syntactically subject to the rules governing the clause conjuga-
tions of the tripartite pattern. Especially obvious is its appearance as the
base of the auxiliary verb ⲉⲓ within a certain periphrastic construction,23
in consequence of the syntactical equivalence of the following four types
of construction:
ⲁϥ—–ⲉⲓ ⲉϥ(ⲛⲉ)-
ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ ⲁϥ—–ⲉⲓ ⲉϥ(ⲛⲉ)-
ⲁϥϣⲁⲛⲉⲓ ⲉϥ ⲛⲉ -
ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲁϥϣⲁⲛⲉⲓ ⲉϥ -
By the way, this special form of the Conditional in this special use pro-
vides the explanation of the first (and also perhaps of the third) of those
apparently irregular phraseological constructions recorded by Polotsky, in

23 With regard to the general phenomenon of the periphrastic construction with ⲉⲓ cf.
e.g. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 70a 4 from below; W. Till, Koptische Grammatik, Leipzig
21961, §333.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 431

which ⲉⲓ appears in the Sahidic Bible.24 That is to say, the Sahidic ⲉϥⲉⲓ is
not at all Circumstantial Present I but a pure Conditional.
In Middle Egyptian, this sort of Conditional is also in use—and in an
unambiguous manner—outside the construction with ⲉⲓ; cf.
ⲁ̇ⲣⲉ ϩⲓ ϫⲉⲥ “if anyone says” (Matt 24:23);
ⲁ̇ⲣⲉ ⲡⲓϩⲉⲗ ⲇⲉ ⲉ̇ⲑⲁⲩ ϫⲁⲥ “but if that evil servant says” (Matt 24:48);
ⲁⲩⲛⲉϣ “if they were able to” (Matt 24:24).
And perhaps the pure Conditional occurs also after ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ, if besides the
types
ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ ⲁϥϣⲁⲛ-
ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ ⲁϥⲧⲙ-
sometimes the type ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ ⲁϥ- is found; cf.
ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ . . . ⲁ̇ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲙⲉⲣⲣⲉ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲏⲓ̈ⲉ̇ ⲙ̇ⲙⲟⲧⲛ ⲙ̇ⲙⲉⲧⲉ (Matt 5:46);
ⲉ̇ϣⲟⲡⲉ ⲁ̇—–ⲧⲛⲁ̇ⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ ⲛ̇ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲁ̇ⲉⲩ (Matt 5:47).
Moreover, in the first instance our explanation is suggested by the direct
connection of the object. And in the other dialects, accordingly, it may be
possible to interpret an apparent Present II after ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ and its dialecti-
cal variants and equivalents as a pure Conditional, if the interpretation
of the form in question can be excluded as Circumstantial, which besides
many other constructions after ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ is also possible.

1.4
Far-reaching consequences for Coptic grammar are also to be found, in
my opinion, in the form ⲉⲧⲥⲉ(ⲛⲉ)- of the 3rd pl. of the Relative Present
I (and Future I) with which the Middle Egyptian dialect has surprisingly
confronted us.25 To be sure, in the Middle Egyptian texts there also occurs
ⲉⲧⲟⲩ(ⲛⲉ)-, but the relations of quantity and distribution make it clear
that only ⲉⲧⲥⲉ(ⲛⲉ)- represents the Middle Egyptian standard. Our ⲉⲧⲥⲉ-
dissolves the framework of the traditional views with the same force as
did, on the opposite side, the 1st sg. ⲉⲧⲉⲉⲓ-/ⲉⲧⲉⲓ̈- in Pap. Bodmer VI Pro
4,2; 6,3; 7,15 and NHC V p. 49,20.26 This lets us thoroughly rethink once

24 “Conjugation System,” 397 Obs. 1 (= Coll. Pap., 243); cf. also OLZ 52 (1957) 229 (= Coll.
Pap., 231).
25 Cf. R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 63; H. Quecke, Lettere di San Paolo, 104f with note 171.
26 Cf. for the latter W.-P. Funk, Die zweite Apokalypse des Jakobus aus Nag-Hammadi-
Codex V, TU 119, Berlin 1976, 56–58.
432 essays

again the whole question of the morphology and the origin of the forms
of the Relative Present I.27 It even looks as if the Coptic language still had
the ability to form the Relative Present in two different ways: on the one
hand by directly connecting the Present I with the relative particle ⲉⲧ, on
the other hand by connection with the particle ⲉⲧ after the Present I has
been transformed by a converter, which in its external shape is identical
with the Circumstantial converter, with the result of the following two
paradigms:
ⲉ(ⲧ) – ϯ ⲉⲧ - ⲉ
ⲉ(ⲧ) – ⲕ ⲉⲧ - ⲉⲕ
ⲉ(ⲧ) – ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧ - ⲉⲣⲉ
ⲉⲧ–ϥ ⲉⲧ - ⲉϥ
ⲉⲧ–ⲥ ⲉⲧ - ⲉⲥ
ⲉ(ⲧ) – ⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲧ - ⲉⲛ
ⲉ(ⲧ) - ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲧ - (ⲉⲧ)ⲉⲧ
ⲉ ⲧ - ⲥⲉ
and
ⲉ ⲧ - ⲟⲩ ⲉⲧ - ⲉⲩ
ⲉⲧ<ⲉ> + nomen ⲉⲧ - ⲉⲣⲉ + nomen
Thus the two Coptic paradigms correspond to and may have origina-
ted in the two New Egyptian or Demotic types of the Relative Present,
respectively:
ntj tw·j ntj ι ҆w·j
ntj tw·k ntj ι ҆w·k
etc. etc.
On that view, in the paradigm of the Present I between the New Egyp-
tian and the Coptic stage of language, an analogical formation for the 3rd
persons could or should be supposed28—in the Singular for the relative
forms as well as for the normal forms. Thus the third person forms would
correspond completely to the other forms:
(ntj) tw·f (ntj) tw·s ntj tw·w.

27 The present state of thinking is nearly marked by the alternative positions of

W. Till (Achmimisch-koptische Grammatik, Leipzig 1928, §239f. Bem.; Kopt Gramm § 470) and
H. J. Polotsky (“Conjugation System,” 399 § 12 Obs. [= Coll. Pap., 245); cf. also A. I. Elanskaja,
Proischoždenie nastojaščego vremeni opredelitel’nogo predloženija i sistema upotreblenija
form otnositel’nogo mestoimenija ⲉⲧ (ntj) i ⲉⲧⲉ (ntj ỉw) v koptskom jazyke, Istorija, èkono-
mika i kul’tura 3, Akademija nauk SSSR, 1961, 170–178.
28 Which for the 3rd sg.m. of Present I is obvious; cf. A. Erman, Neuaegyptische Gram-
matik, Leipzig 21933, § 478.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 433

This last form, however, (as our ⲉⲧⲥⲉ- against ⲉⲧⲟⲩ- displays) did not suc-
ceed in all dialects. That neither of the two Coptic possibilities has been put
into practice to the same degree or in a pure form, is another matter.

1.5
Regarding the relation between the possibilities of language and the part
of it that is really put into practice, it is of considerable interest to answer
the question whether there are any satellites of the affirmative and nega-
tive Energetic Future in Middle Egyptian and, if so, which ones there are.
It is especially interesting if we keep in mind the system of the conjuga-
tion bases and their satellites established by Polotsky,29 and consider the
differences between Sahidic and Bohairic regarding the use of this tense.
In Middle Egyptian, the relative forms are quite usual, not only with the
negative basis (type: ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ ⲛ̇ⲛⲉϥ-), but also with its positive counterpart
(type: ⲉ̇ⲧⲉϥⲉ-).30 We can take Rom 14:22b as an illustration:
ⲛⲁ[ⲉⲓⲉ̇ⲧϥ ⲙ̇ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛ]ϥⲛⲉⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ [ⲙ̇ⲙⲁϥ ⲉⲛ ϩⲙ ⲡⲉⲧ]ⲉϥⲉⲥⲁⲧⲡϥ
(cf. S ⲛⲁⲓ̈ⲁⲧϥ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ϥⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ ⲁⲛ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲧϥ̄ⲇⲟⲕⲓⲙⲁⲍⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ)
Also the Circumstantial of the Negative Energetic Future occurs, as it
seems, yet only twice and not even after ϫⲉⲕⲉⲥ, but as a virtual relative
clause; cf. the form quoted by Kasser (“Compl. morph.,” 65) with the Sahi-
dic parallel (Matt 16:28), which brings further support for the interpreta-
tion of the form in question as Circumstantial:
M ⲟⲩⲛ̇ ϩⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲉ ⲛ̇ⲛⲉⲧⲟϩⲉⲣⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲙ̇ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲙⲉ ⲛⲉⲓ̈ ⲉⲛⲛⲉⲩϫⲓ ϯⲡⲉ ⲙ̇ⲡⲙⲟⲩ
S ⲟⲩⲛ̄ ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲓⲙⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲛⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲓ ϯⲡⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ
The question of whether we can infer also the existence of the Circum­
stantial of the Affirmative Energetic Future in Middle Egyptian still
requires a thorough grammatical investigation, since the form in question
would not differ in its shape from the basic one.

1.6
With regard to the Middle Egyptian Perfect II, two different forms are
found in our texts. In the Gospel of John31 and in the Pauline Epistles,32 the

29 “Conjugation System,” 400f § 18 (= Coll. Pap., 246f.).

30 Cf. R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 65; H. Quecke, Lettere di San Paolo, 106f.
31 7:42(?); 8:41; 9:15,39; 12:47; 13:29; cf. H. J. Polotsky, OLZ 59 (1964) 252 (= Coll. Pap., 437).
32 1 Thess 2:3: ⲡⲉ[ⲛ]ϯⲧⲟⲕ [ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲛ]ⲁϩⲁϥϣⲟⲡ̣[ⲉ] ⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲁ[ⲗ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲡⲗⲁ]ⲛⲏ; Col 1:16 (2x).
434 essays

Perfect II reads ⲁ̇ϩⲁ- and differs even in its form from the Circumstantial
Perfect I appearing as ⲉ̇ϩⲁ-, while in Matthew and Acts both the Perfect II
and the Circumstantial Perfect I are ⲉ̇ϩⲁ-. Therefore only the syntactical
structure of the sentence can indicate which of the two forms we have in
each case. And the state of affairs is not always as unambiguous as in the
case of negation by ⲉⲛ, which clearly indicates the second tense. Regar-
ding those two forms, of course, the question arises which of them might
be the genuine and typical Middle Egyptian one. But in this connection it
is also advisable to ask if it is legitimate at all to pose that question. I con-
sider the question legitimate and even answerable. Polotsky already saw
the form ⲁ̇ϩⲁ- in the light of the characteristic Fayumic Perfect II ⲁⲁ-;33
and it seems to me as if the form ⲁ̇ϩⲁ- was a result of Fayumic influence
on Middle Egyptian. This influence is basic and essential for the dialect of
the Gospel of John; and now there is some evidence suggesting the Middle
Egyptian of the Pauline Epistles to be a little nearer to Fayumic than the
Middle Egyptian of Matthew and Acts.34 That means, when we change the
perspective, it is the form ⲉ̇ϩⲁ- which we have to recognize as the typical
Middle Egyptian Perfect II.
By the way, there is a similar pair of alternative forms for the Aorist II,
i.e. ⲛ̇ϣⲁ- and ⲉ̇ϣⲁ-,35 which points in exactly the same direction due to
the typically Fayumic Aorist II ⲛϣⲁ-.36

The next general point of view under which, in connection with conside-
rations of the conjugation system just made, we want to review further
characteristics of Middle Egyptian, is the position of Middle Egyptian
within the system of the Coptic dialects. This issue was already of deci­
sive importance for the discovery of this new dialect by P. E. Kahle, insofar
as for him it was the connecting link missing so far between Lycopolitan
and Fayumic. And that aspect is of permanent value, even if we refrain,
as we should, from seeing the location of dialects in the linguistic scheme
in direct correlation with the actual geographic location of dialects. Now

33 OLZ 59 (1964) 252 (= Coll. Pap., 437); for the Fayumic Perfect II itself (cf. H. J. Polotsky,
“Deux verbes auxiliaires méconnus du copte,” GLECS 3 (1937) 1–3 (= Coll. Pap., 99–101);
Études de syntaxe copte, Le Caire 1944, 21 (= Coll. Pap., 125).
34 Cf. e.g. H. Quecke, Lettere di San Paolo, 93 with note 53.
35 Cf. H. Quecke, Lettere di San Paolo, 106.
36 Cf. H. J. Polotsky, Études de syntaxe copte, 21 (= Coll. Pap., 125).
 on the middle egyptian dialect 435

it is striking that on one side, i.e. between Middle Egyptian and Fayumic,
Kahle was able to present a mediating link, the so-called Middle Egyp-
tian with Fayumic influence, or, as others prefer to call it, Fayumic with
Middle Egyptian influence, but not on the other side where Lycopolitan
is the neighbor. Therefore it is tempting to follow up just such elements
of Middle Egyptian by which it is connected with that side.
We do so by means of three phenomena of quite different nature, which
nevertheless seem important themselves, i.e. the conjugation basis ϩⲁ-, to
which we return here once more for the sake of another perspective, the
relative particle ⲉⲣ- and the noun ⲙⲏⲧ. And we do so, by simultaneously
at least raising the general question whether and under what circumstan-
ces such connections can be regarded as evidence for the assumption that
one dialect has influenced the other.

2.1
The conjugation base of Perfect I in the form of ϩⲁ- can be traced back to
the Old Coptic text of the Paris magic papyrus37 and can be found as an
intrusion also in a limited number of older or younger Fayumic, Lycopoli-
tan, Achmimic and Sahidic texts in the vicinity of Middle Egyptian.38 The
relations, especially the proportions of quantity and distribution, are so
evident here that it is impossible to doubt Kahle’s judgment who regarded
them as due to Middle Egyptian influence. But even in the case of such an
evident state of affairs, I believe it is necessary to concede that such influ-
ence, such encroachment, such coloring of one dialect by another seems
possible only if the second dialect could, in principle, have generated the
respective (alien) forms by itself. That means, influence of that kind (re-)
activates what is possible but unusual (or no longer usual); a horizontal
co-ordinate runs into a vertical one here.
Just in the immediate vicinity of Middle Egyptian, in the area of the vari-
eties of Lycopolitan, the situation is indeed intricate or at least not lucid,
owing to the fact that the textual basis has considerably broadened since
Kahle wrote. Especially important here are the Nag Hammadi texts, i.e. the
whole of Codex I (Pr. Paul, Ap. Jas., Gos. Truth, Treat. Res., Tri. Trac.), Codex
X (Marsanes) and the first two tractates of Codex XI (Interp. Know., Val.

37 Cf. R. Haardt, WZKM 57 (1961) 96–97. But the opinion that it also appears in the Old
Coptic text from Oxyrhynchus is based on a mistake; cf. now J. Osing, Der spätägyptische
Papyrus BM 10808, ÄgA 33, Wiesbaden 1976, 77. 119.
38 Cf. P. E. Kahle, Balaʾizah I, 171–175. 230.
436 essays

Exp. + On Bap. A B C, and On Euch. A B). At any rate, in the whole field of
Lycopolitan there are three paradigms of Perfect I in use,39 i.e.:
ⲁ + nomen ⲁϩ-ⲁ + nomen ϩⲁ + nomen
ⲁ⸗ϥ etc., and ⲁϩ⸗ϥ etc., but ϩⲁ⸗ϥ etc., and
ⲁ⸗ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲁϩ-ⲁ⸗ⲧⲉⲧ ϩⲁ⸗ⲧⲉⲧ
At any rate, in regard to the prenominal form and the base with the heavy
suffix ⲧⲉⲧ , I have gained the impression that ⲁϩⲁ- (unlike the mere ϩⲁ-)
just belongs to the paradigm ⲁϩ⸗.
The distribution of those paradigms or their elements, respectively, in
the single texts, and the relationship of texts with different distributions,
certainly requires future research and linguistically relevant specifications
of the kind D. Kirchner has just worked out for the Apocryphon of James.40
But there can hardly be any doubt that the paradigm ⲁϩ⸗ is the one typi-
cal of Lycopolitan. And it seems likely that the forms with ϩⲁ⸗ should be
regarded as a Middle Egyptian import, while the Lycopolitan prenominal
form and the base with the suffix ⲧⲉⲧ , because of their resemblance to
their Middle Egyptian equivalents, are especially exposed to becoming
really transformed into Middle Egyptian, that is, to losing the initial ⲁ.
But the phenomenon of essential interest in thinking over the supposed
process of Middle Egyptian influence on Lycopolitan is that here it is not
the case that dead things are restored to life, but that the Middle Egyptian
forms come across such forms which are linguistically genuine variants of
their own, which they then duplicate or supersede.

2.2
The relative particle ⲉⲣ-, which in diachronic perspective is nothing but
the Coptic form of the current Demotic active participle of Perfect ι ҆.ι ҆r
deriving from ι ҆rj (ⲉⲓⲣⲉ),41 is found scattered in an increasing number of
relatively old (mostly Sahidic) texts. Cf. beyond the material collected
by Haardt e.g. Deut 4:42 (Pap. Bodmer XVIII); Gos. Eg. NHC III p. 69,9f.;
Dial. Sav. NHC III p. 133,10f.; Paraph. Shem NHC VII p. 1,2.11; 6,6.27.29; 7,21;
8,21; 10,20; 12,11; 13,2; 14,26; 16,6.7.13; 20,31; 21,29.32; 22,14.21; 24,14.28; 25,19;
26,7.26.32; 27,13.20; 30,9; 33,5.7<.31>; 34,2; 36,2; 40,8.9.15.

39 Cf. P. Nagel, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des subachmimischen Dialekts, 179.

40 Cf. Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha, Berlin 1977, 94f.
41 Cf. K. Sethe, “Die relativischen Partizipialumschreibungen des Demotischen und
ihre Überreste im Koptischen in zwei Ausdrücken der hellenistischen Mysteriensprache,”
NGWG 1919, 145–158; R. Haardt, WZKM 57 (1961) 90–96.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 437

And quite a number of these examples can no longer be called archa-

isms.42 It would seem advisable to admit a living use of the particle ⲉⲣ-
wherever it occurs not only in stereotyped expressions,43 but also in such
a flexible construction as the Cleft Sentence (both without and with
reduction);44 cf.
John 15:16 (B)45: ⲛⲑⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲥⲱⲧⲡ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲁⲓⲥⲉⲧⲡ ⲑⲏⲛⲟⲩ
John 15:16 (L): ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲛ ⲡ[ⲉⲣ]ⲥ̣[ⲁⲧⲡⲧ] ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲁⲛⲁⲕ ⲡⲉⲣⲥ̣[ⲁⲧⲛ ⲧⲏⲛ]
When this ⲉⲣ- is found in a living use of that kind, we cannot but regard
it—in synchronic view—as a real relative pronoun of the Perfect (the Per-
fect equivalent of the Present ⲉⲧ).
Within the well-known texts, the most extensive and various use of our
particle ⲉⲣ- is found in the Lycopolitan Gospel of John. It occurs 16 times
in the following modes of application:
Cleft Sentence [5,36; 6,32.70; 15,16 2x; 17,21.25; 18,34; 19,21];
reduced Cleft Sentence [17,8; 18,26; 20,15];
attributive Relative Clause i.e., without article [5,37; 6,44];
appositional Relative Clause i.e., with repeated article or demonstrative
[4,12];
substantive Relative Clause [7,28].
Thus, in former times one could get the impression that the sporadic ⲉⲣ- in
other dialects was due to Lycopolitan influence. In the meantime Middle
Egyptian has become a serious rival of Lycopolitan as the source of our ⲉⲣ-.
It is not attested, to be sure, in the Pauline Epistles nor in the Gospel of
John—which could be due to a common Fayumic “barrier” for this element
in both texts. But it is indeed abundant in Matthew (34 times) and in Acts
(18 times).46 In these texts it looks entirely normal, appearing in all the
five syntactic possibilities known from the Lycopolitan Gospel of John. But
unlike the pure ⲉⲧ in the Present, it is not obligatory whenever the subject
of the relative clause and the antecedent are identical, but in principle
it appears freely exchangeable with (ⲡ)ⲉⲑⲁϥ- or (ⲛ)ⲉⲑⲁⲩ-, respectively
(nevertheless the actual distribution has yet to be investigated).

42 Cf. e.g. W. Vycichl, OLZ 59 (1964) 547.

43 As in Pistis Sophia and e.g. ⲡⲉⲣϩⲱⲧⲃ “the murderer” P. Bodmer 18 Deu 4,42.
44 Regarding that type of sentences cf. H. J. Polotsky, “Nominalsatz und Cleft Sentence
im Koptischen,” Orientalia 31 (1962) 413–430 (= Coll. Pap., 418–435).
45 P. Bodmer 3.
46 Cf. W. Till/H.-M. Schenke, Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinen-
sis 8502, TU 60, Berlin 21972, 335f.; R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 64 (under “Parfait I relatif ”).
438 essays

Considering all the details (above all, the relations of quantity and the
impression that ⲉⲣ- is typical in Middle Egyptian, whereas it looks excep­
tional in Lycopolitan, the more so as Lycopolitan disposes with ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϩ- by
an equivalent of its own) it is my opinion that we should take it as prob­
able that our ⲉⲣ- as a vital element of language might be a characteristic
only of Middle Egyptian, whereas its appearance in other dialects could
essentially be explained as a re-vivification or a re-activation under its
influence of an old or principal possibility.

2.3
Another interesting connection between Middle Egyptian and Lycopolitan,
which is perhaps not of the same order but in fact unique, and to which
already Kahle had assigned a considerable importance,47 is the noun ⲙⲏⲧ,
which probably has the same linguistic root as ⲙ̇ⲧⲁ (M) / ⲙ̄ⲧⲟ (L). It occurs
in Middle Egyptian (Matthew, Acts [not Pauline Epistles and John]) within
the expression ⲙ̇ⲡⲙⲏⲧ ⲉ̇ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ- / ⲙ̇ⲡⲉ⸗ ⲙⲏⲧ ⲉ̇ⲃⲁⲗ frequently beside and
with the same function and meaning as ⲙ̇ⲡⲉⲙⲧⲁ ⲉ̇ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ- / ⲙ̇ⲡⲉ⸗ ⲙ̇ⲧⲁ
ⲉ̇ⲃⲁⲗ. Cf. as illustration the two old examples of B.M.Or. 9035:
Gen 6:8: ⲛⲱ̣ⲉ ⲇⲉ [ϩⲁϥ]ϭ̣ⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲟⲩ[ϩⲙ]ⲁ̣ⲧ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲏⲧ [ⲉⲃ]ⲁ̣ⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ
Gen 6:11: [ϩⲁ] ⲡ̣ⲕⲉϩⲉ ⲇⲉ [ⲧⲁ]ⲕⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲏⲧ [ⲉⲃ]ⲁ̣[ⲗ] ⲙ̣ⲡ̣[ⲛϯ]
And just this co-existence has also been found in the Lycopolitan,
Manichaica:
ⲙ̄ⲡⲙ̄ⲧⲟ (ⲁⲃⲁⲗ) ⲛ̄- / ⲙ̄ⲡ⸗ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ
ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲏⲧ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̄- / ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ⸗ ⲙⲏⲧ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ
(ⲙⲏⲧ in another construction appears only in Ps.B. 196,9; cf. the indices of
the editions of Psalm Book and Homilies).
Regarding the relevance of this connection it seems important that again
Middle Egyptian is linked up only with one distinct type of Lycopolitan.
It is striking and carries great weight that all three elements we have
considered here (ϩⲁ-, ⲉⲣ-, ⲙⲏⲧ), which in Middle Egyptian belong
together, are found somewhere in Lycopolitan, but each one in a diffe-
rent body of texts:
M ϩⲁ- ⲉⲣ- ⲙⲏⲧ

L AP/NH John Mani

47 Balaʾizah I, 216. 222.

 on the middle egyptian dialect 439

By the way, how Westendorf came to claim the word ⲙⲏⲧ as a plural of
ⲙⲧⲟ (Handwb. 103. 104) is a complete mystery to me. Perhaps he under-
stood Kasser’s notation that way,48 and perhaps even Kasser meant just
that. At any rate, this interpretation is without foundation or reason.

2.4
On the general issue of the position of Middle Egyptian within the sys-
tem of Coptic dialects, finally attention should be given once again to the
relationship between Middle Egyptian and Fayumic, and some comments
need to be made on a striking phenomenon which exhibits this relation-
ship most distinctly. What is meant is the contracted writing of the word
“god” as a nomen sacrum. The contraction concerns first of all the deter-
mined form of the noun and usually has, as we know, the appearance
of ⲡⲛ̄ϯ̄̅̅; with possessive article ⲡⲉ⸗ ⲛ̄ϯ̄̅̅ (cf. e.g. ⲡⲉⲛⲛ̄ϯ̄̅̅ 1 Thess 3:9 and
2 Thess 1:11.12; ⲡⲉⲩⲛ̄ϯ̄̅ Phil 3:19); plural ⲛ̇ⲛ̄ϯ̄̅̅ “the gods” (Acts 14:11). Further,
since in the normal case of the simple determined singular the whole
expression was perceived as a unit, the scribes could also write ⲛ̄ϯ̄̅ (cf. the
Bohairic contraction ⲫ̄ϯ̅̅). The contraction in the more usual form, where
the article is felt as something outside the nomen sacrum, is also used in
the case where the word “god” is not determined, either in attributive use
(ⲟⲩϩⲣⲁⲩ ⲛ̇ⲛ̄ϯ̄̅̅ Acts 12:22; cf. 1 Cor 8:5 [?]), or in compounds (Eph 2:12 [?]),
or when no article is used (in the negative existential sentence: 1 Cor 8:4;
4 Kings 1:3), or after the indefinite article (1 Cor 8:6 [?]; 2 Thess 2:4: ⲛⲑⲏ
ⲛ̇ⲟⲩⲛ̄ϯ̄̅). Obviously the basis of this contraction is the Fayumic shape of
the word for “god”, i.e. (ⲡ)ⲛⲟⲩϯ.
But now we must not conclude or presuppose, that, accordingly, also
the word for “god” was spelled (ⲡ)ⲛⲟⲩϯ in Middle Egyptian.49 For, where
the word is not contracted but written in full—which is twice the case—
it reads as it should according to the phonological structure of Middle
Egyptian, i.e. ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.50 That means, it is only for writing the word for “god”
(understood as a nomen sacrum) that Middle Egyptian borrows directly
from Fayumic and takes over the contraction of the word concerned, or
the word itself for contraction, respectively, from the neighboring dialect.

48 Cf. Compléments au Dictionnaire Copte de Crum, Le Caire 1964, 31a under ⲙⲧⲟ.
49 In the literature, even in the work of Kahle, there are found more or less obscure
remarks on our subject implying or asserting just that; cf. Balaʾizah I, 221f.; B. M. Metzger,
An Early Coptic Manuscript, 306; H. Quecke, Lettere di San Paolo, 91 with note 40.
50 Cf. Till/Schenke, Die gnostischen Schriften, 21972, 341 (Acts 2:11: ⲉⲩϫⲱ ⲛ̇ⲛ̇ⲙⲛⲧⲛⲁϭ
ⲙ̇ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 7:40: ⲙⲁⲧⲁⲙⲙⲓⲁ̇ ⲛⲉⲛ ⲛ̇ϩⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ).
440 essays

This is especially curious insofar as Fayumic does not at all make use of
that (possible) contraction of its own word (or does not know it at all) but
instead takes over in its turn from Bohairic the contraction of the Bohairic
word ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ, i.e. ⲫ̄ϯ̅̅̅. The reason for this should be sought, but it is impos-
sible, for the time being, to give an answer.51 By the way, this characteristic
of Middle Egyptian at times had an impact even beyond the border of the
area where Middle Egyptian was spoken, as is shown by the Sahidic Pap.
Ber. 8502, and this characteristic also caused some confusion there.52

In the following part, some further important and already transmittable points
that cannot be grouped under a common head are still to be discussed.
In Middle Egyptian there occurs very often a form ⲛⲉϣ, which in
each case has its place between the conjugation base and the infinitive;
cf. e.g.
Hos 2:10: (ⲛ)ⲛⲉ ϩⲓ ⲛⲉϣ-ⲛⲉϩⲙⲥ53
1 Thess 3:1: ⲉ̇ⲧⲃⲉ ⲡ[ⲉⲓ ϭⲏ ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲛ-ⲛⲉϣ-ⲁⲩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ
(cf. S: ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ϭⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ̄––ⲉϣ-ϭⲱ)
And about that ⲛⲉϣ, wrong teachings have already been circulated.54 On
the background of the relevant lemma in Crum’s Dictionary (541b) and
a statement by Till55 it is taken for an expression meaning “be unable”;
and the fact that it is not only used after negative conjugation bases (Neg.
Energ. Fut.; Neg. Aor.; Neg. Perf. I; negated Conj.), but also after positive
ones (Fut. I; Circ. Fut. I; Fut. II; Impf.; pure Conditional) and apparently
with the positive meaning of “be able”, seems to be reflected, though
somewhat inadequately, in Kasser’s statement that ⲛⲉϣ would follow
a “préfixe verbal exprimant la négation, la doute (condition irréalisée),
l’interrogation appelant une négation, ou l’interrogation ordinaire.”56

51 Cf. H. J. Polotsky, “Zur Neugestaltung der koptischen Grammatik,” OLZ 54 (1959) 4531
(= Coll. Pap., 234).
52 Cf. Till/Schenke, Die gnostischen Schriften, 21972, 323–325. 341.
53 JEA 11 (1925) 244; Crum, Dict., 227b under ⲛⲓⲛⲉ (divided differently; cf. the grotesque
notation of ϩⲓⲛⲉ “nothing,” “nobody” in W. Westendorf, Handwörterbuch, 377).
54 Cf. R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 49a (under ϣ); W. Westendorf, Handwörterbuch, 299;
H. Quecke, Lettere di San Paolo, 107.
55 Die gnostischen Schriften, 22f.
56 “Compl. morph.,” 49a. That all this is not true is most obviously shown by Matt 20:22
(ⲧⲛⲛⲉⲛⲉϣ “we can”), since that, on no account, fits Kasser’s scheme.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 441

In fact, the Middle Egyptian use of ⲛⲉϣ at last brings light into the
hitherto obscure and confused annotations (of Crum and Till). Under
the head of ⲛⲉϣ, two quite different things were thrown together, which
nevertheless have indeed two aspects in common, i.e. the auxiliary verb
ϣ “be able,” and the tendency to express the logical future implicit in “be
able” by the grammatical category of Future.57
The first ⲛⲉϣ (including our Middle Egyptian one) follows a conjuga-
tion and is positive in meaning (“be able”), dialectically not neutral (only
in Middle Egyptian and Fayumic it is spelled ⲛⲉϣ; in the other dialects
it would read ⲛⲁϣ) and has in front of ϣ the same element that also or
otherwise, respectively, forms the Future I.
The other ⲛⲉϣ, which in its derived form precedes (or seems to pre-
cede) a conjugation, is negative in meaning (“be unable”), dialectically
neutral and in principle nothing but a combination of the Neg. Energ. Fut.
and ϣ.58 This second ⲛⲉϣ appears in two forms:

a. The first form, strictly speaking, is completely without real problems,

the more so as the Neg. Energ. Fut. without initial ⲛ̄ is not at all rare.
(ⲛ̄)ⲛⲉ ϥ——–––ϣ–ⲥⲱⲧ
(ⲛ̄)ⲛⲉ––ϣ––ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ——ⲥⲱⲧ
b. The second form starts with and develops the nominal variant of the
first form and, apparently by interposition of the base of the Causative
Infinitive, makes both ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ and ⲥⲱⲧ together the nominal subject of
an imaginary verb ϣⲱⲡⲉ.
(ⲛ̄)ⲛⲉϣ—ⲧ(ⲣ)ⲉ—ⲡ̇ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲥⲱⲧ <ϣⲱⲡⲉ>
(ⲛ̄)ⲛⲉϣ—ⲧ(ⲣ)ⲉ—ϥ——–––ⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄ <ϣⲱⲡⲉ>
At any rate, the supervening element can hardly be anything else than the
Causative Infinitive, and the construction in the second form functions
like the Negative Causative Imperative (zero-subject implied).

57 I owe the knowledge of this widespread tendency to H. Quecke who, about fifteen
years ago, drew my attention to the relevant facts.
58 In that perspective, the very enigmatic statements of Till (Die gnostischen Schriften,
22f.), which nevertheless led him in the end to the true track, are in urgent need of correc-
tion. The parallels to 79,1f. and 117,4 elucidate the state of affairs in that sphere; cf.
BG p. 79,1f.: ⲛⲁϣϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ
NHC III p. 91,14f.: ⲛ̄ⲛⲁϣϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ
BG p. 117,3–5: ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ[ⲧⲉ] ⲛⲉⲩϣϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ[ⲟ]ⲩ
NHC III p. 114,2f.: ⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲩⲉϣϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ.
442 essays

Concerning the first (positive) ⲛⲉϣ and its construction, it should be added
that here (in Middle Egyptian and its vicinity) the elements ⲛⲉ- ϣ had already
grown so closely together that the original identity of this ⲛⲉ- with the struc-
tural element denoting the Future was no longer felt. Therefore this ⲛⲉϣ can
be construed even with Fut. I and Fut. II (→ (ⲁ)ϥⲛⲉⲛⲉϣⲥⲟⲧⲙ). Nevertheless,
the Middle Egyptian ⲛⲉϣ, if our analysis proves true, might have some con-
siderable relevance for the old issue of Coptic diachronic grammar, that is,
whether the structural element of Fut. (ⲛⲁ-/ⲛⲉ-) was originally a Qualitative
or an Infinitive,59 and at first sight would seem to strengthen the arguments
in favour of its explanation as an Infinitive (because ⲛⲉϣ occurs also, if not
most frequently, in the tripartite pattern).

In Middle Egyptian there is a construction that seems at first sight very

curious. It looks like a tripartite nominal sentence, the first position of
which is always filled by the absolute personal pronoun, while ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ occurs
like a copula between this pronoun and a following noun. This con­
struction has become known through a quotation from the angelic hymn
(verse 26.27) that, in Greek and Middle Egyptian versions, fills the last
pages of the codex containing the Middle Egyptian Gospel of Matthew.60
The quotation reads:61
ⲛ̇ⲧⲁⲕ ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲉⲃ ⲟⲩⲁ̇ⲉϥ.
ⲛ̇ⲧⲁⲕ ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧϫⲁⲥⲉ ⲟⲩⲁ̇ⲉϥ∙
That we have actually chosen the right perspective may be shown by the
three extant Sahidic versions of those two verses; cf.
a. ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲕ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁ̄ⲃ
ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲙⲁⲩⲁ̄ⲁ̄ⲕ ⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ∙62
b. ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ ⲙⲁⲩⲁ̄ⲁⲕ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ∙
ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ ⲙⲁⲩⲁ̄ⲁⲕ ⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ.63

59 Cf. e.g. H. J. Polotsky, “Neugestaltung,” OLZ 54 (1959) 458 (= Coll. Pap., 236); W. Wes­
tendorf, Handwörterbuch, 116 with note 8.
60 Cf. B. M. Metzger, An Early Coptic Manuscript, 301. 304. 309–312.
61 H. Quecke, Untersuchungen zum koptischen Stundengebet, Louvain 1970, 417 note
concerning 1. 23f.; cf. also 2754.
62 Pap. Ber. 8099; H. Junker, “Eine sa’îdische Rezension des Engelshymnus,” OrChr 6
(1906) 444.
63 Pierpont Morgan Library M 574; H. Quecke, Stundengebet, 416.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 443

c. ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲙⲁⲟⲩⲁⲁⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ

ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲙⲁⲟⲩⲁⲁⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲡⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ (sic)64
It seems most suitable to start our consideration from the third Sahidic
version and to place both types of sentences on a common denominator
by replacing the substantive relative clause with any noun, e.g. ⲡⲛ̄ϯ̄̅̅, and
omitting the “alone.” Then we obtain the two following types of sentences
corresponding to each other:
ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲛ̇ⲧⲁⲕ ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ ⲡⲛ̄ϯ̄̅
Now, since that ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ can be nothing but the relative pronoun, it seems
proper to regard the opposition of the two types of sentences as an oppo-
sition between the nominal sentence and a certain kind of Cleft Sentence.
This would be a reduced Cleft Sentence65 in which the relative part is
not formed, as usual, from a verbal or pseudo-verbal sentence, but from
a sentence that is itself a nominal one, the copula of which would have
been dropped. There would correspond accordingly:
ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲟ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲛ̇ⲧⲁⲕ ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ ⲡⲛ̄ϯ̄̅ (ⲡⲉ)
The regular omission of the copula is also found in other cases where
new comprehensive structures are built by means of a nominal sentence,
especially in expressions of the type ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲱϥ (ⲡⲉ) ⲛ̄ⲣⲱⲙⲉ.66

A mystery seems to hang also over the expression ϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲟ⸗, which in

Middle Egyptian normally fills the position of a verb in the syntactical
frame. Scholars are prepared for the encounter with it by the relevant
note in Crum (444b, 4–7). The text quoted there (PMich 3521) has been
published67 and actually displays the construction in question twice. The
two passages read:

64 Ms. Toronto 924.68.2; H. Quecke, Stundengebet, 480.

65 Cf. H. J. Polotsky, “Nominalsatz,” 424f (= Coll. Pap., 429f.).
66 Cf. H.-M. Schenke, “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Erforschung der Nag-Hammadi-
Handschriften,” Koptologische Studien in der DDR, WZH Sonderheft, Halle-Wittenberg
1965, 134.
67 Cf. above with note 3.
444 essays

John 12:2: ⲗⲁⲍⲁⲣⲟⲥ | [ⲇⲉ] ⲛ̣ⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩ|[ϩⲛⲧⲟ]ⲩⲱⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓ̄

John 13:28: ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ ϩⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲓⲙⲓ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩϩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲁϩⲁϥϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲓ̈
ⲛⲉϥ
Accordingly, ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗ (which in pure Middle Egyptian is ϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲟ⸗) is
obviously a Coptic equivalent for ἀνακεῖσθαι (or ἀνακλιθῆναι, or ἀναπεσεῖν,
respectively). And it is also evident that our expression is a compound,
the second part of which has to be identified with ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗ “bosom.” But
what is ϩⲛ?
E. Husselman, in her indices, lists these passages under ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗ (90a),
but since the ϩⲛ is not identified anywhere in the indices, the suspicion
arises that for her it might be included under (the preposition) “ϩⲛ pas-
sim” (92a). And Kasser’s statement, “ϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲟ⸗ (avec préfixe et suffixe
concordants, utilisé comme verbe!),”68 can only be (properly) under-
stood, if he shares that opinion. Westendorf complicates the whole issue
even more by noting: “ⲛⲟⲩϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗ (A): ⲛⲁⲩϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗ (F): ϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲟ⸗
(M) (sich) setzen (zum Essen),”69 thus interpreting, in the case of F,
the Imperfect prefix of the two passages from John as part of the verbal
expression.
The expression ϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲟ⸗ / ϩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗ actually does not only occur in the
bipartite but also in the tripartite pattern.70 This fact could already have
been observed in the one non-Middle Egyptian, i.e. Achmimic, witness
to our expression, if a chain of errors, beginning with the editor himself,
had not run through the literature.71 The monster ϥ̄ⲛⲟⲩϩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ is the
equivalent of ἀνακλινεῖ αὐτούς in Luke 12:37.72 Now, by chance, there is
a photo given with the edition showing just this passage. And there the
letter ⲧ seems clearly discernible instead of ⲛ. The expression must there-
fore read ϥ̄ⲧⲟⲩϩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ, that is Conjunctive (continuing the preceding
Future) + suffixed Causative Infinitive + ϩⲛ̄- ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ “he will make them
recline.” But then our ϩ cannot be the preposition ϩ , but has to be
­analysed as a status nominalis of a verb. Our Middle Egyptian expression

68 “Compl. morph.,” 44a (under ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗).

69 Handwb. 251 (under ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗).
70 And once even as a noun within a nominal compound.
71 Cf. L. Th. Lefort, “Fragments bibliques en dialecte akhmîmique,” Le Muséon 66 (1953)
23. 2910; R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 69a (under ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗); W. Westendorf, Handwörterbuch,
251 (see above p.18).
72 The entire text given by Lefort reads thus: [ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ] | ϯϫⲟⲩ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛⲉ ϫ̣[ⲉϥⲛⲁⲙⲁⲣϥ̄]
| ϥ̄ⲛⲟⲩϩⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲟⲩ ϥ̄[ⲉⲓ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓⲱ]|ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲉ ⲉ[ϥ]ⲣ̣̄[ⲇⲓⲁ]ⲕⲟⲛⲉⲓ [ⲛⲉⲩ.
 on the middle egyptian dialect 445

ϩⲛ- ⲧⲟⲩⲟ⸗, both morphologically and syntactically, follows the same lines
as Lycopolitan ϯ- ⲧⲟⲩⲱ⸗. Cf.
Keph. 180, 21f: ⲛϥ̄ⲧ̣ⲙ̣|ϭⲱⲧⲡ . . . ⲛϥ̄ⲧⲙϯⲧⲟⲩⲱϥ
Ps.B. 165,13: [ⲙ]ⲡⲱⲣϭⲱⲧⲡ̄ ⲛⲕ̄—ϯⲧⲟⲩⲱⲕ
And as status absolutus of our ϩⲛ- there is hardly another verb suitable
than ϩⲓⲛⲉ (Crum 689a, 37), the more so as it is also otherwise common
in Middle Egyptian.73 The original meaning of the compound verb then
ought to be approximately “move down one’s bosom,” “recline.” And on
the other side, its unchanged use in the bipartite pattern (ϥϩⲛⲧⲟⲩⲟϥ,
and not *ϥϩⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̇ⲧⲟⲩⲟϥ) would have to be added to the exceptions from
Jernstedt’s rule in analogy to ⲣ̄- ϩⲧⲏ⸗ and ϣⲛ̄- ϩⲧⲏ⸗, but also to ⲣ̄ⲁⲛⲁ⸗.74

There is still another Middle Egyptian verb, the relevance of which extends
beyond the boundaries of that dialect, but which shares the misfortune of
being misunderstood in the existing analysis of Middle Egyptian. I think
of the verb ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ. This word has already entered into the dictionaries as
a Qualitative of ⲙⲁⲧⲉ.75 It is found only three times in Middle Egyptian
texts, and only once in verbal use, i.e. Acts 9:22 in an addition to the so-
called western text:
ⲉ̇ⲧⲉ ϩⲁ ⲡⲛ̄ϯ̅ ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲣⲏⲓ̈ ⲛ̇ϩⲏⲧϥ
in quo deus bene sensit [gig (h p)]
(*ἐν ᾧ ὁ θεὸς εὐδόκησεν)
By its use in the tripartite pattern, however, ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ is unambiguously
defined as an infinitive. And in that perspective it is not at all surprising76
to see ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ in the other two passages being used as a noun, i.e. as a
substantivized infinitive; cf. 1 Cor 7:5:
(M) ⲙⲡⲉⲣ]|[ϥ]ⲉϭ ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛⲁⲣⲏⲟⲩ·
(B) ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲣ—ϥⲉϫ ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛⲉⲣⲏⲟⲩ
μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους,

73 Cf. R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 54b; W. Westendorf, Handwörterbuch, 377.

74 Cf. H. J. Polotsky, “Conjugation System,” 402 Obs. 1.2 (= Coll. Pap., 248).
75 Cf. R. Kasser, “Compl. morph.,” 32b; W. Westendorf, Handwörterbuch, 103.
76 Cf. the remark of H. Quecke (Lettere di San Paolo, 100 with note 129).
446 essays

[ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ ϩⲛ] | ⲟⲩⲙⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲣⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲟ̣[ⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ]

ⲉⲃⲏⲗ ⲁⲣⲏⲟⲩ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩϯⲙⲁϯ ⲡⲣⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲥⲏⲟⲩ
εἰ μήτι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρόν
The third passage is verse 3 of the angelic hymn:
ⲛⲉϥⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲛ̇ⲣⲟⲙⲉ
ⲟⲩϯⲙⲁⲧⲉ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛ̄ⲣⲱⲙⲉ (Pierpont Morgan Lib. M 574)
ⲟⲩϯⲙⲁⲧⲉ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ (Pap. Ber. 8099)
ⲛⲛ̄ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲙⲡϥⲟⲩⲱϣ (Ms. Toronto 924.68.2)
The concordance of versions and the semantic implications, on the other
hand, suggest that there is really a connection between our ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ and
ⲙⲁⲧⲉ. Hence ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ might be explained as the Second Infinitive of the
common root.77
And now it is fascinating to see that an example of this infinitive is also
to be found in a Sahidic text, or rather, that the acquaintance with the
Middle Egyptian ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ makes it possible to solve the enigma of a certain
passage in “The Letter of Peter to Philip” (NHC VIII) with this result that
p. 133,22–26 can now be read as:78
ⲡ̣ⲓⲱⲧ̣ [ⲛ̄]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉ|ⲧⲉⲩⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲁϥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲁⲫⲑⲁⲣⲥⲓⲁ | ⲥⲱⲧ[ⲙ̄] ⲉⲣⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲉ
ⲉⲧⲁ[ⲕ]|ⲙ̄ⲧⲱ[.]ⲩ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲕⲁⲗⲟⲩ ⲉⲧ|ⲟ̣ⲩⲁⲁ[ⲃ ⲓ]̄ⲥ̅ ⲡⲉⲭ̄ⲥ̅.
And the crucial ⲙ̄ⲧⲱ[.]ⲩ, simply by reason of Coptic phonology, cannot
be restored otherwise than to ⲙ̄ⲧⲱ[ⲟ]ⲩ. And this verbal form, which is
defined as an infinitive by its use in the tripartite pattern, can hardly be
anything else than the Sahidic equivalent of the Middle Egyptian ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲟⲩ.
Therefore, the sentence in question reads: “O Father of the Light, pos-
sessing the imperishabilities, hear us, as thou hast been well pleased in
thy holy Servant, Jesus Christ” (*καθὼς εὐδόκησας ἐν τῷ παιδί σου Ἰησοῦ
χριστῷ).

77 Cf. on that complex W.-P. Funk, “Zur Syntax des koptischen Qualitativs,” ZÄS 104
(1977) 31f., §2.
78 It was F. Wisse who first drew my attention to the problem of this passage even
before I saw the original and long before I found its solution. And it is his transcription I
am permitted to make use of in this context.