The Martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta in CopticAuthor(s): Elinor M. HusselmanReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 4 (1965), pp. 79-86Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40001004 .Accessed: 14/10/2012 15:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

The Martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta in Coptic Elinor M. Husselman

PLATES XXXI-XXXII

In the description of the Coptic papyri in the University of Michigan collections published in Worrell's volume of Coptic texts,1 a small fragment listed under the inventory number 554 was cited as being perhaps part of an apocryphal apocalypse. In his review of the volume2 Crum suggested that "it seems to be a passage from the much discussed 'prayer* embedded in the Acts of Cirycus and Julitta/'3

Later another small piece of the same text turned up in a mass of odds and ends of parch- ment and paper scraps from the bottom of the box in which the leaves of what have generally been called White Monastery manuscripts, Mich. MS. 158, had been received.4 At least one of these leaves has been determined with certain- ty to belong to the Hamouli manuscripts in the

Pierpont Morgan Library,5 so the actual source of this fragment is uncertain. Since, however, the first fragment was from a lot collected in Medinet el-Fayum by Doctor Askren for Pro- fessor Kelsey, the connection with the Hamouli manuscripts, which are also from the Fayum, seems more probable.

The second fragment proved to be the upper part of the same folio as the first and together they make up one almost complete column from a page that originally comprised two columns. Since thirty-one lines remain on both recto and verso, and probably three or four lines are lost at the top of the page, the columns originally contained thirty-four to thirty-five lines. The maximum measurements of the fragment are 26.6 x 10 cm., and the complete page with the

1 W. H. Worrell and others, Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection, Ann Arbor, 1942, P- 13-

2 /. Theol. Stud. 44 (1943) 122-28. 3 In a subsequent letter to Worrell, Crum expressed

doubt "whether Acts scarcely, if at all, known to the Copts (as it seems) can be the source of the fragment, all but identical though the wording of the two texts seems to be." But the additional text, not available to Crum, removes any question as to the correctness of his original identification. The name of the martyr is variously written : Cyriacus, Cyricus, Cirycus, Ciricus, Quiricus. It does not occur in our text, but the form Cyriacus has been adopted, since it is the form used in the latest publications of the Bollandists.

4 These leaves were purchased with the indication that they were from manuscripts of the White Monastery. The fragments, which seemed for the most part to be of little value, were grouped under the papyrus inventory number 4969.

5 The folio numbered 158, 29, is the leaf missing from Morgan Cod. copt. 606, a homily of Severianus of Gabala in praise of Peter and Paul (vol. 52 of the facsimile edition). On the other hand, 158, 17, con- taining part of a homily of Shenoute, was found to be from the same manuscript as the Paris manuscript 130, 129-30, which folio it immediately precedes. This manuscript is from the library of the White Monastery. It is reasonable to conclude that the collection of parchment leaves listed under the inventory number 158 was made up from various sources, though sold to the University of Michigan as being from the White Monastery.

Photographs of all these leaves were sent to the late Professor Lefort for his collection of photographs of scattered leaves from White Monastery manuscripts, but whether he was able to identify any of them with other manuscripts from the same source, I do not know. I had specifically asked him to let me know if he found any further fragments of this martyrdom, and presume he found none.

79

intercolumnar space and the margins, which are not preserved, must have been approximate- ly 32 X 10 cm. in size. This size is normal for a ninth century manuscript, and the hand, which is a narrow uncial, is also to be so dated.6

The martyrdom of the saints Cyriacus and Julitta was rejected, together with that of the ever-popular St. George, as apocryphal by the decree of Pope Gelasius.7 As a result it was little known or circulated in the west. No Greek versions have been found, and only one Latin account survives, reproduced in the Acta Sanc- torum and said to be from a manuscript in the Cistercian monastery of Eberbach in West- phalia.8 The martyrdom fared better in the Orient, which was not influenced by the Gelasian decree, and Syriac and Arabic versions exist. Both the proscribed martyrdoms were studied by A. Dillmann, who was the first to bring the strange story of Cyriacus and Julitta to the at- tention of western scholars.9

Dillmann lists three known Syriac and two Arabic manuscripts containing the martyrdom.

He does not edit the texts, but compares the three versions in detail, using as the basis for his comparison the Syriac manuscript in the Sachau collection in Berlin and the Arabic manuscript preserved in the Vatican. The Berlin manuscript was later published by Bedjan, but without col- lation with other Syriac manuscripts.10

The prayer of Cyriacus is found in full only in the Syriac version and it has been the subject of considerable discussion. There is disagreement as to whether it formed part of the original martyrdom or is a gnostic addition.11 It is pos- sible that it and other presumed gnostic elements in the story were responsible for the ban laid upon it in the western church ; or it may be that its proscription was due to the exaggeration and inherent improbabilities in the account, which go beyond what even the most credulous could accept.

Briefly summarized the martyrdom concerns Julitta, a Christian woman of Iconium, who fled to Tarsus in Cilicia to escape the persecutions of the governor, Alexander. Even there, however, she had the misfortune to fall into his hands. After her refusal to sacrifice to the pagan gods, she asks that he find her son, not yet three years old, and bring him to Tarsus, offering to sacrifice to any god that the child will recognize. After a search her son is found and brought before the governor, but he scornfully refuses to offer sacrifices or to accept the heathen deities. He and his mother are then submitted to a. series of tortures rarely if ever surpassed in the histories of the martyrs. At one point in the narrative a kettle is filled with pitch, naphtha, wax, sulphur, resin, copper and iron, and heated to a point at which a column of fire rises fifteen cubits above it. Julitta quails before it, but at the child's encouragement and in response to his prayers, it appears to her as refreshing dew from heaven,

6 The dating of Coptic manuscripts is in general still provisional. The latest work on Coptic palaeography is by Maria Cramer, Koptische Paldographie, Wiesbaden, 1964. Dr. Cramer has produced an interesting series of tables to show the development of the letter forms from the fourth to the sixteenth century, and has added 64 plates of facsimiles. Nevertheless, as she points out in her preface, much is hypothetical in the dating, particularly from the fourth to the eighth century. We still await an analytical study of Coptic palaeography on the basis of hands, size and format of manuscripts, writing materials and inks, and dialects. This manu- script, however, is almost certainly to be placed in the latter half of the ninth century. The hand so closely resembles that of Morg. Cod. copt. 596, dated 872 A.D. (Cramer, plate 21), that it could well have been written by the same scribe.

7 Published with the most thorough critical evalu- ation by Ernst von Dobschiitz, Das Decretum Gelasia- num de libris recipiendis, Leipzig, 191 2 (Texte und Untersuchungen 38).

8 Acta Sanctorum Junii IV, 24-28. According to Dillmann (see below, note 9) the whereabouts of this manuscript is no longer known.

9 A. Dillmann, "Uber die apokryphen Martyrer- geschichten des Cyriacus mit Julitta und des Georgius," Berl. Akad. d. Wissensch., Phil. -hist. Classe, Sitzungs- berichte 1887, 339-56.

10 Bedjan, Acta martyr urn et sanctorum, Leipzig, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 275 ff. I am not able to consult this work and must rely on the summary given by Dill- mann for the Syriac version of the manuscript.

11 Crum called attention to the similarities of the prayer of Cyriacus to the Hymn of the Soul in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas.

80

and both of them leap joyfully into it. It is at this point that the so-called prayer, inserted in the Syriac version and in part in the Arabic, is uttered by the child. After the prayer cold water gushes from the caldron and with this water Cyriacus baptizes 11,000 converts, while forty soldiers nearby are killed by the heat, and when the arm of the governor is sprinkled with a few drops from the caldron, his whole body is burned to the bone. Though he is healed again through the intervention of Cyriacus, the gover- nor still refuses to believe, and he subjects the child and his mother to still other abortive tortures before he orders them beheaded and at last the Saviour allows them to attain the crown of martyrdom.

The prayer itself was made the subject of a special study by Hugo Gressmann;12 who con-

siders it not gnostic, but rather of Jewish origin, superficially Christianized so that it might be incorporated in a Christian martyrdom. It is not my purpose here to discuss the problem of its origin or significance, nor would I feel competent to do so. But small though this fragment of the Coptic version is, it may be helpful in clearing up some of the difficulties in the Syriac text, which, as Gressmann says, is not yet in order even with the emendations he suggests.

It is generally agreed that all the extant versions of the martyrdom depend ultimately upon a Greek text. Gressmann has therefore supplied, with his edition of the Syriac prayer, a Greek translation as representing more ex- actly the original version. It is this Greek translation that is compared here with the Coptic text.13

Coptic Text Translation of Coptic Greek (Gressmann) Recto

(She adorned) (eiToir|aev [ioi f) lirixrip nou [NT]CTOXH 6B[O\] the garment with pearls. crroAf)v mi ekog[xt[(jsv) p]M n(DM6 MM[6], auTTjv napyaphai?. 3. TAMAAY T6 TGK- 3. My mother is the church, 3. [f) 8e [xfyn\p \\ov ecrnv KAHC1A' AY<£> and the pearls are the true f) eKKAr|cricr oi 5e napyaprrai

5 NCDN6 MM6 M6 N6 words of God. The robe is the oi OeToi Aoyoi, <f) 5e oroAfi) [G)X]X6 MM6 MTl Holy Spirit. f) 8iSaaKaAia tou dyiou NOYT6- T6CTO- TTV6U|iaTOS.]] \h ne nenilA 6Toy- XXB* 4. X\iD XCXO- 4. And she sent me to some 4. Kai jiETOc tou ar||idou Tfjs

10 OyT eSNIIOXIC 6Y- cities which are dark, there ETncnroAfjs tou Trveunorros eiTS- 6NKAK6* xyw being storms there, and neither ardA'nv sis Tf]v OKOTeivnv 6yo NtfOCM M[MAY] sun ... in them, nor moon nor ttoAiv Sttou oOSev 960s eotiv 6T6 MN pH .[...] stars. 6K£i outs fjAios outs aeArivri N2HT[OY OYA6] 0UT6 acrrpa.

15 OO2 OYA6 CIOY'

The division of the Greek translation into paragraphs is Gressmann's and has been included for easy reference. In his text his additions are marked with angular brackets, his deletions by single brackets, and corrupt passages by a dagger. The double brackets are used to mark those parts of the text which he considers to be later interpolations in the original. Parentheses have been added by the editor to enclose parts of the translation and of the Greek, lost in the Coptic, but given here to provide continuity in the text.

12 H. Gressmann, "Das Gebet des Kyriakos," ZNTW 20 (1921) 23-35.

13 The Coptic text has been reproduced to corres- pond as closely as possible to the original. The supralinear stroke is sometimes reduced to little more than a dot. The length of the stroke has not been shown in the transcription although its position has. It is noteworthy that the stroke is frequently used with vowels as well as where it might normally be expected. The only punctuation is the elevated dot, but periods have been added occasionally by the editor for clarity.

81 6

5. ky(D XieT 6T0)Of- 5. And I came to the first city, 5. [ml ote fjXeov els ttjv 116 MHOXIC 6TM- the one which is called Ane- ttoAiv, ifc to 6vo|Jia fjv Aija- MXY TXl" 6TOY thais Labyrinthos. And I found voOaAacraa, eOpov ovoKevrraO- MOYT6 6poc X6 X- in that place some ass-centaurs pous Kai iTrrroKevTavpous Kal

20 N60XIC XXBYPIN- and horse-centaurs and ser- dorriSas jjayiKas Kai TrAf]0os [0O]O XY(D Xfcl- pents, and a throng of demons, 8ai|i6vcov, oi 8e eLf|TT|arav M6 2H HMX 6TM- who wished to kill (me) oaroAfoai [xs, (keivrj 8' f) MXY N2N2ONO- smcrroAfi e8ico£:V qOtous K6NTXYPOC- drro TTpoacbTTOU [xo\j).J

25 mn 26N2inno-

K6NTXYPOC- Mil eeRsoq- xyiD OYMHH0)6 NAXI- MCDNIOM NXI N

30 TXYOYCDG) 62CDTB

Verso

[M]OY- 6. X16[l] me. 6. 1 came to Babylon on the 6. Kai prrenra] fjAOov [eis [6]TBXBYXCDM 6X[N] river which is called Sandy, the BapuAcova] e!$ tov TTOTatJiov neiepo 6TOYMOY- one on which no one is able to tov f &\x[xo\j KaAoujjievov, ov ou T6 epoq X6 XM- make his way except on the SOvavTcu oi avepcomn 61a-

35 MCDTYON- HXT Sabbath. For it keeps the Sab- pfjvat el [xt\ ev fmepa tou

6T6M6p6XXXY bath itself, this river, in the aapporrou, oti Kai aCrrcp 81a-

'Y ne^OYOl" 6fO<\ manner of the synagogues of Tayii^vov ecrriv rnpeiv tt^v 61 6MHT6I ZM U the Jews. piav tcov aa(3|3ocTcov. eori 5k CXBBXTON- KXI ev Tcp 7^OTa^cp epeuyoiJievov ti

40 rxp HCXBBXTIZ6 k Tfjs dpuacrou Kai 6Aos Z(D(D<\ HG\ Hie- foriv Smmos Kai oOSels 80va-

[po 6]TMMXY* KX- Tai ISeiv OSaTa tou TTOTaMoO. [TX O]6 NNCYNXr- [iDVH NNIO] YAXI-

45 7. XNOK A6 2N TtfO[M] 7. But I, with the power of the 7. Kai ote 8ie|3r|v tt^v ttoAiv, RneHNX 6TOY- Holy Spirit, crossed the river f\ ecrriv A^voOdAaaaa, Kai XXB* XIX6T ni- on the fifth day, and there was eOpov fr<e! f iTrrroKEVTaOpous 6po 6TMMXY* 6N6 n in that place the great dragon. Kai &cnri8as Kai Suvaniv M62TIOY N2OOY ne* He came from the east, with his 8ai|j6vcov ttoAAcov Kai 8pa-

50 XY^D GNe^MMfXJY tail forming a circle around him kovtos lieydAous Kai tov HGl ri6ApXK(D[N] and reaching his mouth; de- paaiAea tou IpTreToO Tffc yfjs, Rno^- X^eT 6BOX struction was before him. His oO r\ oupa eyKeiTai Tcp crro- ZH MMX MC1)X teeth were swords, his ribs (were |iom aCrroO, Kai EjiTrpoaOev epeneqcXT KCD- of bronze) . . . auToO Tpexei 686s f ocTrcoAefas.

55 T6 6MNHY 2XTN eicriv 5k oi 686vt£S aCrroO

TGMTXnpO- ws §(911 o^ea Kai ai irAeupai epenxXKO HV\\ aCrroO (xaAKEiai) . . . Mne^MTO 2N CHB6 HG N6tIOB26-

60 2NCnipOOY6 M

82

13. U)[OOn], proposed by Professor Wilson, is possible, although the slight traces of the letter make the reading too uncertain to be supplied in the text.

19-20. Crum pointed out that an XN1G6C \6B6piM8OC occurs in the Sahidic glossary Paris 44, and suggests that Aa(30piv6os is the correct rendering of the Syriac here translated as AiiavoQdXaaaa.

32. Gr. els Bafh/Acova: deleted by Gress- mann as "richtige Glosse."

34-35. AMM(DTIOtl: Gr. dpucbSris.

Gressman finds two problems in the part of the Syriac text before us. First the hero comes twice to a city, which both times is called Ainvo- OaAacro-a (or Aa|3upiv9os, if we accept Crum's interpretation), and in which both times there are fabulous monsters and serpents and demons. There is, in Gressmann's opinion, no question but that the same city is meant, and that this city is Babylon, as indicated by what he con- siders as a gloss at the beginning of his § 6. To eliminate this apparent duplication he deletes § 5 as a shortened variant of §§ 6-7, and also ETrerra in § 6 as superfluous if § 5 is omitted.

The second problem concerns the river of sand which the hero must cross before he reaches his goal, the city of Babylon. According to the Syriac text the river can only be crossed on the Sabbath because it is enjoined to keep the first day of the week. Gressmann points out that if men could cross the river only on the Sabbath, it would be because the river had been ordered to keep the Sabbath, not the "first day." The change to Sunday, ttjv piav tcov <7a|3|3&Tcov, must, he reasons, have resulted from an effort to make a Jewish text suitable for inclusion in a Christian martyrdom. On the basis of this evi- dence for the Christianization of a Jewish text, he also rejects §3, with its allegorical interpretation of the robe, as another Christian interpolation.

It is interesting that the Coptic version eliminates both these problems. In it the two cities are distinguished, the first as Anethais Labyrinthos, the second as Babylon. In the first city there are ass-centaurs, horse-centaurs and serpents, which seek to devour the hero, but in Babylon there are no mythical monsters or serpents, but only the great dragon that comes from the East.

It is Babylon that lies on the river called "Sandy," a river that no one can cross except on the Sabbath, which "the river keeps in the manner of the synagogues of the Jews." There is no reference to the first day of the week, the Christian Sunday, and the river is crossed on the fifth day, merely "through the power of the Holy Spirit." The Coptic version, therefore, provides no grounds for suspecting a Christianiz- ing alteration in the original.

Limited in extent though the Coptic text is, it offers a simple and coherent account, with none of the complications found in the Syriac version. Naturally all the questions raised by these divergent texts cannot be answered without further manuscript evidence, but certain- ly the Syriac versions should be re-examined in the light of the contribution of this Coptic fragment to the history of the martyrdom.

Among the Coptic papyri in the University of Michigan collection it was noted that there were four fragments from a codex containing an unidentified martyrdom that had some interest- ing points of resemblance to the martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta.14 More intensive study of the fragments has not yielded any real evidence for such an identification, but nevertheless they are of sufficient interest to warrant their being published here.

Fragment i Recto Verso

6Y26X AnZWA M6 6H6Y2X- TOT[6] epajrmpe Mnei nexeq Rxe hzh- KOYI NXXOY N^ T6MXN X6 AM6X[ TMCOTM NCOI Xp6 H6T KOYI N[

14 P. Mich. Inv. 1291.

83 6*

5 KXTX OH 60X [n]6Tpoc RniOY- [X6]io) necTyxxoc [N]Tâ‚-KK\HCIX [tfjNtfXM MHXIN 6

10 [H]OT 62OYN 6Y [T]BNH- NXXOrON 6MMNSXM M MXM 6C6X6 2Xf

[6]IM6 X6 2XIN6

15 [..]y -f-NenoT [ ]ne H2HT M

i. XM2XXX, etc. : this seems to be the II Future with the nominal form X- instead of xp6- which Kahle notes as a characteristic of his so-called Middle Egyptian dialect in both the II Present and the II Future.

7. CTYXXOC: Gr. cm/Ao*. 9. [ff]NCXM: if 6GX in line 5 is for 6T2X-, I

Perfect, tfNtfXM is required rather than MNtfXM. The position of MROYXeiO), however, is unusual, and MHXIN if it is another form of the usual Fayumic MH6IN (S MX61N ), cannot be con- strued.

13. C6X6: this is the form of 0)XX6 charac- teristic of Middle Egyptian according to Kahle. In the Gospel of John, P. Mich. Inv. 3521, it is C6XI and in P. Mich. Inv. 3520 (1)6X1.

NKX61X 2N O[ 2H- NCL)Apn M[ 2X<IX(D epxT N[M] MYCTHpiOM N- T6 MHlCXTMOfY 6-] N62- TOT[6] ^XMGJXHX NX6

nXXOY 6TOY6B ex^qx^M 62[pHi] 2N TP62T6 [ OYMXY 6H[

Verso 3-4. The average number of letters to the line

is 10-11, but some lines have as many as 13. Since the right margin is irregular, 1-3 letters could be supplied at the end of line 3, although it does not look as if more than one is missing and it may even be that nothing is lost. If Y is read instead of X at the end of line 3, which is possible although not as good palaeographically, we would have XN6Y, the imperative of N6Y (S NAY). Xp6- would then have to be construed as the nominal form of the prefix of the II Present, instead of X- as it appears to be in the II Future in Recto, line 1.

4. If XXOYis supplied the line would be unusu- ally long.

5. KXSIX: Gr. kokiq. G[: 6[ is not impossible.

13. 62[pHl] : the word does not occur elsewhere in this text, but it has this form in P. Mich. Inv. 3520 and 3521.

Fragment 2 Recto Verso

nexe hx[xoy btoy-] [nex]e n2Hre- 6B N6<1 X[6 T1-] [MXN] N6<J X6 (1)6 NOY KX[ ]T OYNXff T6 X6 2XKX[ ] MXriX-

5 26i* ne xn[ [nexje hxaoy Neq

cnienxN[ ]enxoYM NHOY X[ ] X6 MMN <?IX- NRN[ ] nxpX TtfXM mmxn [ ] xix- Rnx

10 Bxxeq- [ ] nexe n2H-

n2HreM[XN [reM]XN RNe^ XNIN6 N[ ]IX6MM[

84

Fragment 3

Recto Verso

]OTB M2MM 2XTtt)On [ ] 2N NH 6T 2ITN Oy[KOYI N] ]noc ne xxoy e% ] nxg nsH- fipxMne [

5 [reMAN ]pX(l)X 2IN[ ].. 2OYM[

Recto

5. From 1-3 letters may be lost after nSH |T6MXN. The letter p is below the H in the line above and the second X extends beyond the ends of the preceding lines.

Verso

3-4. 6q[ep(l)XMT] NpXMne would be pos- sible, if we are indeed dealing with Cyriacus. He is said in the Latin version to be not yet three years old.

Fragment 4

Recto Verso

] 62XT M[ [xi]O)ine 2itn oy â‚-[ KOY'I NXXOY' N6 2Hr6MXH 2X[. . . ] 2OYMXT ne Ne oy A6 ntbynoy wxe

5 eepojipe ne epxpx nojep fixe^ix* epxT 6N. oykoyi nexeq fixe n2H- [...]... 6N ne e[. ] reMXN xe n

]Meq)] p]xieiMe ...[..] [..]iOYep[

10 [..]6K..[

Recto

4. 2OYMXI*: Crum suggests that MX'l may be a Fayumic form of MOY1 ; "new" (Coptic Diction- ary, s.v.), but the passage is unintelligible to me.

Three separate folios are represented by Fragments 1-3, since each is from the upper outer side of a leaf. Fragment 4 may also be from the outer side of a leaf, but this is not certain since such a small part of the margin is preserved that it might be deceptive. It has, however, been printed with the recto and verso indicated in accordance with this possibility. It may be a separate folio or part of any of the other three folios, but no continuity in the text is discernible

and the order of the fragments cannot be de- termined.

The codex is probably to be dated in the late fourth or the fifth century.15 It is written, as far as the limited extent allows us to ascertain, in

16 Again we must point out that the criteria for dating the early Coptic manuscripts are slight, and rest for the most part on the subjective evaluation of published texts by the editors. A comparison of the facsimile on PL XXXII with the tables and facsimiles published by Dr. Cramer will enable the reader to form his own conclusions as to the character of the script. The dialect, as well as the format of the manu- script, points to a date not earlier than the latter part of the fourth century and not much later than the fifth.

85

the dialect that Kahle designates as Middle Egyptian.16 Significant forms are the I Perfect with 2X" instead of X" ; possibly a nominal form of the prefix of the II Future in X- instead of Xp6- (but cf. Fragment i, verso, lines 3-4 and note); final 6 rather than I ; and the retention of p in place of the X of standard Fayumic. In a closed syllable CD becomes O as in HOT and COTM; and the vowel is not doubled in oy6B and Cl)6p. The vowel changes are those usual in Fayumic : O becomes X in 6px", MMX", NXtf, pXMtie, CXTM", O)Xpn, MXtf", 2X, and tfXM; X becomes 6 in H6I, nexe" and P62T6; and final 6 be- comes H in 2H.

No names occur in the fragments, but the protagonists are called the governor and young child.17 On the verso of Fragment 1 the governor apparently accuses the child of wickedness in uttering unheard of mysteries. Then the child prays and leaps from the caldron. Nothing significant is found on the second fragment except for a statement by the governor that seems to imply that the child is guilty of per- forming acts of magic. Scarcely any intelligible text remains on Fragment 3, but 6M[ ] NpXMHG following OY[KOyi N]XXOY suggests

that the age of the child is given, a point of significance in the story of Cyriacus. And finally on the verso of Fragment 4 something has hap- pened to the skin of the hand of the governor, which calls to mind the incident in which the governor's arm is burned by the drops of water scattered from the caldron by Cyriacus.

These clues to the possible identity of the martyrdom are admittedly very slight, but they do offer an interesting basis for speculation. On the other hand the references to the old man (H2XXX) who is amazed at the child, and to Peter, the pillar of the church, found on the recto of Fragment 1, have no counterpart in either the Latin version, or the Syriac and Arabic versions as analyzed by Dillmann.

So little consecutive and comprehensible text remains that it is not profitable to attempt either a reconstruction or a translation of the fragments. They are published, however, in the hope that some expert in the hagiographical field may be able to identify them with certain- ty; or that an examination of the Syriac manuscripts by scholars competent to undertake it may refute or confirm the possibility that they might belong to a version of the martyr- dom of Cyriacus and Julitta.18

University of Michigan

16 P. E. Kahle, Bala'izah, London, 1954, v°l- I> pp. 220-24. It might be well to repeat here the state- ment made in the introduction to The Gospel of John >n Fayumic Coptic (Ann Arbor, 1962), that from the present evidence we cannot speak of established literary dialects before the sixth century at the earliest. Few, if any, manuscripts in other than Sahidic from the third to the sixth century are without their own individual dialectal peculiarities.

17 It should be noted that KOyi MXXOy, while it is used to refer to very young children, is not limited to them. It is used once, for example, of a sixteen- year-old youth; see Crum, Dictionary, s.v. XX OY-

18 I am grateful to Professor R. McL. Wilson, who read this paper and made a number of helpful sug- gestions. Since my intention is only to present the Coptic texts, I have left unexplored many lines of investigation into the relationship of the martyrdom and the prayer to other early Christian and gnostic works. Much will be found in the articles of Dillmann and Gressmann previously cited, and the rest must be left to specialists in the field.

List of Plates

PL XXXI, fig. 1. P. Mich. Inv. 554 + 496912, Recto.

fig. 2. Ibid., Verso.

PI. XXXII, fig. 3. P. Mich. Inv. 1291, Recto.

fig. 4. Ibid., Verso.

86

PLATE XXXI

H

M

PLATE XXXII

CO

tJ-