ï~~234 Reviews
name and date should be transcribed Ievove(iov) rpÂ~(o3vT-rpov) II(a)v(vt)
i(v)6(KTkovoc) not LevovO(iov) rpe(oyvrtpov) II(a)0(vt) X i(v)6(-rkomvoc).
The palaeography of this passage is interesting, in that the supralinear writings
of rcpÂ~ and rc are ligatured; the scribe wrote the entire passage, then added the
supralinear text in one go. In 15.5 I would transcribe O((i pt) or perhaps even
OJ(tevcb6), not O(a)(qpt). I also noted an inconsistency in the transcription
of 31, where the abbreviation of aprd3pa as pT is rendered correctly eighteen
times, but printed as apr three times. These inconsistencies in transcription
practice are editorial oversights, rather than misreadings of the texts.
These criticisms are minor in the overall scheme of this book. They neither detract from its excellent quality nor from its utility for those interested
in Coptic texts, in the study of Bawit, and in the history of monasticism in the
sixth to eighth centuries AD.
University College, Oxford Jennifer Cromwell
0
