The Martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta in Coptic Author(s): Elinor M.

Husselman Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 4 (1965), pp. 79-86 Published by: American Research Center in Egypt Stable 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of 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 to Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

The Martyrdomof Cyriacusand 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 number554 was cited as being perhapspart of an apocryphal apocalypse. In his review of the volume2 Crum suggested that "it seems to be a passage fromthe much discussed 'prayer* embeddedin the Acts of and Cirycus Julitta/'3 Later another small piece of the same text turned up in a mass of odds and ends of parchment 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 determinedwith certainty to belong to the Hamouli manuscripts in the
1 W. H. Worrell and others, Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection,Ann Arbor, 1942, P- 132 /. Theol.Stud. 44 (1943) 122-28. 3 In a subsequentletter to Worrell,Crumexpressed doubt "whetherActs 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,removesany questionas to the correctnessof 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 Cyriacushas been adopted, since it is the form used in the latest publicationsof the Bollandists. 4 These leaves were purchasedwith 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 number4969.

Pierpont MorganLibrary,5so 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 Professor 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
5 The folio numbered 158, 29, is the leaf missing fromMorganCod.copt. 606, a homily of Severianusof Gabala in praise of Peter and Paul (vol. 52 of the facsimile edition). On the other hand, 158, 17, containing part of a homily of Shenoute,was found to be fromthe same manuscriptas the Paris manuscript130, 129-30, which folio it immediately precedes. This manuscriptis fromthe libraryof the White Monastery. It is reasonable to conclude that the collection of parchmentleaves listed under the inventory number 158 was made up from various sources,though sold to the University of Michiganas being from the White Monastery. Photographsof all these leaves were sent to the late Professor Lefort for his collection of photographs of scattered leaves from White Monasterymanuscripts, but whetherhe was able to identify any of them with other manuscripts from the same source, I do not know. I had specificallyaskedhim to let me know if he found any further fragmentsof this martyrdom,and presumehe found none.

79

intercolumnar space and the margins, which are not preserved,must have been approximately 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.7As a result it was little known or circulated in the west. No Greek versions have been found, and only one Latin account survives, reproducedin the Acta Sanctorum and said to be from a manuscript in the Cistercian monastery of Eberbach in Westphalia.8 The martyrdom fared better in the Orient,which was not influencedby 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 attention of western scholars.9 Dillmann lists three known Syriac and two Arabic manuscripts containing the martyrdom.
6 The dating of Copticmanuscriptsis in generalstill is provisional.The latest work on Copticpalaeography Maria Wiesbaden, Cramer, KoptischePaldographie, by has producedan interestingseries of 1964. Dr. Cramer tables to show the development of the letter forms from the fourth to the sixteenth century, and has added64 platesof facsimiles.Nevertheless,as she points out in her preface,much is hypothetical in the dating, particularlyfrom the fourth to the eighth century. We still await an analytical study of Copticpalaeography on the basis of hands, size and format of manuscripts, writing materials and inks, and dialects. This manuscript, however,is almost certainlyto be placed in the latter half of the ninth century. The hand so closely resemblesthat of Morg.Cod.copt. 596, dated 872 A.D. plate 21), that it could well have been written (Cramer, by the same scribe. 7 Published with the most thorough critical evaluGelasiaation by Ernst von Dobschiitz, Das Decretum num de libris recipiendis, Leipzig, 1912 (Texte und 38). Untersuchungen 8 Acta SanctorumJunii IV, 24-28. According to Dillmann (see below, note 9) the whereaboutsof this manuscriptis no longer known. 9 A. Dillmann, "Uber die apokryphen Martyrermit Julitta unddes Georgius," geschichtendes Cyriacus Berl. Akad. d. Wissensch.,Phil.-hist. Classe,Sitzungsberichte 1887, 339-56.

He does not edit the texts, but compares the three versions in detail, using as the basis for his comparisonthe Syriac manuscriptin the Sachau collection in Berlin and the Arabic manuscript preservedin the Vatican. The Berlin manuscript was later published by Bedjan, but without collation with other Syriac manuscripts.10 The prayer of Cyriacusis 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.11It is possible that it and other presumedgnostic elements in the story were responsible for the ban laid upon it in the western church; or it may be that its proscriptionwas 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 Christianwoman of Iconium, who fled to Tarsus in Ciliciato 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, offeringto 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 appearsto her as refreshingdew from heaven,
10Bedjan, Acta martyr urn et sanctorum,Leipzig, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 275ff. I am not able to consult this work and must rely on the summary given by Dillmann for the Syriac version of the manuscript. 11Crum called attention to the similarities of the prayer of Cyriacus to the Hymn of the Soul in the apocryphalActs 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 governor 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 who conspecial study by Hugo Gressmann;12 Coptic Text

siders it not gnostic, but rather of Jewish origin, superficially Christianized so that it might be incorporatedin a Christianmartyrdom. 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 Copticversion is, it may be helpful in clearingup some of the difficultiesin the Syriac text, which, as Gressmannsays, 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 exactly the original version. It is this Greek translation that is compared here with the Coptic text.13 Greek (Gressmann)

Translation of Coptic Recto (She adorned) the garment with pearls.

[NT]CTOXH 6B[O\] p]M n(DM6 MM[6], 3. TAMAAYT6 TGKKAHC1A' AY<> MM6M6 N6 5 NCDN6 [G)X]X6 MM6MTl NOYT6- T6CTO\h ne nenilA 6ToyXXB* 4. X\iD XCXO10 OyT eSNIIOXIC 6Y6NKAK6*xyw 6yo NtfOCM M[MAY] 6T6 MN pH .[...] N2HT[OYOYA6] 15 OO2 OYA6 CIOY'

[ioi f) lirixrip nou (eiToir|aev mi ekog[xt[(jsv) crroAf)v auTTjv napyaphai?. \\ov ecrnv 3. My mother is the church, 3. [f) 8e [xfyn\p and the pearls are the true f) eKKAr|cricr oi 5e napyaprrai words of God. The robe is the oi OeToi Aoyoi, <f) 5e oroAfi) tou dyiou f) 8iSaaKaAia Holy Spirit. TTV6U|iaTOS.]] 4. And she sent me to some cities which are dark, there being storms there, and neither sun ... in them, nor moon nor stars. 4. Kai jiETOc tou ar||idou Tfjs tou Trveunorros eiTSETncnroAfjs sis Tf]vOKOTeivnv ardA'nv ttoAivSttou oOSev 960seotiv 6Ki outs fjAiosouts aeArivri 0UT6 acrrpa.

12H. Gressmann, "Das Gebet des Kyriakos," ZNTW 20 (1921) 23-35. 13The Coptic text has been reproducedto correspond as closely as possible to the original. The supralinearstroke is sometimes reducedto little more than a dot. The length of the stroke has not been shown in the transcriptionalthough its position has. It is noteworthythat the strokeis frequentlyused with vowels as well as whereit might normallybe expected. The only punctuationis the elevated dot, but periods have been added occasionallyby the editor for clarity.
6

The divisionof the Greektranslationinto paragraphs is Gressmann's andhas beenincludedforeasy reference. In his text his additions are marked with angular brackets, his deletionsby single brackets, and corrupt passages by a dagger.The doublebracketsare used to mark those parts of the text which he considersto be later interpolationsin 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.

81

5. ky(D XieT 6T0)Of116 MHOXIC6TMMXY TXl"6TOY MOYT6 6poc X6 X20 N60XIC XXBYPIN[0O]O XY(D XfclM6 2H HMX 6TMMXY N2N2ONOK6NTXYPOC25 mn 26N2innoK6NTXYPOCMil eeRsoq- xyiD OYMHH0)6 NAXIMCDNIOM NXI N 30 TXYOYCDG) 62CDTB

5. And I came to the first city, the one which is called Anethais Labyrinthos. And I found in that place some ass-centaurs and horse-centaurs and serpents, and a throng of demons, who wished to kill (me)

5. [ml ote fjXeov els ttjv ttoAiv, ifc to 6vo|Jiafjv AijavoOaAacraa,eOpovovoKevrraOKal pous Kai iTrrroKevTavpous Kai dorriSas jjayiKas TrAf]0os 8ai|i6vcov, oi 8e eLf|TT|arav oaroAfoai [xs,(keivrj 8' f) smcrroAfie8ico:VqOtous drro TTpoacbTTOU [xo\j).J

Verso
[M]OY- 6. X16[l] [6]TBXBYXCDM 6X[N] neiepo 6TOYMOYT6 epoq X6 XMHXT 35 MCDTYON6T6M6p6XXXY 'Y ne^OYOl" 6fO<\ 61 6MHT6I ZM U CXBBXTON- KXI 40 rxp HCXBBXTIZ6 Z(D(D<\HG\ Hie[po 6]TMMXY* KX[TX O]6 NNCYNXr[iDVH NNIO] YAXI45 7. XNOK A6 2N TtfO[M] RneHNX 6TOYXXB*XIX6T ni6po 6TMMXY* 6N6 n M62TIOY N2OOY ne* 50 XY^D GNe^MMfXJY HGl ri6ApXK(D[N] Rno^- X^eT 6BOX ZH MMX MC1)X epeneqcXT KCD55 T6 6MNHY 2XTN TGMTXnpOHV\\ epenxXKO Mne^MTO 2N CHB6 HG N6tIOB2660 2NCnipOOY6 M

me. 6. 1 came to Babylon on the river which is called Sandy, the one on which no one is able to make his way except on the Sabbath. For it keeps the Sabbath itself, this river, in the manner of the synagogues of the Jews.

6. Kai prrenra] fjAOov [eis BapuAcova]e!$ tov TTOTatJiov tov f &\x[xo\j ov ou KaAoujjievov, SOvavTcuoi avepcomn 61apfjvat el [xt\ev fmepa tou 81aaapporrou, oti Kai aCrrcp ecrriv Tayii^vov rnpeiv tt^v eori 5k piav tcov aa(3|3ocTcov. ti ev Tcp7^OTa^cp epeuyoiJievov k Tfjs dpuacrou Kai 6Aos foriv Smmos Kai oOSels80vaTai ISeiv OSaTa tou TTOTaMoO.

7. But I, with the power of the Holy Spirit, crossed the river on the fifth day, and there was in that place the great dragon. He came from the east, with his tail forming a circle around him and reaching his mouth; destruction was before him. His teeth were swords, his ribs (were of bronze) . . .

7. Kai ote 8ie|3r|vtt^v ttoAiv, f\ ecrrivA^voOdAaaaa, Kai f iTrrroKEVTaOpous eOpovfr<e! Kai &cnri8asKai Suvaniv 8ai|j6vcov ttoAAcovKai 8pakovtos lieydAous Kai tov Tffc yfjs, paaiAea tou IpTreToO oO r\ oupa eyKeiTaiTcpcrroKai EjiTrpoaOev |iom aCrroO, auToO Tpexei 686s f ocTrcoAefas.
eicriv 5k oi 686vtS aCrroO ws (911 o^ea Kai ai irAeupai aCrroO(xaAKEiai) . . .

82

13. U)[OOn],proposed by ProfessorWilson, 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 occursin the SahidicglossaryParis is the correct 44, and suggests that Aa(30piv6os of the as here translated rendering Syriac AiiavoQdXaaaa. 32. Gr. els Bafh/Acova:deleted by Gressmann as "richtige Glosse." Gr. dpucbSris. 34-35. AMM(DTIOtl:

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 Ainvoif we accept Crum's OaAacro-a (or Aa|3upiv9os, in which both times there and interpretation), are fabulous monsters and serpents and demons. There is, in Gressmann'sopinion, no question but that the same city is meant, and that this city is Babylon, as indicated by what he considers 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 in 6 as superfluousif 5 is omitted. ETrerra The second problemconcernsthe 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 Among the Coptic papyri in the University of Sabbath because it is enjoined to keep the first Michigancollection it was noted that there were four fragments from a codex containing an day of the week. Gressmannpoints out that if men could cross the river only on the Sabbath, unidentified martyrdom that had some interestit would be because the river had been ordered ing points of resemblance to the martyrdom of to keep the Sabbath, not the "first day." The Cyriacus and Julitta.14More intensive study of to the tcov change fragments has not yielded any real evidence Sunday, ttjv piav <7a|3|3&Tcov, for such an identification, but nevertheless they must, he reasons, have resulted from an effort to make a Jewish text suitable for inclusion in are of sufficient interest to warrant their being a Christianmartyrdom.On the basis of this evipublished here. dence for the Christianization of a Jewish text, he 14P. Mich. Inv. 1291. also rejects 3, with its allegoricalinterpretation of the robe, as another Christianinterpolation. Fragment i Recto AnZWA M6 6Y26X Verso 6H6Y2X- TOT[6]

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-centaursand 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 ChristianSunday, and the river is crossedon the fifth day, merely "through the power of the Holy Spirit." The Coptic version, therefore, provides no groundsfor suspecting a Christianizing 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 withoutfurthermanuscriptevidence,but certainly the Syriac versions should be re-examined in the light of the contribution of this Coptic fragment to the history of the martyrdom.

epajrmpe Mnei
KOYI NXXOY N^ TMCOTM NCOI
6*

nexeq Rxe hzhT6MXN X6 AM6X[ Xp6 H6TKOYI N[

83

5 KXTXOH 60X [n]6Tpoc RniOY[X6]io) necTyxxoc

[N]T-KK\HCIX [tfjNtfXM MHXIN6 10 [H]OT 62OYN 6Y [T]BNH- NXXOrON 6MMNSXM M MXM6C6X6 2Xf [6]IM6 X6 2XIN6

NKX61X 2N O[ 2H- NCL)ApnM[ 2X<IX(D epxT N[M] MYCTHpiOM NT6 MHlCXTMOfY 6-] N62- TOT[6] NX6 ^XMGJXHX nXXOY 6TOY6B ex^qx^M 62[pHi] 2N TP62T6 [ OYMXY 6H[

15 [..]y -f-NenoT [ ]ne H2HTM 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. Gr. cm/Ao*. 7. CTYXXOC: if 9. [ff]NCXM: 6GX in line 5 is for 6T2X-, I is requiredratherthan MNtfXM. Perfect, tfNtfXM The position of MROYXeiO), however,is unusual, and MHXIN if it is another form of the usual Fayumic MH6IN(S MX61N), cannot be construed. 13. C6X6: this is the form of 0)XX6 characteristic 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.

Verso 3-4. The average numberof 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 XXOYissuppliedthe line wouldbe unusually long. 5. KXSIX:Gr. kokiq. G[: 6[ is not impossible. 13. 62[pHl]: the word does not occurelsewhere in this text, but it has this form in P. Mich. Inv. 3520 and 3521. Verso

Fragment 2 Recto

nexe hx[xoy btoy-]

6B N6<1X[6 T1-] NOY KX[ X6 2XKX[ 5 26i*ne xn[ cnienxN[ NHOY X[ <?IX- NRN[ mmxn [ 10 Bxxeq- [ n2HreM[XN XNIN6 N[

[nex]e n2Hre[MXN] N6<JX6 (1)6 ]T OYNXff T6 ] MXriX[nexje hxaoy Neq ]enxoYM ] X6 MMN ] nxpX TtfXM ] xix- Rnx ] nexe n2H[reM]XN RNe^ ]IX6MM[

84

Fragment 3 Recto
]OTB M2MM ] 2N NH 6T

Verso
2XTtt)On [ 2ITN Oy[KOYI N]

]noc ne ] nxg nsH5 [reMAN ]pX(l)X ].. 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

xxoy e% fipxMne [ 2IN[ 2OYM[

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

Fragment 4 Recto
] 62XT M[

Verso -[ 2Hr6MXH2X[. . . ] A6 ntbynoy wxe nojep fixe^ix* nexeq fixe n2HreMXN xe n p]xieiMe ...[..] [..]iOYep[
[..]6K..[

[xi]O)ine 2itn oy KOY'I NXXOY'N6 ne Ne oy 2OYMXT 5 eepojipe ne epxpx epxT 6N. oykoyi 6N ne e[. ] [...]... ]Meq)]
10

Recto Crum suggests that MX'l 4. 2OYMXI*: may be "new" Dictiona Fayumic form of MOY1 ; (Coptic ary, s.v.), but the passage is unintelligibleto 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 fromthe outer side of a leaf, but this is not certain since such a small part of the marginis 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 determined. The codex is probably to be dated in the late fourth or the fifth century.15It is written, as far as the limited extent allows us to ascertain, in
16Again 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 comparisonof the facsimileon PL XXXII with the tables and facsimiles published by Dr. Cramerwill enable the reader to form his own conclusions as to the character of the script. The dialect, as well as the format of the manuscript, points to a date not earlierthan 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 nominalform of the prefixof 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 CDbecomes 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", 2X, and tfXM;X becomes O)Xpn,MXtf", 6 in H6I, nexe" and P62T6; and final 6 becomes 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 performing acts of magic. Scarcely any intelligible text remains on Fragment 3, but 6M[ ] NpXMHG following OY[KOyi N]XXOY suggests
16P. E. Kahle, Bala'izah, London, 1954, vl- I> pp. 220-24. It might be well to repeat here the statement made in the introductionto The Gospelof John >nFayumic 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, manuscriptsin otherthan Sahidic from the third to the sixth century are without their own individual dialectal peculiarities. 17It 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 sixteenyear-old youth; see Crum,Dictionary, s.v. XXOY-

that the age of the child is given, a point of significancein the story of Cyriacus.And finally on the verso of Fragment 4 something has happened 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 who is amazedat the child, and to Peter, (H2XXX) 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 comprehensibletext 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 certainty; or that an examination of the Syriac manuscriptsby scholarscompetent to undertake it may refute or confirm the possibility that they might belong to a version of the martyrdom of Cyriacus and Julitta.18 University of Michigan
18I am grateful to ProfessorR. McL. Wilson, who read this paper and made a number of helpful suggestions. Since my intention is only to present the Coptic texts, I have left unexplored many lines of investigation into the relationshipof the martyrdom and the prayer to other early Christian and gnostic works. Muchwill be found in the articles of Dillmann and Gressmann previouslycited, 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

tJ-

CO

PLATE XXXII