A Coptic Grammar.

• Author: Depuydt, Leo
• Position: Book review

A Coptic Grammar. By BENTLEY LAYTON. Second Edition, revised and expanded. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, vol. 20. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG, 2004. Pp. xxi + 544. [euro]78.

The publication of Bentley Layton's Sahidic Coptic grammar in 2000 was a milestone event in the history of Coptic studies. I had the privilege and pleasure of reviewing the grammar for this journal (see JAOS 122 [2002]: 807-15). Other reviews have meanwhile also appeared, including those by A. Shisha-Halevy in Orientalia 71 (2002): 423-59, by H.-M. Schenke in Enchoria 27 (2001): 231-42, by C. Peust in OLZ 97 (2002): 214-23, and by G. Snyder in RBL 3/2005 (an electronic review journal published by the Society of Biblical Literature; see www.bookreviews.org).

The grammar now appears in its second edition. The short period it took for this to happen stands as a testimony to the grammar's success. The new edition is styled as "revised and expanded with an index of citations." My impression is that the number of changes are too few to warrant the purchase of the second edition by owners of the first. Their number is so small as to characterize the book almost as a "reprint." The principal change by far is the addition of an index of citations. Simply copying this index and inserting it into the first edition makes the acquisition of the second edition an unnecessary expense for owners of the first. The "revisions" seem few in number and minor. It would have been useful for the publishers to provide the index and a list of all the changes to the first edition in a printed booklet or in some other medium. Some changes are cosmetic, such as the introduction of new page-breaks to avoid typographical widows and orphans. Some changes remove typographical errors that otherwise do not cause confusion. In this connection, in the newly added index, on p. 543, "" in "Qift" is an unconverted typesetting code for dot below t (Qift). The few changes affecting the contents of the book mostly concern rephrasings of certain theoretical descriptions. Changes to the factual contents are minimal.

The reviews of the present grammar have been positive or even glowing. Shisha-Halevy's review is enthusiastic to the point of sounding shrill in a couple of places. But the reviews have not been taken into account systematically in the new edition. Given the short interval between the first and second editions, the reviews must have appeared around the time when the second edition went to press. The...