DOI Artikel:
Kenyon, Frederic George: Progress of Egyptology, [3]: Greco-Egyptian Literary Discoveries
DOI Artikel:Crum, Walter E.: Progress of Egyptology, [4]: Coptic Studies
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.10055#0055
Coptic Studies.
41
The following have been seen only since this article was written :—
-5 Papyrus Grec inddit relatif « I'impot sur les Pechears (a document apparently of
the last half of the second century b.c.), published by E. Revillout in Revue
Egyptologique, vii., 39 (1892).
Griechisclie Mwnienetiketle aus Agypten, by F. Krebs, in Zeltschrift fur Agyptische
Sprache, vol. xxsii. (1894).
v Ein altchristliches Mumienetikett, nehst Bemerhungen uber das Begrabnisswesen
der Knpten, by Carl Schmidt ib.
D.—COPTIC STUDIES.
[Coptic literature has come down to us in five dialects : the Achmimic,
Sahidic, Memphitic (or Lower Sahidic), Falyumic and Boheiric.
Of these, the second and the last are the most important. The Bash-
muric dialect has not survived.']
Biblical.
The past twelve months have only seen the publication of two texts,
both from the Old Testament. One is a Sahidic version of Job, which
M. Amelineau prints1 from MSS. at Eome and Naples: these are three
in number, and date, we are told, from the 6th or 7th centuries, though
the facsimile which Ciasca gives (vol. ii., tab. xxvi.) of one of them
hardly supports a claim to such antiquity. It is not at all clear what
use has been made of these several documents in detail. The words in
which they are described (pp. 406, 407) are, to say the least, ambiguous.
We must suppose the published text to result from a combination of the
three MSS., which, by the way, are scarcely " completement inedits/'
seeing that the whole of chap i. was printed from one of them by Tortoli
in 1880. Tuki's faulty quotations from Job had another origin.
The other publication is a somewhat superfluous edition of the latter
half of the Boheiric Psalter, printed by Prof. Eossi from a Turin MS.2
Mention should, in this connection, be made of the chapter dealing
with the Coptic New Testament in the new edition of Scrivener,^ where
Bp. Lightfcot's admirable and unique summary is brought up to date by
Mr. Headlam. When Lightfoot wrote he could take account of three
Coptic versions only—the Sahidic, the Boheiric and the " Bashmuric."
We know now that there once existed at least four—the Achmimic
0
41
The following have been seen only since this article was written :—
-5 Papyrus Grec inddit relatif « I'impot sur les Pechears (a document apparently of
the last half of the second century b.c.), published by E. Revillout in Revue
Egyptologique, vii., 39 (1892).
Griechisclie Mwnienetiketle aus Agypten, by F. Krebs, in Zeltschrift fur Agyptische
Sprache, vol. xxsii. (1894).
v Ein altchristliches Mumienetikett, nehst Bemerhungen uber das Begrabnisswesen
der Knpten, by Carl Schmidt ib.
D.—COPTIC STUDIES.
[Coptic literature has come down to us in five dialects : the Achmimic,
Sahidic, Memphitic (or Lower Sahidic), Falyumic and Boheiric.
Of these, the second and the last are the most important. The Bash-
muric dialect has not survived.']
Biblical.
The past twelve months have only seen the publication of two texts,
both from the Old Testament. One is a Sahidic version of Job, which
M. Amelineau prints1 from MSS. at Eome and Naples: these are three
in number, and date, we are told, from the 6th or 7th centuries, though
the facsimile which Ciasca gives (vol. ii., tab. xxvi.) of one of them
hardly supports a claim to such antiquity. It is not at all clear what
use has been made of these several documents in detail. The words in
which they are described (pp. 406, 407) are, to say the least, ambiguous.
We must suppose the published text to result from a combination of the
three MSS., which, by the way, are scarcely " completement inedits/'
seeing that the whole of chap i. was printed from one of them by Tortoli
in 1880. Tuki's faulty quotations from Job had another origin.
The other publication is a somewhat superfluous edition of the latter
half of the Boheiric Psalter, printed by Prof. Eossi from a Turin MS.2
Mention should, in this connection, be made of the chapter dealing
with the Coptic New Testament in the new edition of Scrivener,^ where
Bp. Lightfcot's admirable and unique summary is brought up to date by
Mr. Headlam. When Lightfoot wrote he could take account of three
Coptic versions only—the Sahidic, the Boheiric and the " Bashmuric."
We know now that there once existed at least four—the Achmimic
0