DOI Artikel:
Crum, Walter E.: Progress of Egyptology: coptic studies
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11174#0075
62
Progress of Egyptology.
Prof. Haraack lias written an essay13 upon 0. Schmidt's Altchrist-
liche Schrift (v. this Eeport for 1895-96); but I have not been able to
see it.
3. Gnostic and Magical. An edition of the Pistis Sophia will form, it
is known, one of the Berlin Academy's patristic series. Dr. Carl
Schmidt, to whom this has been entrusted, takes the opportunity of a
review 13 of Amelineau's translation (v. this Eeport for 1896-97) to state
some of the results of his own recent studies, and to modify his previously
expressed views as to tlie bearing of the various headings or titles found
throughout the MS.,—an element in the many problems involved with
which, he holds Amelineau to nave concerned himself inadequately.
Indeed A. reveals " at every step a great lack of scientific method,
comprehension of Gnostic ideas, and thorough, study of the sources."
Further A. but too clearly shows that he has not availed himself of S.'s
publications, whereat S. confesses himself bitterly disappointed. The
article is concerned chiefly with a discussion of details of which the
following are the most important conclusions : (1) the MS. shows two
main divisions, assignable to two distinct authors, Bk. IV. to the older
and Bk. I.-III. to the later ; (2) P.8. is not a suitable title for the whole,
it belougs rather to but a part of the work; a better general title would
be rev^v tov SooTr/pos; (3) foil. 233, col. 2, and all 234 show a disconnected
fragment of some quite extraneous work, copied here by mistake, and
(4) the same is the case with the last column of fol. 354, which seems to
show part of an early apocryphal or apostolic legend. Attention is also
diawn to the different hands which the MS. exhibits and the portions
which the respective scribes wrote—facts for which Dr. S. relies no doubt
upon his own investigations (v. Theol. lit. Z. 1893, 566). I may add
that I feel no hesitation as to the identity of the scribe of foil. 114,
col. 2, and 1-22 &c. The ' Ueberschrift von B II.' is unquestionably
in the " second hand " (foil. 22-195). As to the effaced subscription
which followed the last words of the MS., chemicals have proved quite
ineffectual to revive it. It is, however, possible that the two lost lines
were not a title at all; they may have been—as on the final page of the
ancient MS. Add. 17,183—one or more proper names, those either of the
scribes or owners. Dr. S. emphasizes one notable point—obvious
perhaps, but not, 1 believe, hitherto expressed,—that the alternation of
the scribes throughout the MS.proves them contemporary; a fact which
may become palaeographically important.
A MS. which has interested many scholars, from Jablonski onwards—
Bodl. Hunt. 393,—is at last to be published. Prof. Hebbelynck, who
Progress of Egyptology.
Prof. Haraack lias written an essay13 upon 0. Schmidt's Altchrist-
liche Schrift (v. this Eeport for 1895-96); but I have not been able to
see it.
3. Gnostic and Magical. An edition of the Pistis Sophia will form, it
is known, one of the Berlin Academy's patristic series. Dr. Carl
Schmidt, to whom this has been entrusted, takes the opportunity of a
review 13 of Amelineau's translation (v. this Eeport for 1896-97) to state
some of the results of his own recent studies, and to modify his previously
expressed views as to tlie bearing of the various headings or titles found
throughout the MS.,—an element in the many problems involved with
which, he holds Amelineau to nave concerned himself inadequately.
Indeed A. reveals " at every step a great lack of scientific method,
comprehension of Gnostic ideas, and thorough, study of the sources."
Further A. but too clearly shows that he has not availed himself of S.'s
publications, whereat S. confesses himself bitterly disappointed. The
article is concerned chiefly with a discussion of details of which the
following are the most important conclusions : (1) the MS. shows two
main divisions, assignable to two distinct authors, Bk. IV. to the older
and Bk. I.-III. to the later ; (2) P.8. is not a suitable title for the whole,
it belougs rather to but a part of the work; a better general title would
be rev^v tov SooTr/pos; (3) foil. 233, col. 2, and all 234 show a disconnected
fragment of some quite extraneous work, copied here by mistake, and
(4) the same is the case with the last column of fol. 354, which seems to
show part of an early apocryphal or apostolic legend. Attention is also
diawn to the different hands which the MS. exhibits and the portions
which the respective scribes wrote—facts for which Dr. S. relies no doubt
upon his own investigations (v. Theol. lit. Z. 1893, 566). I may add
that I feel no hesitation as to the identity of the scribe of foil. 114,
col. 2, and 1-22 &c. The ' Ueberschrift von B II.' is unquestionably
in the " second hand " (foil. 22-195). As to the effaced subscription
which followed the last words of the MS., chemicals have proved quite
ineffectual to revive it. It is, however, possible that the two lost lines
were not a title at all; they may have been—as on the final page of the
ancient MS. Add. 17,183—one or more proper names, those either of the
scribes or owners. Dr. S. emphasizes one notable point—obvious
perhaps, but not, 1 believe, hitherto expressed,—that the alternation of
the scribes throughout the MS.proves them contemporary; a fact which
may become palaeographically important.
A MS. which has interested many scholars, from Jablonski onwards—
Bodl. Hunt. 393,—is at last to be published. Prof. Hebbelynck, who