DOI Artikel:
Crum, Walter E.: Prgress of Egyptology: coptic studies
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11173#0068
54
Progress op Egyptology.
latter half of the third century, while he would connect the Sophonias
and anonymous fragments together as one. G. Kriiger has also written
a shorter notice,8 and confesses himself not wholly convinced by Stein-
dorff's arguments as to the various authorships. Maspero has analyzed
the texts and lays stress upon the old Egyptian analogies which can
be found for several of their features.9 Maspero's article, it may also
be noted, gives incidentally an interesting description of the state in which
the mass of parchments at the White Monastery were found when acquired,
some years back, for the Bibliotheque nationale. Further, Bousset has
studied the texts from an historical standpoint.10 He concludes that the
Elias fragments belong to the "worst kind of apocalyptic mosaic," being
merely a patchwork from various sources and an insoluble puzzle for the
critic. The favour shown by the writer to the Persians should indicate
at any rate a Jewish basis; for the Jews, especially under Trajan and
Hadrian, looked to Persia as a possible deliverer from Rome. Other
features appear to refer to the kings of Palmyra and the events after
Valerian's fall.
Prof. Pietschmann has written a thoughtful and suggestive criticism ot
Forbes Eobinson's Apocryphal Gospels11 (v. this Eeport for 1895-96). He
is averse to too frequent attempts to find analogies for peculiarities of these
stories in reminiscences of the ancient paganism. He reminds us of the
want, still unfilled, of any preparatory studies in this field; only the most
general statements can as yet be safely made, and these are of little value
here. Robinson's translation is criticized as sometimes impossibly
literal.
With this last stricture it is amusing to compare the opinion of Prof,
von Dobschiitz on Horner's translation of the Bohairic Gospels.13
Contrary to what certain writers (v. the Times, April 8th, 1898) said of
this side of the work, its latest critic would have preferred a rendering-
even more closely literal, which should make the student practically as
well off as if he were reading the Coptic text itself. The review is other-
wise most appreciative of Mr. Horner's work.
In the study by Prof. Harnack13 of C. Schmidt's apocryphal fragment,
referred to last year, the author adds the account there given of the
Resurrection to the eleven others which he recognizes in the canonical and
apocryphal Gospels. He dates the text about 150—180, the latter limit
being fixed by the freedom with which the writer is still able to treat the
canonical Gospels. The composition is regarded as secondary, and as
having a distinctly apologetic tendency.
2. Patristic. M.—now Professor—Ladeuze has, since our last Report,
Progress op Egyptology.
latter half of the third century, while he would connect the Sophonias
and anonymous fragments together as one. G. Kriiger has also written
a shorter notice,8 and confesses himself not wholly convinced by Stein-
dorff's arguments as to the various authorships. Maspero has analyzed
the texts and lays stress upon the old Egyptian analogies which can
be found for several of their features.9 Maspero's article, it may also
be noted, gives incidentally an interesting description of the state in which
the mass of parchments at the White Monastery were found when acquired,
some years back, for the Bibliotheque nationale. Further, Bousset has
studied the texts from an historical standpoint.10 He concludes that the
Elias fragments belong to the "worst kind of apocalyptic mosaic," being
merely a patchwork from various sources and an insoluble puzzle for the
critic. The favour shown by the writer to the Persians should indicate
at any rate a Jewish basis; for the Jews, especially under Trajan and
Hadrian, looked to Persia as a possible deliverer from Rome. Other
features appear to refer to the kings of Palmyra and the events after
Valerian's fall.
Prof. Pietschmann has written a thoughtful and suggestive criticism ot
Forbes Eobinson's Apocryphal Gospels11 (v. this Eeport for 1895-96). He
is averse to too frequent attempts to find analogies for peculiarities of these
stories in reminiscences of the ancient paganism. He reminds us of the
want, still unfilled, of any preparatory studies in this field; only the most
general statements can as yet be safely made, and these are of little value
here. Robinson's translation is criticized as sometimes impossibly
literal.
With this last stricture it is amusing to compare the opinion of Prof,
von Dobschiitz on Horner's translation of the Bohairic Gospels.13
Contrary to what certain writers (v. the Times, April 8th, 1898) said of
this side of the work, its latest critic would have preferred a rendering-
even more closely literal, which should make the student practically as
well off as if he were reading the Coptic text itself. The review is other-
wise most appreciative of Mr. Horner's work.
In the study by Prof. Harnack13 of C. Schmidt's apocryphal fragment,
referred to last year, the author adds the account there given of the
Resurrection to the eleven others which he recognizes in the canonical and
apocryphal Gospels. He dates the text about 150—180, the latter limit
being fixed by the freedom with which the writer is still able to treat the
canonical Gospels. The composition is regarded as secondary, and as
having a distinctly apologetic tendency.
2. Patristic. M.—now Professor—Ladeuze has, since our last Report,