Balestri consulted none but the Vatican MSS. for his edition. His plan
(or Ciasca's), however, permitted no other method.
De Eicci reports s on his and Winstedt's progress with the Coptic
papyri lately acquired for the Academie des Inscriptions (v. last Heport,
82). The most interesting announcement is that one fragment contains the
last chapter of St. Hark with both the longer and shorter endings. There
is also a considerable portion of St. John.
The above Church Quarterly article mentions (p. 305) important
Achm'imic MSS. (1) of the Epistles of James and 1 Clement at Strassburg,
soon to be edited by Kosch, and (2) of 1 Clement at Berlin, to be edited
by C. Schmidt.
2. Apocryphal, Gnostic.—Grenfell and Hunt's past season at
Oxyrhynchus has produced a leaf of another lost Gospel, relating a meeting
of Christ with a Pharisee in the temple. The style and vocabulary of the
fragment are said to be of unusual interest.0
A papyrus in Grenfell and Huut's Fayoum Towns, p. 82, is recognized
by Swoboda in as part of the Xaassene Psalm relating to Christ's descent
into Hell, to be found partly in Hippolytus' Refut. Omn. Ilaeres., v. 10
Leipoldt lately published a Sa'idic fragment of the Shepherd of Hennas
(v. Report, 1902-03, 56). This, together with a further piece from the
same MS., is re-edited by Delaporte.11
Bevillout has discovered in Paris the remnants of a further Sa'idic
apocryphon, which he entitles ' The Book of James,' regarding it as
perhaps a sequel to the Protevangelium.1-
His former publication (v. Report, 1903-04, 75, and 1904-05, 70), which
he claimed as the Gospels of Bartholomew and of the Twelve, is criticized
at length byBaumstark 13 and Ladeuze.1 * Both see in the texts remnants,
in part at any rate, of merely homiletic works, with occasionally a decided
Gnostic tone (B.), and both recognize among them an apocryphon of
Gamaliel. L. will allow nothing as the Gospel of the Twelve, B. hardly
anything. L. regards them as a whole as of slight importance ; B. thinks
them drawn from the canonical Gospels, plus a fifth, perhaps that of the
Egyptians. Incidentally L. shows a disinclination to accept the usual
view of Greek origins for practically all Coptic literature.
M. James, too, returns to Bevillout's publication, which he had already
criticized (v. last Report, 75), and compares it very unfavourably with that
Volter brings arguments to show that the Gospel of Peter may well be
that of the Egyptians.10 Patristic evidence seems to support this.
The rule of Salome in Bevillout's later publication, pp. 430 ff. (v. last