DOI Artikel:
Gaselee, Stephen: Progress of Egyptology: christian Egypt
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12419#0079
Christian Egypt.
59
Ckum shows33 that it should be Sibylla (a change necessitating only the
alteration of vowel points and diacritical marks in the Arabic text), and
also quotes another passage in which Enoch and Tabitha are found in
association. The edition of this Apocryphon by Teeters (v. last Report, 63)
is reviewed34 by M. E. James, who calls attention to a late medieval Latin
version of it, by Alfonsus Bonihominis, at Vienna; and with great
severity by Nau, who points out35 indeed some imperfections, but it is clear
that he has been troubled by some remarks of Peeters on his own edition
of the newly-discovered work of Nestorius, the " Bazaar of Heraclides."
A short review36 by Preuschen has also appeared.
Dealing with the recensions of the Dormitio Mariae, von Lemm has,
in no. cvi of his Miscellcn, several suggestions to make3' upon the text
published by Spiegelberg (v. Report, 1902-03, 55) from a Strasburg MS.
J. Flamion, having completed his study of the Acts of Peter (v. last
Report, 64), turns to Andrew, Peter and Andrew, Andrew and Matthius
(Matthew), and other similar texts.38 The first-named do not seem to be
Egyptian, whatever their provenance; the others may well belong to
" a monastic milieu in Upper Egypt, somewhere about the year 400."
In a laudatory review39 M. E. James only regrets that more has not been
said of the very curious Andrew and Paul, in which a Scarabaeus acts as a
messenger for Andrew ; the passage is familiar to Coptic scholars because
it forms one of the Lcsestucke in Steindorff s Grammar. Another careful
review40 has appeared, by Coppieteks.
Attention is called 41 by Bonwetsch to the Apocalypse of Peter, newly
discovei'ed by Grebaut and recognized by James (v. last Report, 64). He
remarks that Dieterichs' theory that the Akhmim fragment belonged to
the Gospel, rather than the Apocalypse of Peter, is now definitely excluded.
The use and interpretation of the New Testament in the Valentinian
Gnosis is the subject of a study 42 of some length by C. Barth. Her
investigation into the material is very careful, and includes a discussion
of the difficult question of the Clementine Excerpta ex Thcodoto. Bousset,
in a review which praises her work throughout, admits the correctness of her
connexion of the Gnostics' speculations on the Cross with Horos-Stauros,
but asks how the ideas of Horos and Stauros came to be linked together.
The adventures of the soul immediately after leaving the body were
a favourite subject of speculation and description with the ancient
Egyptians, and the same interest survived, often with surprisingly little
change, after the introduction of Christianity. The whole subject of
those adventures is treated44 by Louise Dudley, with special reference
to their final appearance in the medieval body and soul legends ; but she
59
Ckum shows33 that it should be Sibylla (a change necessitating only the
alteration of vowel points and diacritical marks in the Arabic text), and
also quotes another passage in which Enoch and Tabitha are found in
association. The edition of this Apocryphon by Teeters (v. last Report, 63)
is reviewed34 by M. E. James, who calls attention to a late medieval Latin
version of it, by Alfonsus Bonihominis, at Vienna; and with great
severity by Nau, who points out35 indeed some imperfections, but it is clear
that he has been troubled by some remarks of Peeters on his own edition
of the newly-discovered work of Nestorius, the " Bazaar of Heraclides."
A short review36 by Preuschen has also appeared.
Dealing with the recensions of the Dormitio Mariae, von Lemm has,
in no. cvi of his Miscellcn, several suggestions to make3' upon the text
published by Spiegelberg (v. Report, 1902-03, 55) from a Strasburg MS.
J. Flamion, having completed his study of the Acts of Peter (v. last
Report, 64), turns to Andrew, Peter and Andrew, Andrew and Matthius
(Matthew), and other similar texts.38 The first-named do not seem to be
Egyptian, whatever their provenance; the others may well belong to
" a monastic milieu in Upper Egypt, somewhere about the year 400."
In a laudatory review39 M. E. James only regrets that more has not been
said of the very curious Andrew and Paul, in which a Scarabaeus acts as a
messenger for Andrew ; the passage is familiar to Coptic scholars because
it forms one of the Lcsestucke in Steindorff s Grammar. Another careful
review40 has appeared, by Coppieteks.
Attention is called 41 by Bonwetsch to the Apocalypse of Peter, newly
discovei'ed by Grebaut and recognized by James (v. last Report, 64). He
remarks that Dieterichs' theory that the Akhmim fragment belonged to
the Gospel, rather than the Apocalypse of Peter, is now definitely excluded.
The use and interpretation of the New Testament in the Valentinian
Gnosis is the subject of a study 42 of some length by C. Barth. Her
investigation into the material is very careful, and includes a discussion
of the difficult question of the Clementine Excerpta ex Thcodoto. Bousset,
in a review which praises her work throughout, admits the correctness of her
connexion of the Gnostics' speculations on the Cross with Horos-Stauros,
but asks how the ideas of Horos and Stauros came to be linked together.
The adventures of the soul immediately after leaving the body were
a favourite subject of speculation and description with the ancient
Egyptians, and the same interest survived, often with surprisingly little
change, after the introduction of Christianity. The whole subject of
those adventures is treated44 by Louise Dudley, with special reference
to their final appearance in the medieval body and soul legends ; but she