Diobouniotis ; the latter had discovered the MS. in the Meteoron
monastery, and Harnack identified its subject. Some emendations and
expositions are contributed by Aemitage Robinson/8 Wohlenberg,69
StAhlin,70 C. H. Turner,71 Klostermann,72 and P. de Labriolle.73
The publication 74 by A. RUCKER of part of the 27th and the whole of
the 28th of St. Cyril's homilies on the Gospel of St. Luke gives him the
opportunity of discussing the MS. tradition of this very fragmentary work
and the biblical text employed by St. Cyril. A review75 by Nau remarks
that the new discoveries rather justify the existing impression that St.
Cyril was a wordy writer, and calls attention to the fact that these texts
confirm the Syriac attribution to him of the theory that the " camel"
that could not pass through the needle's eye was a stout cable and not
the animal of that name. A few suggestions are also contributed in reviews
by A. Ehrhard,76 W. Frankenberg,77 and J. B. Cii[abot].78
M. Jugie, studying78a St. Cyril's Christological terminology, comes to
the conclusion that "he cares only for ideas—nothing for words." He
makes individual examinations of the terms (f)vai<;, viroaTaabs, Trpoamtrov.
C. V[an] de V[orst] reviews79 together Stoffels' two works on Macarius
the Egyptian and his investigations80 into the mystical and psychological
meaning of the attacks of demons upon St. Anthony. A further work 80a
of J. Stiglmayer on Macarius is announced : Bonwetsch 80b considers
that S. has conclusively proved that the homilies which mre have under
the name of Macarius cannot be by him.
Forty-nine letters of St. Isidore of Pelusium have been published81 by
B. Aigratn. I have not yet been able to see his work, but a review 81a by
M. Jugie indicates that it is a critical edition of an ancient Latin version
of them preserved in two MSS. of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.
Schmidt and Schubart's Berlin papyri (v. last Report, 66) are reviewed82
by Batiffol, who says that he cannot see why the editors state that
Alexander II's festal letter was addressed to Shenoute's monastery at
Atripe, but he praises generally the edition and translations. A very full
review83 by Beitzexstein goes deeply into many of the theological
questions which these documents raise, particularly with respect to the
literature of Christian and pagan Gnosticism, and to the theory that works
of the latter school were " worked over " by a Christian redactor.
Budge's Sa'idic Homilies (v. Report, 1909-10, 58) are reviewed84 by
C. Schmidt in much the same si rain as that of von Lemm last year
(v. last Report, 67), to whose article he refers for the very necessary
corrections. He fears that the work will have to be done again by some-
body with a closer acquaintance with Coptic syntax, who will also