DOI Artikel:
Crum, Walter E.: Prgress of Egyptology: coptic studies
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11173#0067
Coptic Studies.
53
(? parchment) MS. in the Louvre.4 The passage is already complete in
Goussen's and all but complete in Amelineau's edition (Cod. Borg.). The
text generally agrees with the latter (e.g. iv. 3, 5) and differs sometimes
notably from the former (e.g. iii. 20, v. 2). To assign the MS. to the
fourth century is to ignore the palaeographical features which M. C.
himself mentions as well as the manifest grammatical inferiority of the texts.
An appreciative criticism of Peters's Ecclesiasticus, signed " R.," has
appeared in the Literarisches Centralblatt}
Of the rare texts known to us in the Achmim dialect, the apocryphal
fragments, published some years ago by Bouriant, are still the most
interesting. The editio princeps was, however, not very satisfactory; nor
was Stern, who had only that publication to work from, able to do more
than emend some passages and rearrange the sequence of a few otbers.
Steindorff has now produced an edition of Bouriant's leaves, made from
the original MSS. (now in Paris), and also of a further fragment of one of
them which more recently reached Berlin.0 The new edition consists of an
elaborate introduction, dealing with the palaeography of the MSS., the
literary history of the works they contain, and the philology of the Sa'idic
texts which run partly parallel with the Achmimic. The texts themselves
are accompanied by a translation, and a valuable glossary is added, con-
taining most of the words and forms hitherto acquired from the less-known
dialect. The Berlin leaves have shown that the longest of the texts must
belong to the apocalypse of Elias (Elijah), which is frequently mentioned
in patristic writings, rather than, as supposed by Bouriant, to that of
Sophonias (Zephaniah). The latter book is indeed represented, but only by
a small fragment, which, however, bears the supposed author's name, and
thus caused the confusion. Steindorff recognizes a third work attached
to these and likewise an apocrypha, though its authorship cannot be
fixed. Good reason is shown for believing the Sa'idic text to be the
youngest, and translated from an Achmimic version, which in turn was a
translation from the Greek. The Sa'idic idiom represented is peculiar, and
shows obvious marks of Achmimic influence. The Elias-apocalypse, the
author of which was well acquainted with Egypt, is regarded by Steindorff
as a Christianized version of a Jewish Avork, while in the anonymous
fragment he sees none but Jewish characteristics. The texts are edited, as
we might expect, with minute care; the philological section and the
glossary contain material of great interest, and all will be grateful for the
photographs of the two MSS. The above publication has already
been reviewed at length by Schiirer,7 who prefers to regard the Elias-
apocalypse as a purely Christian composition, dating perhaps from the
53
(? parchment) MS. in the Louvre.4 The passage is already complete in
Goussen's and all but complete in Amelineau's edition (Cod. Borg.). The
text generally agrees with the latter (e.g. iv. 3, 5) and differs sometimes
notably from the former (e.g. iii. 20, v. 2). To assign the MS. to the
fourth century is to ignore the palaeographical features which M. C.
himself mentions as well as the manifest grammatical inferiority of the texts.
An appreciative criticism of Peters's Ecclesiasticus, signed " R.," has
appeared in the Literarisches Centralblatt}
Of the rare texts known to us in the Achmim dialect, the apocryphal
fragments, published some years ago by Bouriant, are still the most
interesting. The editio princeps was, however, not very satisfactory; nor
was Stern, who had only that publication to work from, able to do more
than emend some passages and rearrange the sequence of a few otbers.
Steindorff has now produced an edition of Bouriant's leaves, made from
the original MSS. (now in Paris), and also of a further fragment of one of
them which more recently reached Berlin.0 The new edition consists of an
elaborate introduction, dealing with the palaeography of the MSS., the
literary history of the works they contain, and the philology of the Sa'idic
texts which run partly parallel with the Achmimic. The texts themselves
are accompanied by a translation, and a valuable glossary is added, con-
taining most of the words and forms hitherto acquired from the less-known
dialect. The Berlin leaves have shown that the longest of the texts must
belong to the apocalypse of Elias (Elijah), which is frequently mentioned
in patristic writings, rather than, as supposed by Bouriant, to that of
Sophonias (Zephaniah). The latter book is indeed represented, but only by
a small fragment, which, however, bears the supposed author's name, and
thus caused the confusion. Steindorff recognizes a third work attached
to these and likewise an apocrypha, though its authorship cannot be
fixed. Good reason is shown for believing the Sa'idic text to be the
youngest, and translated from an Achmimic version, which in turn was a
translation from the Greek. The Sa'idic idiom represented is peculiar, and
shows obvious marks of Achmimic influence. The Elias-apocalypse, the
author of which was well acquainted with Egypt, is regarded by Steindorff
as a Christianized version of a Jewish Avork, while in the anonymous
fragment he sees none but Jewish characteristics. The texts are edited, as
we might expect, with minute care; the philological section and the
glossary contain material of great interest, and all will be grateful for the
photographs of the two MSS. The above publication has already
been reviewed at length by Schiirer,7 who prefers to regard the Elias-
apocalypse as a purely Christian composition, dating perhaps from the