DOI article:
Crum, Walter E.: Progress of Egyptology: christian Egypt
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12420#0069
Christian Egypt.
55
showing a nearer relation to Theodotion than to the LXX. Most variants
however, " agree very closely with the LXX MSS. known to have been
written in TLgypt."
Several of these same fragments were copied by J. Schleifer, who
announces an edition of them.5
The Sa'idic fragments of St. John's Gospel in the Paris collection—and
they comprise the whole, less only some 20 verses—are edited, with all
variants in the case of duplicates, by H. Guerin, a small addition being
supplied by Delaporte.6 Balestri points out7 a number of bad readings,
though without assigning responsibility for them to the editors or
their MSS.
2. Apocryphal, Gnostic.—Lieblein continues his comparisons between
the conceptions of the Pistis Sophia and Egyptian paganism 8 (v. last
Report 63), pointing out the similarity between the prohibitions, PS. text,
254 ff., and the ' negative confession' (Bk. of Dead, ch. 125). He concludes
with a note on the year whereon certain calculations are based (text, 243),
and in which, as being of 365 days, he sees the Egyptian, as opposed to
the Babylonian or Julian calendar.
Andersson observes9 that several of Lieblein's views on these subjects
coincide with those already expressed by Amelineau.
In an article upon the gnostic influences in Egyptian Christianity,10
P. Scott-Moxcrieff analyses the Pistis, noting the pagan ideas surviving
in it. He approves Amelineau's 9th-10th century date for the MS., though
to support it would be palaeographically all but impossible. He draws
attention to various pieces of evidence for the syncretistic tendencies of
the age, discussing inter alia the supposed mortuary chapels and offerings
found at Antinoe, and the fish used as an emblem of the soul on a late
Egyptian coffin. (This has also attracted the notice of Spiegelberg.11)
It may be observed that the Deir el-Bahri mummy bore a Greek, not a
Coptic, label.
No. 20 of Wessely's above-mentioned texts is from an Egyptian version
of the so-called Paralipomena lercmiae (v. Amelineau, Contes ii, esp. p. 102,
and in general PRE.3, xvi, 262). Fol. 16 of Paris vol. 1321 is from this
MS. and immediately precedes the Vienna leaf.
2. Liturgical.—In the last Report p. 64 were mentioned important
fragments (ca. 600) of a Greek anaphora, to be edited by P. de Puniet.
We now • have the edition, with exhaustive commentary.12 The great
importance of the text lies in its testimony to the primitive position (so
its editor maintains) of the epiclesis in the Egyptian rite: before, not
after, the consecration. The creed too is preserved and appears, for the
55
showing a nearer relation to Theodotion than to the LXX. Most variants
however, " agree very closely with the LXX MSS. known to have been
written in TLgypt."
Several of these same fragments were copied by J. Schleifer, who
announces an edition of them.5
The Sa'idic fragments of St. John's Gospel in the Paris collection—and
they comprise the whole, less only some 20 verses—are edited, with all
variants in the case of duplicates, by H. Guerin, a small addition being
supplied by Delaporte.6 Balestri points out7 a number of bad readings,
though without assigning responsibility for them to the editors or
their MSS.
2. Apocryphal, Gnostic.—Lieblein continues his comparisons between
the conceptions of the Pistis Sophia and Egyptian paganism 8 (v. last
Report 63), pointing out the similarity between the prohibitions, PS. text,
254 ff., and the ' negative confession' (Bk. of Dead, ch. 125). He concludes
with a note on the year whereon certain calculations are based (text, 243),
and in which, as being of 365 days, he sees the Egyptian, as opposed to
the Babylonian or Julian calendar.
Andersson observes9 that several of Lieblein's views on these subjects
coincide with those already expressed by Amelineau.
In an article upon the gnostic influences in Egyptian Christianity,10
P. Scott-Moxcrieff analyses the Pistis, noting the pagan ideas surviving
in it. He approves Amelineau's 9th-10th century date for the MS., though
to support it would be palaeographically all but impossible. He draws
attention to various pieces of evidence for the syncretistic tendencies of
the age, discussing inter alia the supposed mortuary chapels and offerings
found at Antinoe, and the fish used as an emblem of the soul on a late
Egyptian coffin. (This has also attracted the notice of Spiegelberg.11)
It may be observed that the Deir el-Bahri mummy bore a Greek, not a
Coptic, label.
No. 20 of Wessely's above-mentioned texts is from an Egyptian version
of the so-called Paralipomena lercmiae (v. Amelineau, Contes ii, esp. p. 102,
and in general PRE.3, xvi, 262). Fol. 16 of Paris vol. 1321 is from this
MS. and immediately precedes the Vienna leaf.
2. Liturgical.—In the last Report p. 64 were mentioned important
fragments (ca. 600) of a Greek anaphora, to be edited by P. de Puniet.
We now • have the edition, with exhaustive commentary.12 The great
importance of the text lies in its testimony to the primitive position (so
its editor maintains) of the epiclesis in the Egyptian rite: before, not
after, the consecration. The creed too is preserved and appears, for the