I prefer 'old' and 'not as old' but I guess that's the accepted convention.
As I said, I am going to continue to read this wonderful thesis. It is incredible to see how well researched every aspect of the argument is. Still, I am uneasy with the 'true/false' distinction. We can be certain that the Bible wasn't tampered with in the fourth and fifth centuries. Yet what happened to all those strange texts and traditions that lay outside? I think a strong case can be made that Patristic texts were modified in the third century. We've demonstrated that time and again with respect to the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian etc. Why not apocryphal texts and traditions? They were developed in the direction of orthodoxy.
In any event, I am surprised at the sheer volume of references to a tradition that the Jerusalem Church - or a related 'house' in Jerusalem - had a library of apocryphal apostolic texts. If this material is well known, I don't know why it hasn't been connected to the discovery of a lost letter of Clement of Alexandria at a related library at Mar Saba. I know Clement specifically references the text as being kept at St Mark's church in Egypt, but it is often ignored that other 'copies' are being attested to have existed outside of Alexandria. Moreover, Jude, the author of the canonical epistle and the presumed bishop of Jerusalem is explicitly identified by Clement elsewhere as writing against the Carpocratians. (Strom. 3.11.2)
Indeed the consistency with which Clement connects the bishop of Jerusalem with the Carpocratians can be argued to suggest the presence of the text in the environs at the time he was writing. In other words, Clement in to Theodore is responding to the attestation of this gospel in Jerusalem and the reference in the Stromata reinforces that notion. Look closely for a moment at that reference again:
I fancy Jude was speaking prophetically of these and similar sects in his letter when he wrote: "So too with these people caught up in their dreams" who do not set upon the truth with their eyes fully open, down to "pompous phrases pour from their mouth (καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα)"
Compare this to the opening reference in to Theodore congratulating Clement's friend who "did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations" (Καλῶς ἐποίησας ἐπιστομίσαι τὰς ἀῤῥήτους διδασκαλίας τῶν Καρποκρατιανῶν). ἐπιστομίσαι - aorist active infinitive - literally means 'to shut the mouth' and is obviously connected to the στόμα reference in Jude.
Was to Theodore written in Jerusalem or to someone in Jerusalem or is Clement just alluding to the canonical writings of the former bishop of the city? It's hard to say with any certainty. What is clear is that Clement does not seem to be writing from Alexandria as he seems to mention the original text of the gospel in the Egyptian library as far away.
The idea that the letter to Theodore - and possibly Secret Mark - might have been kept in the very same library in Jerusalem as we learn from Suciu many other apocryphal texts is quite startling. I was not even aware there was a 'hidden library' tradition associated with the library at Jerusalem. Here is an extended section from Suciu's thesis (hope he doesn't get mad at the length or that I have attempted to slightly alter the footnotes into endnotes to make it easier to read):
Although the documentation concerning the genuine works of Cyril of Jerusalem in Coptic is scarce, the spurious writings transmitted under his name are numerous.[3] In the following pages, I shall refer only to those works which are connected to the apostolic books. It is likely that the important place which Cyril of Jerusalem plays in this kind of literature is due to the fact that his episcopal see was in Jerusalem. Thus, he allegedly had access to the books written by the apostles and hidden in the library of Jerusalem or in the house of Mary, mother of John Mark.
It is likely that the important place which Cyril of Jerusalem plays in this kind of literature is due to the fact that his episcopal see was in Jerusalem. Thus, he allegedly had access to the books written by the apostles and hidden in the library of Jerusalem or in the house of Mary, mother of John Mark. For example, in a homily On the Life and the Passion of Christ attributed to Cyril (CPG 3604; clavis coptica 0113), the author pretends to transcribe the words “which we found written in the writings of our fathers, the holy apostles, which they wrote in this holy city of Jerusalem.”[4] Ps.-Cyril says that a certain Theodosius the deacon found in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, a little parchment book written by the apostles while they were hiding in that place together with the Virgin because of the Jews who were trying to kill them. During this period, the apostles wrote several books:
Listen to me, oh my honoured children, and let me tell you something of what we found written in the house of Mary, the mother of John, who is called Mark. … They (scil. the apostles) deliberated with each other and wrote down all the things that had happened and the sufferings which our Saviour and our Life had endured until he rose from the dead and redeemed us.[5]
Cyril is not able to read the ancient manuscript, but he gives it to Bachios, who is said to come from a monastery near Ascalon, and is an expert in old writings. This character is recurrent in other texts from the Coptic cycle of Cyril of Jerusalem.[6] To Bachios are ascribed a homily on the apostles (clavis coptica 0067), which contains apocryphal insertions,[7] and another one on the Three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace (clavis coptica 0068).[8] The putative author of the book deciphered by him in the sermon of Ps.-Cyril is the apostle Peter, who narrates the events of the Holy Week in the first person plural. Joost Hagen remarked that a passage in this text, in which Christ ascends to heaven while the apostles are sitting on the Mount of Olives, contains a clear parallel to ApoBA and the Book of Bartholomew (CANT 80; clavis coptica 0027):[9] The literary motif of the discovery of an ancient book and Bachios' knowledge of old scripts are further developed in the sermon attributed to him on the Three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace. The Sahidic version is fragmentary, but Ugo Zanetti offered a résumé of the Arabic version, which is complete. The Arabic text mentions that Bachios received from the Babylonian Christians several ancient books written in their language. As we have already seen in the homily of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem On the Passion, Bachios was able to read ancient writings, presumably Syriac as well. Thus, he found among the old books the life of the Three Hebrew Saints, Ananias, Azarias and Misael, written by Jechonias, who was a witness of the events. Bachios decides to translate this book into Coptic.[10] It is very likely that the Sahidic version is supposed to be his translation from Syriac.
In another Coptic homily of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, this one on Mary Magdalene (CANT 73; clavis coptica 0118), the patriarch finds a book concerning the life of the Magdalene in the library of Jerusalem. Interestingly enough, the book is written in Coptic: [Coptic text] “I wish to reveal to you the life of this holy noble, Saint Mary Magdalene, and the way in which I found it in the library of the holy city, written in Egyptian”[11] Unfortunately, the manuscript breaks-off at this point and we do not know the circumstances in which Ps.-Cyril found the book. It is, however, clear that the book was allegedly written by a certain Simon the Eunuch, who is introduced as a disciple of the apostles.[12] The book contains extensive extracts from a well-known apocryphal writing, namely the Cave of Treasures (CAVT 11).[13] The Coptic version embedded in this sermon is introduced as a revelation of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary Magdalene and Theophilus. This character seems to be the same as the one to whom are dedicated the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.[14]
In a sermon of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Virgin (clavis coptica 0005), which survived fragmentarily in three Sahidic codices, the author claims that he is recounting the life of Mary [Coptic words] “as we read it in the writings of our fathers the apostles” (Coptic word).[15]
The same theme appears in a homily on the Dormition of the Virgin attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, which is known to me only in Arabic. Cyril examines the books of the apostles and discovers a letter which John sent to his disciple, Prochorus. The Arabic text is still unpublished, but here is an extract from Ms. Paris. arab. 150, f. 173r:[16]
اق هُ٘ ىنَ يا لَٗاَدِي الادثآ ا اَّ ميرُىصَ ا يّ م دُْ افرش في مرةُ الآتا اىقذَيطي اىَرُضو الاط اَٖر فَ ج٘ذخ فَي مرابَ شرحَ يّادَح اىطَد اىطَيذَج اىؼذَريَ اىطَإَ رَ صََٗؼ د٘ جَطذَ إَ اىي اىفَردُ شَٗ في رٍَو ذَإَ اىي اىَ ثَارك اىذيَ إُىطَادَش ػشَرَ شَ رٖ طٍََرَيَ تذظ اتر خٗ رَ٘شَ ق هُ٘ يَ دَُ٘ اْ ات زتذَيَ الاَ جَّيو نٍر بُ٘ نَٕذا ا اىطَيذَ اىؼَذري اىطَإ رَ رٍَذ رَيَ
I am telling you, O my beloved sons, I, Cyril, that I was searching through the books of the holy fathers, the pure apostles, and I found in a book the explanation of the Dormition of the Lady, the Pure Virgin, and of the assumption of her body in paradise in such a blessed day, the 16th of the month of Mesore. Prochorus wrote that this is what John the Evangelist, the son of Zebedee relates about the holy lady, the pure Mary…
The letter of the apostle John is written in the first person plural and narrates the circumstances in which the body of Mary had been transferred to heaven after her death. The text features many apparitions of the Savior and revelatory discourses.
Prochorus wrote down the story of the Dormition of the Virgin in a book, which Cyril will discover later in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, just like in the homily on the passion. Ex codice Parisino arabico 150, f. 191r:
امرةَ ذإَ اىخثر ج يَؼَ في مرابَ اَٗجؼَي في خساي اىنَرُة دَري يثشر تَ في اىؼَاى اج غََ ذذَمَارَ اً ىيطَد اىطَيذَ اىؼَذَريَ اىطَإَ ر رٍذ رَُيَ دَطَة اٍَ ا رٍ تَ ضَيَذ اّ يط عَُ٘ اى طََيخ ى اى جَذَ ذَٕ شَ اٖدَج اتي ي دَُ٘ اَْ اىؼَ دَُ٘ اى رُْ٘ اى ضََي اٍَٗ ػاي رْ ا اّ تؼَي يْ ا اّ اترَ خٗ رُ٘ شَٗ ذَي يَذَ قَٗذَ اػَي رَنَ ت يا ادَثاي اَٗى ؼْ ؼٍَنُ ا يٍَ ذَْٖ ا اىذيَ جَٗذَ اّ مَٗرث اىرُضَوَ الاَط اَٖر ضَٗٗؼ في تيد رٍَي ا ي دَُ٘ اْ يذَػي اىذَيَ رٍَُقصَ ا اّ اتَين ميرىَيَص ذثؼَد اذار ذؼَي جٗ يَغ اىش اٖدَاخ اىذَي جَٗذُذَ اٖ شٍر دُٗ قذ اػَي رَنُ ت اٖ
“…Write this whole story in a book and put it in the library to explain to the whole world the commemoration of the Lady, the pure Virgin Mary according to the orders of our Lord Jesus Christ, glory to him. This is the testimony of my father John, the illuminated pillar of light, and what I saw with my eyes. I am Prochorus, his disciple and I am the one who reported it. Grace be with you, Amen!” This is what I found, that which the pure apostles wrote and put in the house of Mary, mother of John, called Mark. I, your father Cyril, I have followed the footsteps of their teachings and all the testimonies which I found I explained (and) I taught you.
The apostolic library in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, appears also in Ps.-Chrysostom‟s On the Four Bodiless Creatures (CPG 5150.11; clavis coptica 0177).[17] This apocryphal writing contains a dialogue of Christ with the apostles concerning the establishment of the Four Bodiless Creatures on the 8th of the month of Hathor. The revelation dialogue is embedded in a homily attributed to John Chrysostom. The text is preserved in Sahidic,[18] Old Nubian,[19] Arabic[20] and Ethiopic (Dersān za-arbā„ettu Ensesā).[21]
The alleged author travels to Jerusalem and finds an apostolic writing in the house of the same Mary:
It happened to me that, after I had left Athens and before I entered the life of monasticism, that is, the life of philosophy, my heart moved me to go to Jerusalem, the shrine of the saints, to pray in the shrine of the saints and worship in the tomb of the Savior. I also went to the banks of the Jordan, where our Savior was baptized. I returned to the house of Mary mother of John, who is called Mark, where the apostles had gathered. I spent four months there to become worthy of the Resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ by studying the holy ancient constitutions. A written tome came into my hands in which the apostles wrote as follows.[22]
This pseudo-Chrysostomic homily has several points in common with ApoBA. For example, the apostles relate in the first person plural the conversations which they had with the Savior. The text begins with the words “It happened one day when we, the apostles [Coptic words], were gathered on the Mount of Olives that, behold, the Savior came mounted on the cherubs.”[23] Jesus calls the apostles several times using vocatives such as [Coptic words] (Wansink 21), [Coptic words] (Wansink 26), [Coptic words] (Wansink 31). As we shall see later, these expressions are related to the formula [Coptic words], which appears three times in P. Berol. 22220.
In a sermon on the Archangel Michael attributed to Timothy II, patriarch of Alexandria († 477) (CPG 2529; clavis coptica 0404),[24] the pretended author finds a writing of the apostle John transcribed by his disciple, who is called Proclus in the only Sahidic witness presently known:
Now it came to pass that I, the least of all men, Timothy your father, went up to Jerusalem to worship the Cross of our Savior, and [His] life-giving tomb, and the holy places wherein our Savior walked about. Afterwards I went into the house of the mother of Proclus, the disciple of John the Evangelist, and I dwelt therein, and I found a parchment book [Coptic words] which Proclus, the disciple of John, had written; and the people who were in the house had taken it and were using it as a phylactery.[25]
Although this text is attested in a single Sahidic manuscript, it is extant in many Ethiopic exemplars.[26] Moreover, it is likely that the mīmar on Michael attributed to Timothy in several Arabic codices is the same text.[27] Under the title “Vision de Saint Jean l‟évangéliste racontée par le patriarche Timothée,” Amélineau published a slightly different Arabic version of the text, but, with his usual carelessness, he omitted to say which manuscript he used.[28] Be that as it may, the Arabic version clarifies that the name of John's disciple, Proclus, which appears in the Sahidic manuscript edited by Budge, is a mistake. As in the case of the aforementioned sermon of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Assumption of the Virgin, in the Arabic text translated by Amélineau, the one who transcribed the apocryphal book of John is his disciple Prochorus.[29] The Ethiopic recension of EMML 1433 does not agree exactly either with the Coptic or with the Arabic, instead indicating that the book was discovered by Demetrius (ደማትዮስ፡)[30] in “the house of the mother of the disciple of John the Evangelist” (ቤዯ፡ እሙ፡ ለረድአ፡ ዮሐንስ፡ ወንጌላዊ፡).[31] Alessandro Bausi drew attention to another Ethiopic recension, according to which Demetrius found the book in the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark. The apostolic memoir was allegedly written by John the Evangelist.[32]
The same Prochorus also transcribed the revelation of Christ to his apostles in a homily on the Dormition of the Virgin attributed to a certain Cyriacus of Behnesa (CANT 147; 153), which survived in Arabic and Ethiopic.[33]
Although the Arabic text remains unpublished, the present enquiry references the text found in the manuscript Vat. arab. 170. Ex codice Vaticano arabico 170, fol. 324r-325r:
ىٗ اَ ما في ايا اتي اْ ا رّاضَي ش٘ اىرضَ ى٘ي خطر فنر تثاه مريري الاخ اىطَام يْ تيريدَ شي اٖخ ىني ي ضَ ا٘ اىي تيد اى قَذش ىيرثارم ا٘ تاىقيا حٍ اى قَذضَ ضَٗجذ اٗ في الاذاراخ اىشريف اٗيضا تارادخ الله ضَر اّ غٍ مرير اى اْشَ اٗضَرػَ اْ اىي اى ذَي اى قَذضَ ى ظْْر اىي اىذذ دٗ جٗ يَغ الاذاراج اى قَذضَ اىري اظ رَٖذ اى يَن اى يَٕلاضر اٗت اْٖ اىثار قطَطَ طْي اى يَل ذٗثارم اْ اىقيا اٗىقثر اىشريف اٗق اَْ ايا اٍ قلايو مٗا دَاظ را ج يَد ى جَ غَ اى قَذشَ اخا يطَ اَ ارشلا شَٗ ؼٍي فاضو الاذ اْ ضَيي ؼٍَ مرات ا قٍذ شَ فرذ تٗذَا يقرا ذٕ اىش اٖداخ مي اَٖ ضَٗؼ إىرضَو اجو قصَح ضَيذ اّ رٍي اىؼَذري تٗشر اٗ في اىخييق مي اٖ اٗيضا ا اتر خٗ ر٘شَ ضٗغ ذٕ اىش اٖدَاخ في مراب الا ىٗي ذات ؼا في دىل اىؼَا دٍ٘ اى يَْر اتي ي دَ٘ اْ الا جّييي اى رَني تالاى يٖاخ قاه ا ى اَ اٍذد اىؼذري رٍو ضَاير اى اْ شَ اجر ؼََ ا٘ ػ ذْ إَ اىرضَو مٗف إَْ٘
And it happened in the days of our father Athanasius the Apostolic, that many of the brothers who were living in the wilderness of Scetis thought to go to Jerusalem to be blessed by the holy Resurrection and to kneel before the venerable relics. By the will of God, we left also with a lot of people and we hastened to the holy city to see the nails and all the venerable relics that had been revealed by Helen and her righteous son, king Constantine. We received blessings from the Resurrection and the venerable tomb and we remained for a few days. And there was a brother in the assembly, called Archelaos, an excellent teacher of the people of Athens, who had a holy book. He opened it and began to read …
All these testimonies were written by the apostles to tell the story of our Lady, the Virgin Mary, and to preach it to the whole creation. And then Prochorus put all these testimonies in the book of the fathers, following the illuminated pillar, my father John, the Evangelist and Theologian, who said that when the Virgin Mary died like all humans, the apostles gathered around her, and wrapped her. The first passage quoted above reveals an interesting detail concerning the alleged date of Cyriacus' episcopacy, which has been much debated in contemporary research. Certain Arabic and Ethiopic manuscripts have transmitted under the name of this author eight homilies and an anaphora of Mary.[34] Many scholars who studied the Arabic and the Ethiopic texts which survived under his name believed that Cyriacus originally wrote in Arabic. The latest hypothesis belongs to Ève Lanchantin, who placed Cyriacus‟ episcopacy sometime between the 14th and the 15th century.[35] This is, however, contradicted by the homily on the Dormition of the Virgin, in which the author states explicitly that he is a contemporary of Athanasius of Alexandria.[36] Although it is likely that Cyriacus is only the putative author of the texts attributed to him, he clearly belongs to the literature of the Coptic period.
The only work attributed to Cyriacus which has survived in Coptic is a homily on the Lament of Mary (CANT 74). However, because much of the research devoted to Cyriacus of Behnesa until now had placed this character in the late Arabic period, and because the name of the author had not been preserved in the few Sahidic fragments of the Lament of Mary which survived,[37] it has been thought that the work must have been transmitted in Coptic under another name. Philippe Luisier, for example, suggested that behind the mysterious figure of Cyriacus of Behnesa lies Judas Cyriacus, the legendary bishop of Jerusalem who was martyred under Julian the Apostate.[38]
In the Lament of Mary, Cyriacus of Behnesa is only transcribing a book of Gamaliel and Nicodemus, which he found in Jerusalem. Besides Sahidic, the text is preserved in Arabic (including Garšūnī manuscripts) and Ethiopic.[39] The Lament of Mary is an apocryphal Passion narrative which has literary connections with other similar texts such as the Acts of Pilate (CANT 62), the Book of the Cock (መጽሐፈ፡ ዶርሆ፡),[40] the Coptic Book of Bartholomew, the Martyrdom of Pilate, and some of the Sahidic homilies on the Passion attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem. The work narrates the events surrounding the Resurrection of Christ, interwoven with large portions in which Virgin Mary is portrayed as stricken by grief, weeping over the death of her son. She occupies a prominent place in the text, the Lament of Mary sharing with certain other Coptic writings the claim that the first witness of the resurrected Christ was not Mary Magdalene, but rather Mary the Mother.[41] The homily tends to absolve Pilate from the guilt of condemning Jesus Christ, putting the whole responsibility on the Jews.[42] Convinced by the miracles which occurred during Crucifixion and Resurrection, Pilate confesses Jesus‟ divine nature and becomes his follower.
The Lament of Mary has affinities with the Martyrdom of Pilate (CANT 75), another work which survives in Arabic and Ethiopic under the name of Cyriacus of Behnesa.[43] The Martyrdom constitutes the continuation of the Lament of Mary, narrating the circumstances which ultimately lead to the death of Pilate and his family as Christian martyrs. In the Garšūnī manuscript of the Martyrdom of Pilate published by Mingana, Christ calls the apostles “O my beloved and my members.”[44] Both stories were allegedly written by Gamaliel the Elder, and later retold by Cyriacus, who found them in books deposited in the library of Jerusalem. They contain extensive revelations of Jesus to his apostles and gospel-like material.
Possibly, these two books of Gamaliel are mentioned in a homily of Ps.-Basil of Caesarea on the building of the first church dedicated to the Virgin (CPG 2970; clavis coptica 0073), which incorporates a letter whose purported author is the evangelist Luke. The text has survived in the Bohairic dialect of Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic.[45] Basil travels to Jerusalem and discovers in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, “a multitude of ancient books (ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣ ⲛ ϫⲱⲙ ⲛ ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲟⲛ), those written by Josephus the writer (suggrafeu,j), Gamaliel the Teacher, Luke the scribe, and Nicodemus the Levite.”[46] If this hypothesis is correct, the sermon of Ps.-Basil must have been written after the Lament of Mary and the Martyrdom of Pilate, the books attributed to Gamaliel in the homilies of Cyriacus of Behnesa
In a homily of the same Cyriacus on the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt (no clavis number), the author says that he found in Jerusalem a book on this topic written by Joseph the carpenter, in which the earthly father of Jesus related the deeds of the members of the Holy Family while they were hiding in Egypt.[47]
We do not know exactly who Archelaos was, the teacher of Athens, who features in the above quoted passage from the homily on the Dormition of Mary attributed to Cyriacus. The text indicates that he possessed a book of John transcribed by Prochorus. Notably, another pseudo-apostolic writing is embedded in a homily on the Archangel Gabriel, attributed to the mysterious figure of a certain Archelaos (clavis coptica 0045).[48] We cannot be sure whether this character and Archelaos from the homily of Cyriacus are one and the same, although this hypothesis is likely to be true. In the Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the homily on Gabriel, Archelaos is said to be the bishop of Neapolis, which has to be identified with Nablus, situated near Mount Gerizim.[49] On the other hand, in the Ethiopic collection Dersāna Gabre‟ēl, in which this homily is included, the author is said to be bishop of Dāḫnā. In the Arabic version, the town of Archelaos bishopric is called Irā.
Until now, only the Bohairic text of Ps.-Archelaos‟ sermon on the Archangel Gabriel has been published critically,[50] although multiple Sahidic,[51] Arabic[52] and Ethiopic[53] exemplars are attested as well. During a pilgrimage to the holy land, Ps.-Archelaos discovers in the library of the monastery of St. Romanos a book written by the apostles: [Coptic words] (“It came to our hand an ancient book, which had in it writings of our holy fathers, the apostles”). The apostolic book begins on the Mount of Olives, where the apostles are sitting. Christ appears and reveals to them “great hidden mysteries” [Coptic words]. The monastery of Romanos in which Ps.-Archelaos found the alleged memoirs of the apostles must be the Palestinian monastery led for a period by Severus of Antioch, the great champion of Miaphysite orthodoxy.[54]
In a sermon for the celebration of the Dormition of the Virgin attributed to Theodosius of Alexandria (CPG 7153; clavis coptica 0385),[55] preserved in two Bohairic manuscripts from Scetis,[56] but also in Arabic,4 we find the following passage:
Let us turn to the theme which is laid down for us of this great festival, which is spread out for us today; that we may bring into the midst her who is worthy of all honor: beginning from the dispensation of Christ unto the death of this holy Virgin and her assumption: even as I found it in detail [Coptic words] in ancient records [Coptic words] in Jerusalem, which came into my hand in the library of the holy Mark at Alexandria.[57]
It is clearly stated in the lines above that Theodosius is only a mediator who transcribes an authentic document, which turn out to be written by the apostles. The manuscript contains the classical Coptic topoi related to the Transitus Mariae, the narrators being the apostles Peter and John. Expressions such as “we, ourselves, the apostles” [Coptic words] [58] are recurrent in the text.
In the title of the Encomium on Abbaton, the Angel of Death (CPG 2530; clavis coptica 0405),[59] attributed to Timothy Aelurus, it is said that the archbishop wishing to learn concerning this fearful and terrifying being (scil. Abbaton), whom God made … when he went to Jerusalem to worship the Cross of our Savior, and his life-giving tomb, on the seventeenth day of the month Thoth, searched through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the apostles, and deposited by them therein, until he discovered [the account of] the creation of Abbaton.[60]
The encomium is preserved in a single Sahidic manuscript in the British Library (BL Or. 7025),[61] but it seems that at least an Arabic version existed as well. Thus, in the Kitāb al-īḍāḥ, a Copto-Arabic catechetical work written perhaps in the 11th century, and formerly attributed to Severus ibn al-Muqaffa,[62] there are some polemical references to an apocryphal homily of Theophilus of Alexandria, which seems to be identical with our Encomium on Abbaton.[63] The text is a homily for the 13th of Hathor, when the Coptic church celebrates Abbaton, the Angel of Death (cf. Revelation 9:11). Christ, who, like in ApoBA, is named throughout Savior and Lord, explains to the apostles gathered around him how the angel Muriel was established by God as the Angel of Death. He says to them:
O you whom I have chosen from out of the whole world, I will hide nothing from you, but I will inform you how My Father established him (i.e. Abbaton) … For I and My Father are one [Coptic words] [64] … And now, O my holy members [Coptic words], whom I have chosen from out of the whole world, I will hide nothing from you”.[65]
After this speech, he sends them to proclaim the gospel in all parts of the world – a current theme in this kind of literature – linked to the idea of apostolic authority.
There are other pseudo-apostolic books embedded in sermons attributed to different church Fathers. I shall briefly mention only the testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (CPG 2183; clavis coptica 0063; cf. also CAVT 88, 98-99; clavis coptica 0542, 0350) allegedly discovered by Athanasius in the library of Alexandria;[66] a book of the Virgin concerning her adventures with the apostle Matthias in the town of Bartos, part of a homily by Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem (BHO 654; CANT 281.2);[67] a book of James, the brother of the Lord, inserted in a homily on John the Baptist attributed to John Chrysostom (CPG 5150.3; CANT 184; clavis coptica 0170);[68] another book allegedly written by James, this one on the Dormition
3 In general on the literary heritage of Cyril of Jerusalem in Coptic see T. Orlandi, “Cirillo di Gerusalemme nella letteratura copta,” Vetera Christianorum 9 (1972) 93-100, to which must be added the results obtained during the past decades. On the apocryphal traditions incorporated in the Sahidic sermons attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, see G. Aranda, “Tradiciones marianas apórifas en las homilìs coptas del Pseudo-Cirillo de Jerusalén: I. Origen e infancia de Maria, nacimiento de Jesus,” Scripta de Maria 4 (1981) 101-121.4 Translation in R. van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ. A Coptic Apocryphon (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 118; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013) 127. This writing is preserved only in Sahidic, in a complete manuscript (New York, Pierpont Morgan M 610) and several palimpsest fragments in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (call number E 16262). See the preliminary report of van den Broek on this text in “An Early Chronology of Holy Week in Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem‟s On the Passion (Pierpont Morgan Library, M 610),” in S. Emmel et al. (eds.), Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker un christlicher Zeit. Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster, 20.-26. Juli 1996 vol. 2: Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 6/2; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999) 101-108. Cf. also Orlandi, “Cirillo di Gerusalemme,” 100.
5 van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 127.6 T. Orlandi, “Bacheus,” in A.S. Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia vol. 2 (Macmillan: New York, 1991) 324a-b.7 Edited in F. Morard, “Homéie copte sur les apôres au Jugement Dernier,” in D.H. Warren et al. (eds.), Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions and Symbols. Essays in Honor of François Bovon (Biblical Interpretation Series, 66; Boston – Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003) 417-430.8 U. Zanetti, “Le roman de Bakhés sur les trois jeunes saints de Babylone. Fragments coptes sahidiques,” in B. Janssens et al. (eds.), Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 137; Louvain: Peeters, 2004) 713-747.9 Hagen, “Ein anderer Kontext,” 362-363.
10 Zanetti, “Le roman de Bakhés,” 717-718.11 R.-G. Coquin, “Un encomion copte sur Marie-Madeleine attribué à Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Bulletin de l‟Institut français d‟archéologie orientale 90 (1990) 169-212, at 176. Coquin edited the text after two fragmentary Sahidic codices. From the first manuscript survived ten folios, which are kept today in the collection of IFAO, in Cairo (inv. no. 186-187; 190-197). From the second only three fragments are extant, two in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, and one which formerly belonged to Sylvestre Chauleur and was later acquired by Gérard Godron. Description of the IFAO leaves in C. Louis, Catalogue raisonné des manuscrits littéraires coptes conservés à l‟IFAO du Caire. Contribution à la reconstitution de la bibliothèque du Monastère Blanc (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences Religieuses: Paris, 2005) 285-287 (= no. 61); description of the Pierpont Morgan material in Depuydt, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library vol. 1 (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 4; Oriental Series, 1; Leuven: Peeters, 1993) 213 (= no. 110). The ex-“Chauleur fragment” was published in S. Chauleur, “Deux pages d‟n manuscrit sur la Sainte Vierge,” Cahiers Coptes 12 (1956) 3-5. For further information on the Pierpont Morgan fragments see the following note.12 I am not sure who this Simon is meant to be, but he introduces himself as “a eunuch secretary,” see Coquin, “Encomion sur Marie-Madeleine,” 197, 201. The author of the encomium says that when the father of Mary Magdalene died, he appointed Simon as administrator of his heritage. Simon belonged to the group of disciples which witnessed the miracle of feeding the multitude and refers to the apostles as “my fathers.”
13 P.-H. Poirier, “Fragments d‟ne version copte de la Caverne des tréors,” Orientalia 52 (1983) 415-423 (edition of the two Pierpont Morgan fragments). On the relationships between this Coptic text and the Cave of Treasures cf. Coquin, “Marie-Madeleine,” 169, 173; A. Su-Min Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne des Trésors. Étude sur l‟histoire du texte et de ses sources (CSCO, 581. Subsidia, 103; Louvain: Peeters, 2000) 67-69.14 P.-H. Poirier, “Note sur le nom du destinataire des chapitres 44 à 54 de la Caverne des Trésors,” in Christianisme d‟Égypte. Hommages à René-Georges Coquin (Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte, 9; Louvain – Paris: Peeters, 1995) 115-122.15 F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels. Translations Together with the Texts of Some of Them (Text and Studies, 4/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896) 4. The text is not identified in Robinson, but see now E. Lucchesi, “Les sept Marie dans une homéie copte et l‟rigine du mäkɘ‟éhiopien,” Analecta Bollandiana 127 (2009) 9-15. Lucchesi indicated that this sermon exists in Arabic as well.16 Description in G. Troupeau, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes 1: Manuscrits chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque Nationale. Département des manuscrits; Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1972) 117. Cf. also G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur vol. 1 (Studi e testi, 118; Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944) 336.
17 This theme, as it appears in the homily of Ps.-Chrysostom, is analyzed in Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 354-359. Cf. also Idem, “The Great Cherub.”18 On the Sahidic manuscripts of On the Four Bodiless Creatures by Ps.-Chrysostom see E. Lucchesi, “Fausses attributions en hagiographie copte,” Le Muséon 113 (2006) 233-254, at 243-247.19 G.M. Browne, “An Old Nubian Version of Ps.-Chrysostom, In quattuor animalia,” Altorientalische Forschungen 15 (1988) 215-219.
20 Cf. Graf, GCAL 1, 545.21 On the Ethiopic see G. Lusini, “Appunti sulla patristica greca di tradizione etiopica,” Studi classici e orientali 38 (1988) 469-493, at 487-488\
22 Edition of Sahidic text and translation by C.S. Wansink in L. Depuydt (ed.), Homiletica from the Pierpont Morgan Library 2 vols. (CSCO, 524-525. Scriptores coptici, 43-44; Louvain: Peeters, 1991) 1: 31-32 (Sahidic text); 2: 32 (English translation).
23 Ibidem, 1: 32, 2: 32.24 Although this sermon is attributed to Timothy I, pope between 378-384, in CPG, I think that the alleged author is Timothy II Aelurus (pope between 457-460). He is the only one of the three patriarchs named Timothy which left traces in Coptic literature, several writings being attributed to him. His future memory was assured by the important role he played in the Christological debates of the epoch and in the anti-Chalcedonian resistance of the Coptic Church.
25 Translation in E.A.W. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1915) 1022, with modifications. Coptic text in Ibidem, 513.
26This homily belongs to the Ethiopic collection Dɘrsāna Mikā‟el, see e.g. W. Wright, Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1847 (London: British Museum, 1877) 146 (= no. CCXIX1); Vat. Eth. 82; EMML 646; EMML 570; EMML 1433; EMML 569 etc. For the content and other manuscripts of this collection see P. Marrassini, “I manoscritti etiopici della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze,” Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 31 (1987) 69-110, at 77-87 (= no. 14).
27 Three Arabic manuscripts in the Coptic Museum in Cairo are listed in Graf, GCAL 1, 464.
28 É. Amélineau, Contes et romans d‟Égypte chrétienne vol. 1 (Collection de contes et chansons populaires, 13; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1888) 11-19. On the identification of the two texts cf. C.G.D. Müller, Die Engellehre der koptischen Kirche. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der christlichen Frömmigkeit in Ägypten (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959) 161 n. 951. Cf. also the analysis of the homily in Idem, Die alte Koptische Predigt (Berlin: Darmstadt, 1954) 106-112.29 This identification of the disciple of John had already been made in W. Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1/2; Göttingen, 1970) 48 n. 5; Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 351-352 n. 11.
30“Demātēwos” must be a mistake for “Timotheos,” which occurred during the transmission of the text in Ethiopic.31 EMML 1433, f. 5v. I am indebted to Adam McCollum of the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library for checking this manuscript for me.
32 A. Bausi, “A First Evaluation of the Arabic Version of the Apocalypse of Paul‟,” Parole de l‟Orient 24 (1999) 131-164, at 154.33 Summary of the Arabic text in A. van Lantschoot, “L‟ssomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes,” Gregorianum 27 (1946) 493-526, at 509-511. The Ethiopic version is available in V. Arras, De transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice 2 vols. (CSCO, 351-352. Scriptores aethiopici, 68-69; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1974) 1: 34-55 (Ethiopic text), 2: 26-42 (Latin translation); republished after a different manuscript by S. Bombeck, Die Geschichte der heiligen Maria in einer alten äthiopischen Handschrift 2 vols. (Dortmund: Praxiswissen, 2004-2010) 1: 322-346 (Ethiopic text), 2: 176-188 (German translation).
34 On the list of works transmitted under Cyriacus‟ name, see R.-G. Coquin, “Cyriacus,” in A.S. Atiya (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1991) 669b-671a, at 670a-b; È. Lanchantin, “Une homélie sur le Martyre de Pilate, attribuée à Cyriaque de Behnessa,” Apocrypha 13 (2002) 135-202, at 145-146.35 Lanchantin, “Martyre de Pilate,” 142-144.36 The parallel Ethiopic version of the passage above was quoted against Lanchantin‟s hypothesis by Philippe Luisier in his review to Beylot, Le Martyre de Pilate, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 61 (1995) 251.
37 See A. Suciu, “A British Library Fragment from a Homily on the Lament of Mary and the So-Called Gospel of Gamaliel,” Aethiopica. International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 15 (2012) 53-71. There are fragments of two different codices, one from the White Monastery and the other from the Monastery of St. Mercurius, situated near Edfu, in Nubia.
38 P. Luisier, “De Pilate chez les Coptes,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 62 (1996) 411-425, at 411-412.
39 For the Arabic see A. Mingana, “The Lament of the Virgin,” in Woodbrooke Studies vol. 2 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1928) 163-240 (= reprint from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 12 [1928]). Other Arabic manuscripts are mentioned in Graf, GCAL 1, 248; for Ethiopic see M.-A. van den Oudenrijn, Gamaliel. Äthiopische Texte zur Pilatusliteratur (Spicilegium Friburgense, 4; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1959) 2-83 (Ethiopic text and German translation). Other Ethiopic manuscripts of the Lament of Mary are mentioned in A. Bausi, “I manoscritti etiopici di J. M. Wansleben nella Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 33 (1989) 5-33, at 19. On the Ethiopic version, check also S. Weninger, “Laḥ Maryam,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica vol. 3: He-N (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007) 477a-b.40 On the Ethiopic version of this text see, e.g., M. Chaîne, “Le Livre du Coq („Matzḥafa Dorho‟),” Revue sémitique d‟épigraphie et d‟histoire ancienne 13 (1905) 276-281; R.W. Cowley, “The So-Called „Ethiopic Book of the Cock‟: Part of an Apocryphal Passion Gospel. „The Homily and Teaching of Our Fathers the Holy Apostles‟,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1 (1985) 16-22; P. Piovanelli, “Exploring the Ethiopic Book of the Cock: An Apocryphal Passion Gospel from Late Antiquity,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003) 427-454; French translation in Idem, “Livre du coq,” in P. Geoltrain –J.-D. Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 2 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 516; Paris: Gallimard, 2005) 135-203. An Arabic version has been identified by Enzo Lucchesi, see his “La „orlage‟arabe du Livre du coq éthiopien,” Orientalia 74 (2005) 91-92.41 See, e.g., Bellet, “Testimonios coptos”; P. Devos, “L‟pparition du Ressuscité à sa Mère. Un nouveau témoin copte,” Analecta Bollandiana 96 (1978) 388; E. Lucchesi, “Identification de P. Vindob. K. 2644,” Orientalia 76 (2007) 174-175. The episode of the encounter between Jesus and his mother near the empty tomb is analyzed in T. Abraha – D. Assefa, “Apocryphal Gospels in the Ethiopic Tradition,” in Frey –Schröter (eds.), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 611-653, at 643-644.42 Luisier, “De Pilate chez les Coptes”; see also E. Cerulli, “Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in Ethiopian Tradition and Poetry,” Proceedings of the British Academy 59 (1975) 141-158; R. Beylot, “Bref aperç des principaux textes éthiopiens dérivés des Acta Pilati,” Langues orientales anciennes, philologie et linguistique 1 (1988) 181-195; Cowley, “Book of the Cock,” 20.43 Arabic version in E. Galtier, Le martyre de Pilate (MIFAO, 27; Cairo: IFAO, 1912); Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 2, 241-333; È. Lanchantin, “Martyre de Pilate,” 163 - 199 (translation in French) the Ethiopic version was published in van den Oudenrijn, Gamaliel, 112-180; R. Beylot, Le Martyre de Pilate. Édition critique de la version éthiopienne et traduction française (Patrologia Orientalis, 45/4; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993). On the Ethiopic, cf. also A. Bausi, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunitàmonastiche dell‟ritrea,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 38 (1994) 13-69, at 26-27.
44 Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 2, 276. The Ethiopic manuscript published by van den Oudenrijn does not contain this portion of the text. The one edited by Beylot offers a different lection (p. 672): ኦፍቁራንየ፡ ቅዱሳን፡ ወንጹሓን፡ (“O my beloved holy and pure”).
45 Two Bohairic manuscripts from the Wadi ‟N Natrun are attested. The Bohairic text is published in M. Chaîne, “Catéchèse attribuée à Saint Basile de Césarée. Une lettre apocryphe de Saint Luc,” Revue de l‟Orient Chrétien 23 (1922/23) 150-159, 271-302, after a Vatican manuscript. Another witness, part of the Tischendorf collection in Leipzig, is signaled in W.E. Crum, “Hagiographica from Leipzig Manuscripts,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 29 (1907) 289-296, 301-307, at 304. For the Arabic see U. Zanetti, Les manuscrits de Dair Abu Maqar: inventaire (Cahiers d‟Orientalisme, 11; Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1986) nos. 377, 378, 413, 480; W.F. Macomber, Catalogue of the Christian Arabic Manuscripts of the Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies, Muski, Cairo (Studia Orientalia Christiana; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1984) 45. An Ethiopic version is attested in EMML 2044; 2461-1; 4355 etc. The Ge‟ez version was edited and translated in Bombeck, Geschichte der heiligen Maria, 1: 398-423 (Ethiopic text), 2: 213-223 (German translation)
46 The connection between the books of Gamaliel and the Martyrdom of Pilate attributed to Cyriacus of Behnesa has already been suggested by Philippe Luisier, see his “De Pilate chez les Coptes,” 412-413. In different Sahidic homilies attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem references are made to certain books of Irenaeus the Historiographer and Josephus, which the bishop consulted. This theme has been documented in van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, 118-119.
1 The Arabic text is available in مراب يٍا يٍر ػٗجائة اىؼذرا (Cairo, 1902) 73-95; second edition, with the same title, published in Cairo, 1927, 106-139. Cf. the summary in P. Dib, “Deux discours de Cyriaque éêue de Behnéa sur la Fuite en Éypte,” Revue de l‟Orient chrétien 15 (1910) 157-161. Cf. also Graf, GCAL 1, 232-234.
2 On this homily see Müller, Predigt, 103-104, 156-166; Idem, Engellehre, 218-220.
3 See, e.g., B. Burrell, Neokoroi. Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Cincinnati Classical Studies, n.s. 9; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004) 260-265.
4 H. De Vis, Homélies coptes de la Vaticane vol. 2 (Coptica, 5; Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Roghandel-Nordisk Forlag, 1929) 246-291. De Vis published the text after Vaticanus Copticus LIX, ff.30r-49v.
5 The Sahidic version of the homily of Ps.-Archelaos on the Archangel Gabriel is still unpublished. This recension is known in a complete copy kept in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York, and a fragmentary codex from the White Monastery (manuscript MONB.CU). Description of the Morgan codex in Depuydt, Catalogue, 325-332 (= no. 164).
6 Cf. Graf, GCAL 1, 544, where several Arabic manuscripts of this text are enumerated.
7 The Ethiopic manuscripts of this work are numerous. See, e.g., A. Dillmann, Verzeichniss der abessinischen handschriften (Die Handschriften-verzeichniss der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Bd. 3; Berlin: Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1878) 56 (= no. 668); EMML 3142; EMML 3527; EMML 3986; EMML 4545; EMML 4510; EMML 1311; EMML 2107; EMML 4147 etc.
1 On the connection between the monastery mentioned in the homily of Ps.-Archelaos and the Miaphysite monk Romanos, who rejected the Council of Chalcedon, see Crum, “Hagiographica from Leipzig Manuscripts,” 294; Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 352 n. 11.
2 Summary in van Lantschoot, “Assomption,” 504-506.
3 A Vatican manuscript (Vat. copt. LXVI.4) of this sermon was published in M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose patriarche d‟Alexandrie sur la dormition et l‟assomption de la Vierge,” Revue de l‟Orient Chrétien 29 (1933/34) 272-314; description in A. Hebbelynck – A. van Lantschoot, Codices coptici Vaticani, Barberiniani, Borgiani, Rossiani vol. 1: Codices coptici Vaticani (Rome: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1937) 421-423. An incomplete transcription and translation was published in Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 90-127. The debris of another Bohairic manuscript of this sermon are scattered among different collections in Manchester, Leipzig and Cairo, see H.G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wadi ‟N Natrûn part 1: New Coptic Texts from the Monastery of Saint Macarius (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition; New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926) 60-62. Spanish translation in G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen. Relatos de la tradición copta (Apócrifos cristianos, 2; Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 1995) 177-228.
4 Vaticanus arabicus 698, ff. 85-102; dated 1371 AD. Another Arabic exemplar is in the Franciscan Center in Cairo, cf. Macomber, Catalogue, 45.
5 Translation taken from Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, xxvi. Cf. the Bohairic text in Chaîne, “Sermon de Thédose,” 282.
1 Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 116.
2 See the analysis of this text in Hagen, “Diaries of the Apostles,” 359-364.
3 Translation taken from E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1914) 475.
4 This manuscript, which is dated 981 CE, comes from the Monastery of St. Mercurius at Edfu. Description in B. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906 (London: British Library, 1987) 135-136 (= no. 121).
5 Mark Swanson would rather ascribe it to an anonymous author, probably from the 11th century; see his “Recent Developments in Copto-Arabic Studies, 1996-2000”, in Immerzeel –van der Vliet (eds.), Coptic Studies, 239-267, at 245.
6 This section of the text is analyzed in M. Swanson, “The Specifically Egyptian Context of a Coptic Arabic Text: Chapter Nine of the Kitab al-Idah of Sawîrus ibn al-Muqaffa,” Medieval Encounters 2 (1996) 214-227, at 218-220. Cf. also A. van Lantschoot, “Fragments coptes d‟ne homéie de Jean de Parallos contre les livres hééiques,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati vol. 1: Bibbia. Letteratura cristiana antica (Studi e testi, 121; Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1946) 296-326, at 297 n. 7; Graf, GCAL 1, 467.
1 John 10:30; cf. also P. Berol. 22220 98, col. B,28-30: ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲛ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲱⲧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲧ. Both Ps.-Timothy and P. Berol. 22220 are quoting from the Coptic version of the New Testament, which uses the possessive ⲡⲁⲓ ⲱⲧ, whereas the Greek text reads only o` path,r. On the interpretation of John 10:30 in ApoBA, which points to the Christological debates of the 4th century and later, see P. Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever: Dancing and Singing with Jesus in the Gospel of the Savior and the Dance of the Savior around the Cross,” Early Christianity 3 (2012) 229-248, at 239.
2 Budge, Coptic Martyrdoms, 231 (Sahidic text), 480 (English translation).
3 Extant in Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic. For the Coptic (Bohairic) see I. Guidi, “Il Testamento di Isacco e il Testamento di Giacobbe,” Rendiconti della Reala Accademia dei Lincei s. 5, vol. 9 (1900) 223-264. For the Arabic and Ethiopic texts, cf. M. Heide, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs. Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen, 56; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000). New Ethiopic manuscripts signaled in T. Erho, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (2013) 1-23, at 16-21.
4 Preserved in Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic. The Arabic version was translated into French in R. Basset, Les apocryphes éthiopiens V. Les prières de la Vierge à Bartos et au Golgotha (Paris: Librairie de l‟art indépendant, 1895) 48-71; further details in Graf, GCAL 1, 253-255. Ethiopic text in C. Conti Rossini, “La redazione etiopica della preghiera della Vergine fra i Parti,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche ser. 5,5 (1896) 457-476. Several Bohairic fragments of the same text were edited in A. van Lantschoot, “Miracles opéé par la S. Vierge àBartos (fragments bohaïiques),” Studia Anselmiana 27-28 (1951) p. 504-511. A lithographed transcription of two Sahidic leaves in the Vatican was published in E. Revillout, Apocryphes coptes du Nouveau Testament (Études égyptologiques, 7; Paris: F. Vieweg, 1876) 12-14; reedited with an English translation in Forbes Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 20-25.
5 E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1913) 128-145 (Sahidic text), 271-302 (English translation). This text is also preserved in a fragmentary White Monastery codex (MONB.DB), fragments of which were published in E.O. Winstedt, “A Coptic Fragment attributed to James the Brother of the Lord,” Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907) 240-248. The fragments published by Winstedt had been identified in W. Till, “Johannes der Täfer in koptischen Literatur,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo
16 (1958) 310-332, at 313. Anne
Boud‟hors published a French translation of this apocryphal writing in F. Bovon – P. Geoltrain (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens vol. 1 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1997) 1552-1578. Arabic version signaled in Zanetti, Abu Maqar, no. 379.
1 See the description in van Lantschoot, “Assomption,” 508-509. According to van Lantschoot, this text is just an adaptation of the Syriac transitus.
