No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Art. VII.—The Logos Ebraikos in the Magical Papyrus of Paris, and the Book of Enoch
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
The scholars who have studied hitherto the Greek magical papyri, such as Parthey, Wessely, Dieterich, and others, have either concentrated their attention upon the Greek forms contained in these documents, or have tried to find a connecting link between these books, notably between the weird notions contained therein and Greek and Egyptian parallels. Greek mysteries have been adduced in order to explain some of the curious notions prevailing in these papyri. Egypt had to serve for explaining the origin of some of the mystical names or angels mentioned therein. From time to time allusion has been made to so-called Cabalistic parallels, without any clear proof being furnished as to the dependence of one upon the other. But one branch of literature has been entirely neglected, which ought to have attracted attention in the first place, namely, the apocryphal and pseudo-epigraphic literature, which is the only truly contemporary literature. Similarity in tendency, claim of great antiquity, and open or covert allusions to heavenly mysteries show close affinities of no mean order. The authors in one case would be the very persons to avail themselves of the information furnished by the other. The world in which the writers of the apocryphal literature move has not been very much different from that in which the writers and speculators in this mystical lore, preserved, in the papyri, have lived. And one would have thought that the material offered by the apocryphal literature would have been the first to be utilized for the elucidation of some of the problems connected with these magical papyri.
- Type
- Original Communications
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1901
References
page 111 note 1 The numbers are the lines of the Greek text in Papyrus Paris.
page 111 note 2 A string of mystical names.
page 111 note 3 3 Greek Iησου is impossible if the text is of the second rentury b.c.
page 111 note 4 Is this a wrong translation of ‘hail,’ read as , or of ?
page 111 note 5 Again wrong translation of = ‘slavery’ = ‘work’?
page 112 note 1 The Greek text has here instead: “holy Aeons,” evidently a corruption from “four corners.”
page 113 note 1 I am following entirely the translation of Charles, though in some passages a slight alteration is suggested.
page 115 note 1 Cf. Hebrew
page 116 note 1 If read Aïa it resembles absolutely the transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragramaton ai preserved by Theodoret (Quaest. xv ad Exod. vi)('Aïα = ).