¹ Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy, illustrated by Texts from Greek Papyri in the British Museum. Edited by H. Idris Bell, O. B. E., M. A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Manuscripts; with three Coptic Texts, edited by W. E. Crum, M. A. London, 1924.

² These are probably to be identified with troubles referred to by Josephus, Antiquities, xix. 278, and were a sequel to the brutal persecution of the Jews under Gaius, of which Philo gives an account in the Contra Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. See Bell, pp. 16 ff.

³ De Sanctis emends προείρησθαι, ‘stated’, to προήρησθαι, ‘requested’; cf. G. De Sanctis,’ Claudio e i Giudei d' Alessandria,’ Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica, December 1924.

⁴ De Sanctis takes this passage somewhat differently from Bell. Instead of supplying επ before ει in 1. 37 he suggests ως so that the text reads: ὡσεὶ Ῥώμης ἀνατεθήσεται. He also construes the sentence so that Barbillus is made responsible not for making the statue but for the suggestion that it be dedicated as a statue of Rome instead of to the emperor. “Nè del resto capisco bene come ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἀνατεθήσται possa voler dire in greco, ‘sarà dedicata a Roma’; e non vedo neppure perchè l'imperatore a'indugi a dire che la statua alla Pace Augusta Claudiana fu fatta per la istante richiesta del pregiatissimo Barbillo proprio nel momento in cui respinge la statua stessa come poco conveniente. Intende invece che la statua, fatta per rappresentare la Pace Augusta Claudiana, sarà per suggestione e istante richiesta del pregiatissimo Barbillo all imperatore, il quale voleva, rifiutarla, dedicata invece come statua di Roma,” op. cit., p. 476.

⁵ De Sanctis (p. 478) reads κατὰ νόμον and translates, ‘according to the Egyptian custom (secondo l'uso egiziano),’ which avoids the difficulty felt by Bell (p. 33, n. 42) in supposing that the Alexandrians had authority for planting such groves in the χώρα.

⁶ De Sanctis (pp. 476–477) reads ᾗ δὲ βούλεσθε for εἰ δὲ βούλεσθαι, understanding that the emperor leaves the Alexandrians free to arrange the location and manner of dedication as they wish.

⁷ This Vitrasius Pollio was undoubtedly the one mentioned by Pliny (H. n. xxxvi. 57) but whether he is to be identified with the prefect of Egypt of that name (39–41 A.D.) is doubtful. It is also not clear whether the statues represented Pollio or were made under his direction and represented Claudius. See Bell, p. 33, note on 1. 43, and De Sanctis, p. 477.

⁸ οὔτε ϕορτικὸς τοῖς κατ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν ἀνθρόποις βουλόμενος.

⁹ καὶ Ἰουδέοις δὲ ἄντικρυς κελεύωι μηδὲν πλήωι ὧν πρότερον ἔσχον περιεργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ὤσπερ ἐν δυσεὶ πόλεσειν κατοικοῦντας δύο πρεσβείας ἐκπέμπειν τοῦ λοιποῦ, ὧ μὴ πρότερόν ποτε ἐπράκθη, μηδὲ ἐπισπαίρειν γυμνασιαρχικοῖς ἢ κοσμητικοῖς ἀγῶσει, καρπουμένους μὲν τὰ οἰκῖα ἀπολάοντας δὲ ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ πόλει περιουσίας ἁπάντων ἀγαθῶν.

¹⁰ No. 1914. Bell, pp. 53 ff.

¹¹ καὶ ἄλλον ἀδελϕὸν Ἄμμωνα ὅντα ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ καὶ αὐτὸν ὑποδεχόμενον τοὺς ἀδελϕοὺς συνέκλισαν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ, παρήγγιλαν δὲ αὐτοῦ ὤστε μὴ ὑποδέχεσθαι αὐτὸν μοναχοὺς ἐν τῇ οικίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

¹² On the question of the ‘bne q'iama,’ see the controversy between Burkitt and Connolly in the Journal of Theological Studies.

¹³ See Batiffol, P., Études d'histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, pp. 277 ff.Google Scholar; H. Leclercq, art. ‘Agape,’ in Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, I, cols. 775 ff.

¹⁴ Synod of Gangres (330 A.D, ?), Canon XI, εἴ τις καταϕρονοίη τῶν ἐκ πίστεως ἀγάπας ποιούντων, καὶ διὰ τιμὴν τοῦ κυρίου συγκαλούντων τοὺς ἀδελϕοὐς, καὶ μὴ ἐθέλοι κοινωνεῖν ταῖς κλήσεσι, διὰ τὸ ἐξευτελίζειν τὸ γινόμενον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, Hardouin, Acta Conciliorum, I, p. 535.

¹⁵ εὐχαριστῶ μὲν τῷ δεσπότῃ θεῷ ὅτι ἐπαύθησαν ἑ πληγαὶ ἂς εἶχεν.

¹⁶ ἐπιλοιπούμεθα οὖν ὅτι οὐκ ἐπιτρέπουσιν ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν πάπαν Ἡράεισκον ἀπελθῖν καὶ ἐπισκέψασθαι αὐτόν.

¹⁷ ἀκούσαντες οὖν τινες στρατιοται οἱ ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ καὶ ϕόβον θεοῦ ἔχοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ἦρκαν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔκρυψαν ἐν ταῖς κέλλαις ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ.

¹⁸ Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1911, p. 376, n. 1.