[1662] My following statements in the text are based upon E. Chavannes et P. Pelliot, Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine, 1913,—they date the Chinese translation about 900 A.D. and the MS of it within a century later; W. Radloff, Chuastuanift, Das Bussgebet der Manichäer, Petrograd, 1909; A. v. Le Coq, Chuastuanift, ein Sündenbekenntnis der Manichäischen Auditores, Berlin, 1911. There are further publications on the subject.
[1663] The following details are drawn from the articles on the Mandaeans in EB, 11th edition, by K. Kessler and G. W. Thatcher, and in ERE by W. Brandt, author of Mandäische Religion, 1889, and Mandäische Schriften, 1893, and from Anz (1897), pp. 70-8. Further bibliography will be found in these references.
[1664] The number five also appears in the Pistis-Sophia and other Gnostic literature.
[1665] H. Pognon, Une Incantation contre les génies malfaisants en Mandäite, 1893; Inscriptions mandaïtes des coupes de Khonabir, 1897-1899. M. Lidzbarski, Mandäische Zaubertexte, in Ephemeris f. semit. Epig., I (1902), 89-106. J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, 1913.
[1666] Genesis XLIV, 5, and J. G. Frazer (1918), II, 426-34.
[1667] In the apocryphal Protevangelium of James, cap. 16, both Joseph and Mary undergo the test.
[1668] Joachim consults the plate in the Protevangelium, cap. 5.
[1669] See J. G. Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, 1918, 3 vols., and also his other works; for instance, The Magic Art, 1911, I, 258, for the contest in magic rain-making between Elijah and the priests of Baal in First Kings, Chapter XVIII, while I do not understand why Joshua is not mentioned in connection with “The magical control of the sun,” Ibid., I, 311-19.
[1670] However, the Apocrypha of the New Testament may be read in English translation by Alexander Walker in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (American edition), VIII, 357-598, and in that by Hone in 1820, which has since been reprinted without change. It includes only a part of the apocrypha now known and presents these in a blind fashion without explanation. It differs from Tischendorf’s text of the apocryphal gospels (Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, Lipsiae, 1876) both in the titles of the gospels, the distribution of the texts under the respective titles, and the division into chapters. I have, however, sometimes used Hone’s wording in making quotations. Older than Tischendorf is Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Leipzig, 1832; Fabricius, etc.
[1671] It is ascribed to the second century both by Tischendorf and The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Apocrypha,” 607). There are plenty of fairly early Greek MSS for it.