This is a re-edition of an important Coptic text from Upper Egypt—a monastic travelogue in which a visitor, Paphnoutios, hears a number of stories from a monk, Pseleusius, about the earliest monks near Syene; Paphnutius travels further south with him to meet another monk, Isaac, on an island in the First Nile Cataract; Isaac then recounts the history of the first bishops of Philae and the life of Aaron, an early monk, whom Isaac knew personally (the editors base their title on this part of the text, see 42–43). The text was first published with an English translation by E. A. W. Budge in 1915 and has often been invoked in studies of early Christianity in Upper Egypt, notably a monograph by Jitse Dijkstra (Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion: A Regional Study of Religious Transformation [298-642 CE] [Peeters, 2008]).
The text, in standard Sahidic Coptic, survives in a paper codex now in the British Library, which is dated in the colophon (here translated on 18–20) to 992, as well as three fragments of a papyrus codex from the sixth (or early seventh) century now also in the British Library. These fragments were retrieved from the covers of a codex that belonged to the same find as the paper codex, the so-called Esna-Edfu collection of twenty-four codices, mostly in Sahidic Coptic. They were written ca. 960–1060, mostly in Esna, and donated to a monastery in Edfu, the topos of Aaron.
The paper codex lacks the first folio. The text edited here is followed by other liturgical texts (listed on 17) to be read at the feast of Aaron. As the editors make clear (60–61), they offer a new edition of the text, not of the manuscript, which means that their apparatus does not flag all the peculiarities of the paper codex (the British Library put images online: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Or_7029). When the editors correct mistakes in the manuscript, they print the correct reading in their text and record the mistake in the apparatus. They do not flag all their corrections of Budge's readings there (e.g., what appears as pages 21a and 21b here were printed in reverse order by Budge; this is flagged by the editors on 5n22 but not in their text or the apparatus; the online images are in Budge's order).
The introduction (1–62) is followed by the text with English translation on opposite pages (64–149). This is accompanied by a substantial commentary (150–269). There is much to be learned from the observations of the editors, but there is occasionally room for disagreement. They regard the change of names of the two sons of a pagan priest on Philae who convert to Christianity as a literary invention (197–198). Name changes upon conversion are so rare in late antiquity that the change here is more likely authentic, part of a local tradition about the earliest history of Philae as an episcopal see; the two were renamed Mark and Isaiah and later became the second and third bishops of Philae.
The editors date the composition of the text in the sixth century (or even the early seventh), but it was more likely closer to the dramatic date of the monastic travelogue, the early fifth century (inspired by the recent Greek Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, in which the travelers do not go further south than Middle Egypt; its dramatic date is 394/395). The internal arguments for a composition of the text in the sixth century adduced by the editors (most notably the occurrence of the title pagarch) are not conclusive because they can always be put down to textual corruption along the way (58–59).
The link the editors suggest with Theodore, bishop of Philae from ca. 525 to after 577, whose involvement with the “conversion” of Nubia is well known, does not help, as that “conversion” did not affect pagan Nubians but rather Christian Nubians who were not properly orthodox (of the miaphysite variety); in the text here, the Nubians are still pagans. By the sixth century, there would have been no need to construct a Christian identity for Philae and the First Nile Cataract generally, just a miaphysite identity. Instead, the text constructs a Christian identity for the early fifth century: in the absence of martyrs, the focus is on the first bishops and early monks, from the time of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373, and the last quarter of the fourth century, just before the dramatic date of the text and the original composition of the text.
The first bishop of Philae, Macedonius, was a government official who, when assigned to the far south of Egypt, found other Christians on Philae but no bishop. On a visit to Alexandria, he asked Athanasius to provide one. Athanasius appoints Macedonius himself. Aaron had heard about this from Macedonius, which is chronologically possible (pace the editors, 178), and Isaac heard it from Aaron and here tells Paphnutius and Pseleusius about it. This chain could reach back from the early fifth century to the early years of Athanasius's episcopate. Macedonius attended the Council of Serdica in 343 (see 179) and was succeeded as bishop of Philae by Mark, who was exiled to the Siwa Oasis in 356 (198). Mark was himself succeeded by Isaiah in 368 (198). After Isaiah died, a monk, Psoulousia, became bishop of Philae. He paid a visit to Theophilus (shortly?) after he became bishop of Alexandria (r. 385–412). That gives us ca. 385 as the floruit of Psoulousia. If he died, say, toward the end of the fourth century, he was succeeded by another bishop, who is not named, presumably because he was still alive when the text was originally composed.
Bibliography and full indices follow the commentary. The index of biblical references and of other literary references occupies six and a half pages. Not all of these are explicit or even implicit references in the text; often, they are merely adduced by the editors in their commentary, who discuss the intertextuality of the text (46–56). It would have been more interesting if they had provided a second apparatus below their text separately listing the more obvious echoes. There is a two-page index of papyrological and epigraphical sources adduced by the editors in their commentary as well.
At the end of the volume there are two figures, one with a graphic representation of the various narrators and narrative levels in the text, which illustrates part of the introduction (37–41), and a map of the First Nile Cataract area. The editors deserve praise for their authoritative edition, their appreciation of the text as a serious work of literature, and especially for their detailed commentary. The last mentioned should challenge future editors of Coptic hagiographical texts to provide the same for their texts.
