The Apostolic Tradition was first made known to the Western world in 1691 by Job Ludolf in _Ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam Commentarius_; in this he published in incomplete form the Ethiopic work containing it, to which he gave the title—still in use—of _Statuta Apostolorum_. But he naturally was unable to identify the author. It was not until 1848 that the next contribution was made, Tattam’s _The Apostolic Constitutions or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic_,[56] which gave the Bohairic text with an English translation. The Sahidic text appeared thirty-five years later on pp. 248-266 of Lagarde’s _Aegyptiaca_, and this is still the standard edition. A German translation (by Steindorff) was published in 1891 by Achelis in his _Die ältesten Quellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechtes_:[57] this monograph opened the really critical study of the material and is not yet wholly obsolete. But Hauler’s discovery of the Latin text was the most important event of all. He published his find in 1900 but did not appreciate the full importance of what he describes only as “Aegyptiorum reliquiae” at the end of his long title.[58] And even such an intensely able scholar as Funk, in making his own Latin version of “The Egyptian Church Order”, still preferred to follow the Sahidic.[59] Horner’s _Statutes of the Apostles_ (1904) finally supplied critical Ethiopic and Arabic texts, with scientifically literal translations of these and of the Sahidic as well. The basic significance of the Latin version was glimpsed by Cooper and Maclean in their edition of the Testament[60] (1902); their use of “Hauler” is often penetrating. In 1906 Baron Eduard von der Goltz[61] finally identified certain sections as definitely Hippolytean, and four years later Dr Eduard Schwartz reached the definite conclusion:[62] the Latin text represents substantially what Hippolytus wrote. Dr Schwartz’s monograph, however, was brief and left many problems unexplored; the detailed demonstration was the—wholly independent—work of Dom Connolly in 1916. In 1928 Dr Jungklaus published a German translation of Hippolytus’s work, with an elaborate introduction; in some regards it proved unsatisfactory but it should on no account be neglected. The textual evidence is as follows: The original Greek of chapters 3 and 12 is preserved in the Epitome, and that of 25. 1-2 in the Vienna fragment printed (e.g.) by Funk (II, p. 112). The Constitutions also give some aid in reconstructing the Greek text elsewhere.