BIBLIO THECA ABES S INIC A

S TU DIES C O NCERNI NG THE LA NG U A G ES LITERAT U RE A ND HIS T RY , O O F A BYS S I NI A

ED ITED BY

D r M A N N . E . L I T T

II .

THE TEXT OF THE ETHIO PIC VERSION OF THE P OCTATEUCH , WITH S ECIAL REF ERENCE TO THE AGE AND VAL UE OF THE HAVERFORD MAN USCRI PT

C B Y . BY Dr . J . OS AR O D

LE YD EN P R N ETON N I C , . J . BRI LL T H I V R I Y LI BRARY E . J . E U N E S T

0 1 9 5 .

C O N T E N T S .

The t e" t of the Eth-ioPIic version of the Octateuch h I . Descri ption of t e Haverford Codex Peculiarities of the Haverford Codex

t o . Typ e of text , and relationship other codices

C c o - on lusi n as to a R , and its value for a critical edition

the O c ta teu c-h

THE TEXT OF T HE ETHIO PIC

C V ERSION OF THE OCTATEUCH , WIT H SPE IAL REFEREN C E T O TH E AGE

AND VALUE OF THE HAVERFORD MAN USCRIPT .

Interest in the Ethiopic has been aroused far more by those apocryphal books which form a part of it s extensive and rather indefinite than by the text of those books which are in the stricter canon of Protestantism . The even the entire have indeed B t several times been printed by occidental scholars . u the history of the publication of the text is almost

Dill ma n n . summed up in the labors of one man , August The first volume of his monu mental work comprised the

1 8 Octateuch It appeared i n 5 3 , and since that date nothing has been cont ributed to the study of this specific portion of the Old Testament in Ethiopic , save a brochure by

O ld S . Reckendorf on the value of the Ethiopic version of the Pentateuch for the reconstruction of the

’ But in the fifty years that have elapsed since Dill ma n n s r Octateuch appeared , there has been a g eat advance in the

1 Kufi lé B ) Such , for example , as ( the ook of J ubilees , or Little Genesis) , and Hé n ok ( Enoch) .

2 Veteris A ethi o i ci O ct a teuchus Aethi o i c u s ) Testamenti p Tomus Primus , sive p ,

' 1 a r s os cr im . Leipsic 8 5 3 . References are to the p p t 3) U eber den Werth der al taethiopi s ch en P en tateuc h ub ers etzun g fur die

1 8 86 . Reconstruction der Septuaginta , Giessen 2

- i nvestigation of the Septuagint text , and at least a considerable advance in the comprehension of the relation subsisting be tween it an d the Ethiopic version derived from it . In the former task , the reconstructi on of the pri mitive Septuagint , K the labors of Lagarde , F ield , Nestle , losterman n and Swete have certainly outlined the problem more clearly than fifty years ago , and have i ncreased the available means for solving

. viz . it In the latter task , the correlation with this problem of the testimony of the Ethiopic version , the researches of

2 Corn ill Rou Reckend orf, pp ) and Hei der together with the kindred studies in the New Testament text by Gui di “) and Ha c ks pill have O pened a series of s pec ial i nvestigations i nto particular parts of the Ethiopic Scriptures which , it is to be hoped , will not fail to include the entire volume ; so that s“ ome scholar in the near future may be able to gather

Rou up the results , such as those already reached by pp in

Corn ill z Samuel , by Heider in Jeremiah , and by in E ekiel , and , uniting them in a consistent hypothesis , establish finally the linguistic relationships of this version and its recensions ,

s the type of Greek text which it represent , and its value for purposes of .

The situation at present is therefore one of expectation ,

z rather than of reali ation . Withi n the next two or three years the first installment of the larger Cambridge Septuagint may

— 8 . I B z 1 8 8 6 . . 6 ) Das uch des Propheten E echiel , Leipsic See especially pp 3 4 “ 2 al t es te athi o i s che der v i er Bucher der KOn i e ) Article , Die p Handschrift g — Z 1 02 . 2 6 . in eitschrift fur Assyriologie , 9 , pp 9 3 43

aethi o i s che Bibel ub ersetz un . 3) Di e p g Ihre Herkunft, Art , Geschichte , und

fur VVis s en sch M t C a . ihr Wert die alt und neutestamentliche aft . i J eremia p — 1 1 3 als Textprobe . ( Als Prolegomena z u einer kritischen Ausgabe der acth .

B . 1 02 . ibel) Lei psic , 9

z 1 8 8 8 . 4) Le tradu ioni degli evangeli in arabo e in etiopico , Rome “ ” athio i sch e E van el i en ub ers etzun Z . fur . 5 ) Article , Die p g g , in eit Assyr , — — 1 8 6 . 1 1 1 6 6 88 . 9 , pp 7 9 , 3 7 3 be expected with its wealth of material for criticism of the

- Septuagint text . Among the versions whose readings will be represented in this edition , the Ethiopic will have a place

Insofar as it attempts to answer the question , what type of

- Septuagint text lies at the basis of the Ethiopic Octateuch , any critical work done i n advance of that publication would probably prove premature . Similarly , such critical work would probably be fruitless , if it attempted to answer the question , what was. the version by which the Ethiopic Octateuch was

?P . corrected in its chief recension rof Gui di , who has studie d the relation between the Arabic and Ethiopic Gospels with such fruitful results , is understood to be engaged on a similar line of investigation in the Old Testament , an d , in his

O pinion , the ti me has not yet come for a critical edition of

“ the Ethiopic Octateuch , and will not come until the Arabic versions are better known and studied ”

That , therefore , which remains to be done on the text of the Octateuch , and which can wisely be done now without

to enl a r e the ma ter i a ls o danger of early undoing , is g f Such has been the aim of the writer in the task whose results are herewith presented , the collation of the Haverford

MS of the Octateuch , and in the larger task of collating and publishing , together with all the various readings hitherto gathered , the ancient MS of the Octateuch preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris By adding to the four MSS

1 ) According to recent direct information from one of the two editors , ’

Mr. . B o K C o . A E . ro ke , Fellow of ing s llege

M r n 2 o . Mc L ea ) Three codices have been c llated by , two of which are of ’ O ’ D il m . Zoten b er s o course l an n s F and the N 3 of g catal gue .

o . 3 ) Q uoted from a personal note fr m Prof Guidi to the writer . O “ N . Z oten b er C o é e 4) 3 in g, atal gue des manuscri ts thiopiens de la biblioth q ue ” 1 8 . Y nationale , Paris 7 7 It will be designated by the letter , with allusion to

K Y ekun o a 1 2 0— 1 2 8 ing Aml k , 7 5 , from whose reign i t dates . 4

Dillm a n n used by for h is edition , the readi ngs of these two

other MSS , each with its own peculiar textual characteristics , it is hoped that , for the Octateuch , the materials of criticism will be sufficiently numerous and diversified to furnish an adequate basis for critical conclusions .

The codex preserved in the library of Haverford College ,

P a . Haverford , , has already been described in a general way

P . . . . D . by rof R W Rogers , D , of Drew Theological Seminary , and a few speci mens of its readings given It is proposed i n this paper to give : a thorough description of the MS ;

an exhibition of its peculiarities , as of paleography ,

et c orthography , . ; the evidence determining its type of text an d relationship to the other MSS ; and the c on elusion , drawn fro m all these considerations , as to its probable age , and its value for establishing the text of the old Ethiopic version and of its recensi ons .

D es cr i ion o the H a ver or d Code" . I . pt f f

The Haverford Octateuch came into the possession of

P . . Haverford College through rof J Rendel Harris, who obtained it from an u nknown source while he was a teacher

n i n that institution . Neither through oral i nformatio , nor through written notice in the volume itself, is any light thrown upon its o rigin or history d It is written in a large , plain han , upon well selected

2 2 vellum , three columns to the page , 9 to 4 lines to the

“ M 1 ) In Haverford College Studies Ethiopic anuscripts I . In deference fi to Dr . Rogers, who rst described it , this codex will be designated by the letter R . 2 ) Excep t the meagre information contained in the almost entirely obliterated notices mentioned on p . 1 1 . 1 6 . 1 8 2 column , 9 to letters to the line There are leaves ,

fl - besides five y leaves . The binding is in boards , measuring

1 2 X inches , covered with heavy brown leather ad mirably tooled in geometrical designs Both parchment and binding are not only of good material , but also in a fair state of preservation . Though the edges of the leaves are somewhat brown and worn with handling, yet on account of the wide f margins the text has su fered n o damage thereby . Insects have spotted the leaves to an unusual degree , and there are a few pages where the writing has been damaged by water , but in no case is the text quite illegible . Holes in some of

the leaves go back to the preparation of the parchment , for the text has been accommodated to them . A few rents have been repaired with strong , coarse thread . A fragment of silk , of an oriental pattern , was found still between its pages , and t he many bits of thread , tied to outer margins of the leaves , proj ect beyond their edges . The writing is guided by lines

m z ruled in the parchment with a sharp instru ent , the hori ontal

lines regular as a general rule , and the six vertical lines , one m at each side of each column , nearly always sy metrically placed . To these lines the scribe has usually adhered with care .

The inks of the original hand are good . The black is a strong, glossy black , as clear now as when written , neither thin nor sticky . The red ink differs : some of it is thin and faint , but almost all of it is bright and clear . The use of red i nk resembles that in other M SS of the Ethiopic Bible . At the beginning of each book the scribe has used red and

: d black ink alternately as follows i n Genesis , Exo us an d

Joshua , six red lines in all three columns , a pair of red alternating with a pair of black ; in Leviticus and Nu mbers ,

1 ) Inside of the covers i t has the ,, sq uares of (blue) cotton cloth , of which ’ “ d Abbadi e C é speaks at length , atalogue raisonn 6

four red lines similarly arranged ; i n Deuteronomy , Judges

and Ruth , three red lines , one red alternating with one black .

Some of the superscriptions , and at least one of the sub

s c ri t ions ' p , of the several books (see below) are in red ink

by the original hand . The subscriptions of Exodus , Leviticus

and J oshua are i n black by the original hand . At the end of all the books except Joshua , there are si mple decorative

designs i n red an d black inks , consisting of lines of dots

and groups of dots . At the end of Joshua there are only

two lines of black dots , one before and one after the sub

scription . The words of Deity , which nearly always begin a

paragraph , are distinguished by the use of red ink for two

lines . The headings of paragraphs i n Genesis are similarly

distinguished . There is a considerable secti on (in J oshua)

’ where the scribe s red ink gave out , and the spaces left for these initial lines of paragraphs and for nu merals (see below)

have never been filled in . The use of red ink for numerals

varies . Outsid e Genesis they are mostly i n red . In some places there remain i n the margin opposite the red numerals small

black numerals , evidently put there by the scribe to remind

him to fill the spaces in later with red . In Genesis the numerals

are n ow i n red , now in black , now i n black with red lines

or with red tips to the black lines . In the maj or pauses red

and black ink are used together throughout most of the M S ,

except in the section i n Joshua above mentioned . The ink

used by correctors is invariably a dull , brownish black without

any gloss . Except over erasures it is not difficult to distinguish the corrector fro m the original hand by means of this inferiority

of his i nk .

The margins are suitably wide , especially at top and bottom .

- Even the space between the columns is a good half inch . These

generous margins have been freely used by the corrector , and there are a few leaves which have had to give u p a strip of their margin for use in a time and land in which writing - materials were precious This Haverford MS shares with the oldest codices the distinction of having no divisions of the text save the eight books that compose the Octateuch , and , within these , a system of paragraphing that in general is regulated by the recu rrence of the divine speech , but in Genesis proceeds upon a logical division into topics There are 2 8 such divisions distributed fairly evenly through Genesis , except for one great section

(between XV , 7 and XXXI , 54) in which there is no break . Each paragraph so constituted is introduced by an appropriate

3 . 2 8 title in red ink Of these , six ) correspond exactly with

’ 4 Dill m a n n s paragraphs in MS G , and two others ) come within one verse of so corresponding . One of the latter two agrees also with MS C in the only place in Genesis where this codex departs from the E uropean division into chapters

The first three paragraphs deserve special mention , because

they are numbered one , two and three . The first is at II I , 9 ,

“ I and is introduced by the sentence , How God called our

” “ father Adam . (The following words , And God called him

” s P and aid to him , Where art thou are also in red ink). The

I ) This cust om of robbing codices of their blank leaves is further illustrated by the disappearance of some fly- leaves which were originally bound with the

. fl - volume In front , between the second and third y leaves , there are the roughly of fi cut remnants three others , of which at least the rst and third had been

o ruled for writing , and at the back there is one such fragment ( ruled) bef re ,

- fi fl . of and four more ( unruled) after, the rst y leaf Three these last are still

on an inch in width , so that any rulings would certainly have shown them . — 2 o . D il lm an n o . a t . 1 1 6 . ) On this subject f , p , pp 5 9 4

: 1 I ] I 1 3 ) These are VIII , ; XXXIV , , XXXVI , 5 , XXXVIII , 4 , XLI

I . XLIX,

: 2 4) These are XI , , XXXI , 54 .

Viz . 2 . 5) XI , 8

1 “ 2 second is at III , 4, and begi ns thus , How God cursed ” Adam an d his wi fe and the serpent . The third begins at

“ ’ 2 A da m out III , 3 with the words , 3 How He put of the garden The next paragraph is also noteworthy, but for a

f . 1 dif erent reason It begins at I V , , and is headed with a

“ ” t he . li turgical notice , On secon d [day] at the ninth hour

(The first three words of the verse are also in red). This note

’ corresponds exactly with one present i n Dillman n s MS F at

1 . II , 5 Similar liturgical notes are to be fou nd at the beginning

“ 1 8 of two other paragraphs . In X , the word And after begi ns a new paragraph , while the remainder of the preceding line is filled i n with the word oa me/i l ela in red ink . This

“ phrase , literally in the prayer occurs likewise in MS F and in the Codex Borgian us of Samuel - Kin gs ( 1 3 th century) and indicates that the accompanying paragraph was to be read at some specific office or feast ; the name of the feast should follow , but does not follow in Codex Hav . At XV , 7 a paragraph begins with red ink, an d is prefaced , not by a

“ descriptive title , but by the words , On the fifth [day] the ” lection . This i ndi cates that what follows was by ecclesiastical appointment to be read as the peri cope for the fifth day of some festi val . Besi des those already given the paragraphs of Genesis are as follows

VI , 3 How God the Lord repented that He had made man .

1 . VIII , Where the Lord God remembered Noah

20 . VIII , How Noah offered a sacrifice

1 . IX , Where the Lord God blessed Noah

20 . IX , How Noah planted a vineyard

2 . XI , How the sons of Noah built a tower

1 . XII , Where the Lord God first add ressed Abraham

1 Rou o . ci t . . 02 . ) See pp, p , p 3 9

XXXI , 54 How Jacob offered a sacrifice to God .

1 XXXII , 4 How Jacob offered a gift to Esau . 2 XXXII , 5 Where Jacob struggled with the Lord .

defil ed XXXIV , I How the men of Shechem Dinah the

daughter of Jacob .

of a c ob . XXXIV , 7 How Shechem lay with the daughter J

(In upper margin , with caret in text ; hand

of e mender, but not the usual one).

XXXVII , 5 How Joseph dreamed a dream .

2 s I s hm a e XXXVII , 5 How his brethre n sold Jo eph to one

lite (s i c).

1 XXXVIII , 4 Where Judah lay with Tamar his daughter

i - n law .

’ XX XI X , 7 How his master s wife wanted to lie with Joseph .

XL , 5 How Joseph i nterpreted to the chief butler

and the chief baker their d reams .

How Pharaoh dreamed a dream . And again Joseph a second time interpreted

’ Pharaoh s dream .

1 . XLV , Where Joseph is known to his brethren

P . XLVII , 7 How Jacob stood before haraoh the king

a . XLIX , I Where J cob Israel blessed his sons f In the use of titles for the se veral books , Cod . Hav . of ers the usual variety of Above the first column

' of Genesis there is a single red letter , i s , in the original hand , and at the bottom of the preceding (fly leaf stands

“ " - z . Ad ? na g r , probably in the original hand Straight across the first page , above the first lines , runs the sentence ,

“ Blessed be the Lord God of Israel , the God of all spirit and of all flesh "” This common introductory formula is

1 C Dil i . l man n o . c t . 1 ) f , p p . 59 . I O

scrawled in red ink , in a poor and late hand Exodus , and

all the other books except Judges and Ruth , begi n on a new

. leaf The title o f Exodus is on the first line , in red , in the

‘ - original hand , b di nahT The title of Numbers , H

“ " FAQ i s similar in every respect . Leviticus has none .

Deuteronomy and Joshua are alike i n their titles ,

’ ‘ and HU tLb in that these are placed above the first column , are in red , and are probably not by the original hand . The

subscriptions of Exodus and Leviticus are in black , by the

' ‘ ‘ ‘ - . : l 4 original hand They read b di Hflhq (HmPa g } 12 . Ra n Nu mbers and Deuterono my present still simpler sub

' s c ript ion s : f l‘ é ja o Hh A ‘ P‘ These are i n red i nk , and probably by the original hand . The subscription of

“ Joshua is more lengthy an d of a di fferent character : Of him who wrote it , and of him who caused it to be written , and of hi m who read it , an d of him who interpreted it , may

the names be written on a pillar of gold , where they will " ” 2 not perish forever and ever Amen ) . J udges follows i mmediately after these words , in the middle of the third

- column of a left hand page . Above the first line of the new 1 1 book stands the word " 00 16 7 ? in red , by the original

O hand , while pposite i n the left margin , there is an in

o . . black, i n the original hand ( f Genesis) The subscription , d1 . a in red , in the original hand , completes the last line of the book , near the bottom of the second

- d column of a right hand page . Ruth begins a new column ( 3 ) on the same page , and above the column is in red ,

I ) It resembles in the forms of its letters and the carelessness of its ortho

. 1 1 . graphy , the note at the end of Leviticus , which is also in red , see p

‘ ' ‘ ' ' f “ 2 ) M ama: manh k rhb: whfl h fl l n whfl l mo l EX ‘ ‘ " I '‘ m ' ‘ ( I1 ? fl l km' I “ ( D HI l } hm) : C P Hhfi fl h Af 9 09“ I I

has in the original hand . The book no subscription , and ends

- near the top of a right hand page .

fl - As already stated , five y leaves are bound with the volume , of which three precede Genesis and two follow Ruth . At the beginning, the secon d and third leaves are almost filled with a poorly executed writing in three columns of 29 lines each .

The lines were irregularly ruled , the pen and ink were inferior , and the hand is late and exceedingly poor On the first page is a passage on the observance of the Sabbath , as comman ded by God to Moses . It runs ten lines i nto the

- third column , where beneath a line of black dots is a six line note of former possessors , apparently in the same hand as it the rest of the leaf. The following is all that remains of “ Abba Yona[s d octors (P) Abba Dawit Abba together may God have mercy upon us [bring us in the kingdom of heaven "” On the next page the former

subj ect is resumed , and occupies all the rest of the front fl - y leaves . After Ruth , the remainder of the last leaf, and

fl - half a column on the first of the two y leaves , are covered with writing in fairly good characters . The first two lines of

- the first and third colu mns are in red . The subj ect matter is Nehemiah IX . After Leviticus and after Deuteronomy there are brief notes by former possessors , badly written , the former

“ : in red ink , the latter in black . The former reads Blessed " be the Lord God of Israel I have bought (it) with my money , Y P u Y on as . o . I , Thy servant Abba [ f above] The latter

“ " is almost entirely obliterated : In the name of the F ather

I ) It is certain that this hand is later even than that which added the

s ee . 1 . theological notes , below , p 3 For one such note , in the same hand , is

fl - written in an obliq ue direction across the last of these front y leaves , and the letters that made up its brief concluding line have been erased because fi they trespassed on the space devoted later to the rst line of the new writing . 1 2

I , my father, and (my) mother Abba tu , who purchased it with his [m O Jn ey It yet re mains to characteri z e the various correctors who have altered the text of this MS . I n general , there are more corrections towards the begin ning , and less towards the end .

Indeed , th ey become very rare in the later books of the

. The l as t J Octateuch There are none in Ruth . , is in udges

1 XX , 3 , where a single letter , perhaps not by a later hand ,

. 2 8 stands i n the margin I n Judges IX , faint lines appear to have been placed above and below mAfl : before

. s on . 2 2 (LXX has , Heb omits , ) So i n Judges VI I , , the numerals for are inclosed in a circle (MSS C and G

t il . s n 0 omit) 3 1 6 0 has bee altered to l fl du in Judges V , 3

’ fre uentl and quite g y i n Deborah s song . I n Joshua there are a no correcti ons . All these later ones may be in the origin l hand , so far as may b e j udged by their appearance . The

20 last true an d certain correction is Deuteronomy X , , where the later hand has added between the lines ma n U C fi nan

. E H o . . omitted by Cod . Hav with (but f CG) From this point forward corrections are frequent i n Deuteronomy . In

‘ - z ' i Numbers XXXI , 3 I‘ ll rah? (for hh l dfli has been corrected in the margi n i n a very poor hand to hh'l‘ Tfl Iy

(with C). In the latter half of Numbers the corrections are

z very few and poor , generally only a hori ontal line or two , t here and here , to indicate d issatisfaction with the text . In the first half of Nu mbers there are but two co rrections . In

1 6 Leviticus the latest is at XXIV , , where the corrector has written between the lines the fl an ? omitted by the original scribe . This is by the Chief correcto r , perhaps the last of his work , but from this point forward it is common a small but not very neat hand . A very few corrections apparently in the same hand as those in Numbers are to be found in

1 4

in Judges , for example , whe n compared with that in Genesis , it would be very hard to say where one han d left off and the other began . Indeed , the one shades i nto the other so

e imperceptibly , that one is tempted to charg the diversity of style to some other cause than a Change of scribe . A greater crowding, due perhaps to increasin g economy of material ; a change of pen ; the lapse of many months in the

’ : execution of the scribe s great task all these considerations , and perhaps others of which we know nothing, may have contributed to produce this e ffect of a di fferent hand

Certainly this may be said , that whether two or three or more hands , or only one han d , wrought upon this codex , it is su ffi ciently homogeneous i n its style to be regarded as a

c a n unit , so far as paleographical evidence go . All the writing

‘ i n the text belongs to one age , for it exhibits t he sa m e characteristics . ? To what age , then , must it be assigned In the first place , the w—riting is not archai c . The vocalic determinations in and Y are not triangular , but approach more nearly to the fl later circle , although by their attened form they still suggest

o - the earlier manner . I n n the ste m attachment is regularly used . In general , the forms are more rounded an d less angular than in the earliest group of Ethiopic MSS . Thus the absence

2 of criteria that point to a date earlier than the 1 6th century ) indicates that the Cod . Hav . cannot with any degree of

1 C 1 6 r . ) omparison of the hand at Genesis XLI , ff is inst uctive in this regard

After the red ink of the new paragraph , the column contains writing in a

n z more co tracted , but ornamental , clear hand , the uniform si e is maintained until three lines above the bottom ( end of a leaf ) , thence the remainder of the column , eight lines , is crowded together in the closest possible compass , yet all well written . It is all probably the same hand as elsewhere . “ B M 2 C . C M ) f Wright , atalogue of the Ethiopic anuscripts in the ritish useum ’ “ ” 1 8 . d Abbadi e C é ass im . 7 7 , p X , also , atalogue raisonn , p I S

’ probability be assigned to any earlier reign than that of N a od

1 . ( 494 On the other hand , the writing is not recent

The letters belong to the best period of Ethiopic calligraphy , which includes the 1 6 th and 1 7 th centuries with some extension at either limit e Grammatical . With r spect to grammatical forms Cod .

Hav . exhibits a mixture of early and late qualities It is

o o o i 5l‘ n t uncomm n t find the prefixes of the mperfect (g , and 7 ) preserved in the normal ( 6 th ) form even before gutturals

. 1 2 ois . e. . of the first form ; g , Gen I V , 3 , 3 ( ) More frequently than not , the long vowel I is retained before 9 , instead of 6 th e. . slurring to the colorless vowel of the form ; g , Gen . I I ,

1 0 2 1 6 . m edi a e ) I‘ z ; VI , ; VIII , Verbs a , like ( d , regularly write their subj unctive and i mperative in this MS with the

th e. . . vowel of the 7 form ; g , Gen VIII , 3 The longer form

“ ’ of the preposition K9 ? is often retained where Dillm an n s

1 MS ) There are places in this , as in many others, where there is a noticeable lapse in the care and steadiness of the copyist . Thus in Genesis

1 XXIII the writing is careless . In Genesis XLIII , 4 a new column begins ' m‘ h l: 2 with the word fi , written in a different style , yet in the same ink

0 1 and with the same corrector . The next column begins with 0 211 of the

l th . g verse , an d the former style is resumed With the last word of ver . 2 4 l another column begins , written in the same care ess style as that commencing ' ' ' - o . 1 fl rh f a 2 I s t 2 at ver 4, and this style continues as far as t ( ) in ver . 3 . These sudden variations in consecutive columns certainly suggest a chan ge of hand , yet against this is the fact that in chap . XXIII the same careless style seems only a gradual lapse of the same hand from its usual symmetry into a

a . meaner and more r pid execution This at least is evident , that the q uestion of a plurality of scribes is of no practical importance , inasmuch as the chan ges are of such a character that the two scribes if such there were worked at the same time and place , and therefore from the same exemplar . Did the changes always come at the beginning of a new leaf or the parchment ink corrections , , , or textual readings point to a different provenience for differen t portions of o the c dex , then this q uestion would re q uire careful investigation . U nder existing

n o conditions , more need be said of these lapses . 2 C D m — . il l an n . H acks il l . 1 2 8 Rou . 0 0 ) f , p 5 , p , pp f , pp, p p 3 5 3 7 . 1 6

ff e. . . 2 8 text o ers g , Gen V , 9 VIII , , for

e. . . 2 . z : occu rs ; g , Gen XXX , 3 is found for 11711

e. . . 1 . g , Gen XL , 7 All these are archaisms , and are among the accepted criteria for determi ning the anti quity of Ethiopic codices . On the other hand , equally established criteria are

: absent , or occur exceptionally . Such are the use of h for

a ' h in h mjvfl db c fl hfi t hu and other words , an d in

the affix that marks exten ded quotation ; the retention of

' ” th l t c . l fl z I ll s e , prepositions ( , , ) in the 5 form even when

W ithout affixes ; 091‘ for for and other isolated archaisms ; the custo m of writing the

t numerals out in full ; the retention of the 1 s form before 6 th gutturals in the form , instead of d rawing out the short

th A to the long A of the 4 form . A noticeable preference for the 4th form over the I s t form for the gutturals themselves

’ D ‘ is consistently maintained throughout the codex , (QHQ I i for " Hp and the like), and is not an indication of great — age rather the reverse .

Miscellaneous . In Genesis , but especially i n the first

half of the book , the divine name hfl fljvfl db c is habitually preceded or followed by There is a marked

carelessness i n the use of the cases of nouns Such i rreg u

l a rit i es , which i n our Ethiopic monuments are to be regarded

na i vete either as marks of the of an early stage , or as signs of

a very late degeneracy , are In Cod . Hav . repeatedly corrected

by later hands , by the erasure or addition of a vocalic

determination . The use of three columns instead of two is

noteworthy . While there are to be found other Ethiopi c

MSS written i n three columns , Biblical texts were habitually

1 : 2 2 1 . ) Examples in the second half of Genesis are XXX , 3 ; XXXIX ,

c . o . ci t . 2 6 . On Genesis XXXI , 3 f Reckendorf, p , p

2 . ) The same is true , though to a less extent , of their genders I 7

written i n two colu mns , as may b e seen by a glance at the descriptions of the various Biblical codices in the catalogues .

Such a MS as this Cod . Hav . would scarcely have been undertaken in this form , however , unless the means of the ” person ”who caused it to be written (cf . colophon at end of Joshua) had been so ample as to warrant an unusual outlay in the acquisition of materials . This huge MS can hardly have been originally prepared for any individual less wealthy and

E t c ha e august than an emperor, a metropolitan , or an g The entire impression made by the plan of the volume is one of regal m u n ifi c en c e . And th e conditi on in which it has bee n preserved favors rather the theory of private ownership

of through most its existence , than its constant use i n a church or monastery . The absence from its blank pages and

fl y - leaves of any great number of entries by successive owners suggests that it did not often change hands by purchase , while the absence of miscellaneous notices , such as are foun d in the of ecclesiastical foundations makes long ownership by a religious house still more improbable .

T e o t e" t a nd r el a tions/zi to other codi ces . II I . yp f , p

The text of the Octateuch published by Dillm an n i n 1 8 5 3 is based upon the four MSS used by him , which he designates by the letters F , H , G an d C . Both fro m the relative anti

uit a q y of these MSS , and from comparison of the types of

s text which they contain with the LXX , it was a imple task to divide the four into two groups , with F and H formi ng the older , G and C the younger group . Codex F i s ancient , written not later than 1429 and probably considerably earlier

1 ) Head of the monks of Abyssinia . — b er . 2 2 2 C . C 2 Zot en . ) f , for example , odex 3 in g , pp 4 9 1 8

than that date . Codex H is a European Copy made , so

Dillma n n believed , not d irectly from F , but from a copy of

F . It represents therefore the same text, and almost every

where sides with F against the other M SS . Codex G is a

1 8 th carelessly written MS , made in Abyssinia i n the century

for the renowned traveller Bruce . Its type of text represents an i mperfectly adopted and ill transmitted recension of the

ancient version . Codex C is a carefully executed MS of the

1 th Ru ell 7 century , bought by the traveller pp in Abyssinia , and representing in i ts best form the emended text of the

Ethiopic Scriptures , a consistently adopted and well trans

mi e tt d recensio n of the anci ent version .

Having these as his materials to work upon , i t was the

ai m of Dr . Dillm a n n to publish a text of the Octateuch

which shou ld : reproduce as nearly as possible the text P H of , representing the old Ethiopi c version ; and serve

the Abyssi nian Church as a worthy edition of their Scriptures . It needs little re flection to comprehend how divergent are

a t hous an d these two aims . When on e consi ders the fact that years elapsed betwee n the origin of the ancient Ethiopic

’ version and the writing of Dillman n s oldest codex ; observes t he levity and carelessness with which Ethiopi c scribes pervert

the text of the MSS they Copy , even the most sacred ; and

finally , notes the loose , often paraphrastic style of the version

itself : he cannot fail to see that reproducing the text of F H is very far from furnishing the Abyssi nian Church with a

satisfactory version of the Scri ptures ; and conversely, that the production of such a satisfactory version would requi re P H so drastic a reconstructi on of the text of , that it would i n fact be no longer the ancient versi on but a modern recen

Dill m a n n z sion . Dr . attempted to harmoni e these antagonistic

aims by the use of parentheses and brackets , retaining in I 9

his edition , enclosed withi n the former , those redundant ele ments of the ancient version which had no right in the text , and introducing into his edition , enclosed within brackets , elements derived from the younger recension which were indispensable substitutes for the corrupted ancient text . He even went so far as to supplement by his own skill passages defective in both the earlier and the later types of

By the use of these signs , and by giving a conspectus of the

Dillman n more signi ficant various readings of his codices , did indeed furnish students of the text with the data o f

’ “ ’ Dill m an n s is ust Dillma n n s criticism . But text , as it stands , j

” text , and nothing more . He has become thereby the latest emender of the Ethiopic Bible . The effort to make a readable , and tolerably adequate version of the Octateuch out of the

’ materials at his command , or at anyone s command , was necessarily inconsistent with the desire to trace back as far as possible , and as free from extraneous elements as possible , the old Ethiopic version . For this is the critical desideratum . I f the Ethiopic version is of any value in the work of clas

s if i n - y g the various types of LXX text , it is to the primitive

Ethiopic version , prior to its earliest recension , that this value attaches . The effort of present studies in the text is to arrive as nearl y as possible at this uneme n ded (critically speaking) pure text , without regard to its readability or suitability for ecclesiastical uses .

There is need , therefore , for more material than is furnished

’ D illma n n s by one really ancient MS , if this reconstruction of the primitive text is to be the sole ai m . Such additi onal P data are furnished , primarily , by the great aris Octateuch ,

1 2 0— 1 2 8 1 th whose date , 7 5 , carries us back of the 4 century recension , an d which therefore , more than any other codex ,

I ) These supplements he distinguished by the use of asterisks . 20 ma be — y trusted to give us the ancient version , perverted , of course , indeed a miserable text from the point of view of scribal transmission , yet pure , i n the sense that , so far as we n ow know , it is u ninj u red by mixture , recensions or editings . But additional data for regaining this ancient text r are furnished , secondarily , by younge MSS , i n which , though mixture with emended texts has occurred , there nevertheless remain multitudes of ancient readings , retai ned by design or by accident . There is always the possibility , furthermore , too frequently observed i n textual transmission to be ignored , that a comparatively young MS, may , on account of the high antiqu ity of its parent exemplar , conserve a much more ancient type of text than another MS centuries older .

Such ancillary codices are thus to be used discreetly , side by side with the pri mary witnesses , and are especially valuable i n case of a clash between the older MSS . A glance at the

’ various readings i n Dill m a n n s appa r a t us cr iti ca s will reveal the frequency with whi ch G agrees with F (H) against C .

Where this combination occurs , we are reasonably certain that we have the ancient version . Where G sides with C , F H we presume that ( ) represents the older , CG the younger i reading ; but we are by no means sure of t h s . F or the reading of E (H) may be a peculiarity of this one MS or of its

“ ” family ; while the reading of CG may be i n the true line of transmission from the original translation . If now we have the situation co mplicated by t head dition of the most valuable

i . Pa r. w tness , the Cod (Y), the value of readings drawn from codices like G is greatly enhanced . When Y di ffers from

F (H) and is supported by G or CG , we may conclude that

e. it contains the true (i . , ancient) readi ng ; conversely , when F H G supports ( ) against Y , then we j ustly condemn the reading of Y as peculiar , however far back this ancient codex

2 2

F HC . , 34 ti mes F C , 8 HC , 9

F G I C , 5

2 HCG, 7

Disregarding the minor divergences of F and H , which are of no practical bearing for the discussion , we observe that by this showing , R adheres to the presumably older text against CG , which normally represents the earliest

1 recension of which we have any knowledge , 79 times , but to CG against the older text 2 36 ti mes . From these figures we must in j ustice subtract the agreements drawn from the

1 — V l 1 1 F H section I V , 5 , , in which the text of is n ot the old text , but apparently a very late and poor

fi . This red uces the former gu re by 5 , the latter by 3 5 Hence

1 20 1 8 we have 74 to , or about the proportion of 7 to , as the proportion obtaining in R with respect to its adherence F H . to ( ) and to CG respectively Again , still treating F and

H as one witness , we find that R agrees with the i ndubitably F H G 8 anci ent text ( ) 4 4 times , and with the emended text

C 1 0 1 times ; that it agrees with the presu mably ancient text

F H C 1 ( ) 5 ti mes , and with the presumably emended text G

u . 3 8 times . These fig res are doubly significant They show that R ’ s adoption of the e mended text occurs only about once for every five times that it is avoided ; and this high

: ratio serves to suggest two possibilities first, that where R

F C ma fl agrees with G against , F y have felt the in uence of the recension , while G , here as so often elsewhere , escaped it ; and second , that many of the places where R agrees

’ G C ma with y be instances , not of R s ad option of the recen

1 C Dill man n 2 8 — 0 ) f . , pp . 3 . 2 3

’ G C s sion , but of pres ervation of the old read ing, that is , in E H other words , of the indivi dual peculiarity of ( ).

- Comparison of R with F , H , C and G in Exodus Ruth . I n order to ascertain whether the type of text thus revealed

1 in Genesis is maintained evenly throughout , 5 chapters were

collated i n the remaining books of the Octateuch : four i n

Exodus , one in Ruth , and two in each of the other books .

Following are the results . R agrees with

F alone , 47 times . H 3 G 26 C 20

F H , I 1 2

CG , 9 3

F HG 1 2 , 9 F G , 4

HG , I F H C , 8 F C ,

HC ,

F CG ,

HCG ,

It will be seen fro m this summary that even more than

- in Genesis R presents in Exodus Ruth the ancient , unemended

F H 1 6 2 text . It agrees with ( ) against CG no less than times ,

t he with CG against F (H) but 9 3 times . It preserves indis

ut abl F H G 1 p y ancient text of ( ) against C in 3 4 places , an d abandons it for the emended text of C in 20 places . Thus

I D il lman n N ) In Ruth a European text , which designates by , takes the

Dill man n . 2 1 . place occupied by H in the other books . ( , pp 5 f) 24 the ratio of 7 to 8 in favor of CG i n Genesis becomes almost

2 - of abou t to I i n favor of F i n Exodus Ruth , and the ratio H 5 to I for F ( ) G i n Genesis becomes nearly 7 to I here .

Again the warning may fai rly be uttered , that the agreements w ith CG against F , and eve n the agreements with G against FC , need not all represent j ust so many adoptions of the

m a e men ded text , but y in many cases mark individual ff peculiarities of F , or i nstances where F has been a ected by the recension .

F or the purpose of determining , even more accurately than

’ was possible with the materials furnished by Dill m an n s various readings , the type of text contained i n R , the writer has collated R throughout Genesis and the 1 5 selected chapters

- . P ar. u n ub Exodus Ruth , with the text of Y (Cod This p l ished text , of supreme value for the study of the Ethiopic

’

- Octateuch , is in the writer s possession in manuscri pt form , and could thus be used for this comparati ve purpose i n advance of its intended publication . Appended is the result of this .

Comparison of R with Y .

i . R agrees with Y alone

I — . 8 . In Genesis , chaps IX , 3 times

X - L In , 344

2 Total for Genesis , 4 7

s In Exodus , 4 chap , 9 3

2 s 2 In Leviticus , chap , 5

2 2 8 I n Numbers ,

2 2 In Deuteronomy , 4

2 In Joshua , I I

2 10 In Judges ,

1 In Ruth , chapter , 5

- . 6 Total , Exodus Ruth I 9 2 5

If these numbers are compared with R ’ s agreements with any other single MS (still counting F and H as essentially one), it will at once be seen how far they surpass even the agreements with F (H). In Genesis , the proportion (YR to F R)

2 of is about 5 to , and in the selected chapters , in spite the enormous increase in the agreements with F o ver those in

Genesis , it still surpasses them , i n the ratio of nearly 5 to 4 .

ver much nea r er We say at the outset , therefore , that R is y r el a ted to Y tha n to a ny other s i ng l e code" .

i n st ruc But another seri es of facts , equally noteworthy and tive , should be placed beside these actu al agreements of R with Y . Comparison reveals the fact that there are also a

’ large number of places in which R differs from all Dillma n n s codices , where Y likewise differs from them and from R as well . These are the places where the true text may be regarded as most uncertain ; fro m the study of them , even more than from correspondences in readings , is it possible to trace the relationships existing between R , Y , an d Dill

’ mann s M SS .

’ f Dillm a n n s ii . R and Y dif er from codices , and from each other also : — I 2 . In Genesis , chaps . IX , 9 times — . X L 2 2 In Genesis , chaps , 4

2 Total for Genesis , 5 3

I n - I I 1 Exodus Ruth , ( 5 chaps) , 3

Now the origi nal collation of R with F , H , G and C

t he 1 8 resulted in tabulation of 4 5 places in Genesis , and of

- 49 5 places in Exodus Ruth , where R showed independent readings . These figures of course include even the most minute variations . It now appears , however , that very many of these independent readings of R , which made so unfavorable 26

a showing before Y had been compared , find countenance

eithe r i n agreement with Y , or i n the co mmon divergence

6 80 1 8 of Y and R fro m F , H , G and C . F or out of 4 5 in

0 - Genesis , and 3 9 out of 49 5 in Exodu s Ruth , are thus

“ ” vindicated . If suitable deductions are made for the large number of tri vial variations i ncluded in the remainder not

’ Dillm an n s so vi ndicated ; i f caution is remembered , that his

vari ous readings are not to be regarded as exhausti ve ; and especially i f it is born e in mind that this surprising result h b was reac ed y comparison with a single codex (Y), the only

strictly ancient text that we possess, then surely there will be few who will not share with the writer his complete r ever sa l

o his r evious es tima te o R a ter ha vin coll a ted it w ith Y. f p f , f g

" Before that , R appeared a code with a preponderatingly

i . e. good ( , ancient) text , but with far too many individual

peculiarities , that in their portentous total suggested a most

negligent copyist . In brief, R seemed scarcely to deserve a more lenient j udgment than that which Dillm an n accorded

’ to Bruce s codex G Now the responsi bility is shifted . What appeared as errors of the particular scribe or scribes who

wrote R , now appear plainly as old errors of transmission ,

’ ’ ’ remnants of the na i vete of the earlier Ethi opic d ocu ments ,

or evidences of a long confused text . In order to exhibit yet more clearly these mutual relation ships of the six MSS , the first n ine chapters of Genesis have been made the obj ect of a co mparison in which R has been

not simply collated , first with F , H , C and G , and second with Y ; but also compared with the g r oups into which all these five codices fall , when put together . — - Conspectus of MS groups i n Genesis I IX .

R . agrees with

1 C . Dil lm an n . ) f , p 7 . 2 7

[ (i) including Y z j [ (ii) leaving out Y : ]

8 . Y alone , 3 times

Y F . , 7 F alone , 9 times 1 Y EH 1 6 EH 0 , , 5 ) Y F G F G , I , 5

Y F HG F HG 0 , 7 , 5

Y FC FC 1 , I ,

Y F HC F HC I , I , 4

Y F CG 2 F , CG ,

Y G 2 1 0 , G alone , Y CG 6 2 , 3 ) CG , 57

Y C 6 1 1 C alone ,

It will be evident at a glance that this is a most instructive showing . The most striking fact is the frequency of the

F H R Y F H R 8 2 groups YR an d ( ) or ( ) ( , minus a few counted twice). In these groups we have u ndou btedly the F H ancient text , from whi ch in the former case ( ) departs , and in the latter case (i n most instances) Y departs

This table also exhibits the fact , already so . well known , that there - is little unanimity in MSS representing the most ancient text . Ethiopic scribes were too careless , the centuries of copying were too many , for readings obscure enough to evoke the emendations We fin d i n CG to propagate themselves — 1 1 1 1 . ) Of these , 5 occur in IV , 5 VI , — 2 2 8 1 1 1 . ) Of these , fall in IV , 5 VI , — 1 1 1 . 3 ) Of these , 3 5 fall in IV , 5 VI , 2 h 4) Within the same chapters , R has peculiar readings in 9 places , of w ich o 2 9 are places where Y also is unlike the other codices . We may theref re Y arrange , F and R in a table exhibiting the tendency of each to depart from the text of the other two . F H YR 8 1 — ( ) differs from , 3 times ( 3 9 in IV , 5 VI , VF 6 R n . 3 7, Y FR , 5 9 ( less some counted twice). 28

by sheer force of accurate reproduction . Thus we fin d only

2 3 places in these nine chapters , where Y , F and R all

s agree , again t the emendation of CG ; and only 8 places where

Y , F , R and G mai ntained themselves In perfect agreement , against the demand for improveme nt represented by C ’ s divergence .

Finally , by these figures we have demonstrated the appro

riat en es s p of that warning , already twice uttered , that G ,

ma CG , and even C alone y , when combined with R , preserve

" F C F H FG . the ancient te t over against , ( ), and respectively F or here we fin d actual instances where thei r reading is supported by Y , which precedes the recension , and it needs

u Y G Y CG Y C no arg ment to prove that the groups , , and

F C F H F G . deserve at least as much respect as , ( ), and When now the additional weight of R is thrown into the Y G scale with the former series ( , there need be little hesitati on i n pronouncing F (H) as exhibiting i n these few places the emen ded text .

. Concl us ion a s to a e o R a nd i ts va l ue or a I V g f , f

cr c i ti a l editi on of the Octa teuch .

From the three separate lines of evi dence pursued in sections

I , II and III , we may conclude as follows as to the age of

th th MS R . It seems to be a MS of the l 6 or 1 7 century .

’ The period between the reigns of Na od (died 1 508) and S usen yos (died 1 6 3 2) would doubtless i nclude the correct date . But the scribe or scribes who Copied this codex had for exemplar a MS of great worth , which was the reading book of some ecclesiastical foundation ; it was highly respected for its text , doubtless because of its age or the reputation

3 0

: s text . It will prove to be a third witnes , with C and G ,

to the text of the first recension ; but and far more F H important , the best means of determining whether ( ), ff when it di ers from Y an d agrees with CG , transmits the

f b : ancient text , or is af ected y the first recension i n other

n words , a Check upon Y , distinguishing its i ndividual pee liarit ies from those readings in which it alone (apart from R)

preserves the ancient version . The readings of R are there fore precisely what ought to be published with the proposed edition of the text of Y . With R , as well as F , H , C and G , d isplayed i n the notes of that edition , the MSS will form themselves into groups , which , except i n rare instances, will enable some future edito r of the Octateuch to distinguish the original Ethiopic version from its later recensions .