Chapter Two

Understanding p967’s Text: History of Text-Critical Scholarship

2.1. Introduction

The publication history of p967, as indicated in chapter 1, is complex and variegated. p967 Ezekiel was published over the course of four decades in four critical editions in three different languages and is housed in four international locations.1 Access to information on p967 is not straight- forward. Additionally, the information, once accessed, is almost as varie- gated as its publication history. About the conditions of p967’s availability to his work, Joseph Ziegler lamented, Der Papyrus 967 hatte nicht nur das Mißgeschick, daß viele seiner Blätter verloren ginge, sondern daß er auch in verschiedene Hände geriet, die ihn gesondert veröffentlichten.2 This comment referred to Ziegler’s preparatory work with p967 for his 1952 Göttingen Septuaginta Ezechiel. His critical edition is the most important contribution to Ezekiel Septuagint studies and serves as the base text for several modern Septuagint translation projects.3 For the edition, Ziegler only had p967Sch+CB available to him. The 1977 updated edition was largely catalyzed by availability of the Köln and Madrid portions of p967. Despite

1 For clarity, the portions of p967’s manuscript will be referenced as: Chester Beatty = p967CB, Schiede/Princeton = p967Sch, Universität Köln = p967Köln, Madrid = p967Mad. 2 “Papyrus 967 not only has the misfortune that many of its sheets are incomplete, but also that it ended up in the hands of various people who published it in different forms.” Joseph Ziegler, “Die Bedeutung des Chester Beatty-Schiede Papyrus 967 für die Textüber- lieferung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta,” ZAW 61 (1945/1948): 76. 3 Three modern translation projects rely on the 1977 Göttingen second edition. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Ezechiel, Septuaginta (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); The NETS project refers to Ziegler’s LXX, but uses the NRSV as its base text. La Bible d’Alexandrie and Septuaginta Deutsch offer new translations from Ziegler’s LXX. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Marguerite Harl with the assistance of Gilles Dorival and Oliver Munnich are working on La Bible d’Alexandrie; Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer are the editors for Septuaginta Deutsch. The translation work is divided into three sections: chs. 1–19 Hermut Löhr; chs. 20–39 Almut Hammerstaedt-Löhr and Knut Usener; chs. 40–48 Michael Konkel and Johan Lust (Fachberater). understanding p967’s text 29 full access to p967Köln+Mad, the 1977 editor, Detlef Fraenkel, notes the con- siderable work still required on the manuscript, making its usefulness to even the second edition less than complete.4 The protracted availability of information on p967 affects more general issues in Ezekiel studies as well. Walther Zimmerli’s Hermeneia Commen- tary on Ezekiel, originally published in 1969 suffered the lack of p967’s important evidence for the final stages of Ezekiel’s redaction history. Zimmerli had full recourse to p967CB+Sch, but his commentary was pub- lished before the critical editions of p967Köln+Mad were prepared. Although Zimmerli had transcriptions of those portions, and therefore knew with certainty, for instance, that p967 lacked 36:23c–38, he does not address this or other relevant textual issues in his introduction.5 In fact, Zimmerli places the discussion of p967 in the introduction under “The Later His- tory of the Book and Its Text,” thus qualifying the witness as important only to the Greek tradition and denying any merit to p967 as a witness to the Hebrew.6 Certainly, if Zimmerli had benefitted from a complete criti- cal commentary on p967 and subsequent textual debates, he would have been more attentive to the value of p967’s witness. Although the publication history of p967 negatively impacted impor- tant Ezekiel studies, the multiple editions and editorial work have afforded considerable scholarly discussion, as M. Fernández-Galiano points out,

4 Detlef Fraenkel, “Nachtrag,” 333. For a similar problem in Ziegler’s edition of Dan- iel, see Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotian- Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel; eds. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; Boston: Brill, 2002), 590–591. Di Lella points out that Ziegler provides a conjectured reading in Dan. 7:13 regarding the important actions of the one like a son of man. Ziegler, however, seems not to have consulted the 1968 publication of p967 where, according to Di Lella, the OG reading appears and finds the support of other OG mss. 5 On the notable minus of 36:23b–38, Walther Zimmerli only knew p967CB+Sch and was not yet aware of the Madrid or Köln portions, thus he cast doubt on the reliability of the new witness’ omission. Zimmerli states, “in 37:4 the surviving text breaks off. . . .it is not absolutely necessary to conclude that 36:23ff, a section which is so significant from the content point of view, could still not have followed after chapter 37. It is not probable, but not absolutely impossible. Perhaps the discovery of the missing sheets of p967 will one day give us more certain information.” Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:242. Pace Lust, who claimed that Zimmerli “did not offer any further suggestions concerning this phenomenon.” Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40,” 519. Zimmerli elsewhere, takes a more bold position that the minus is an inner-Greek error. “The possible absence of the passage from p967 and the peculiar char- acter of the translation of it would then be a problem for the history only of LXX, but not of MT.” Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:245. 6 Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:76–77.