Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T14:47:11.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Ethiopic witnesses to some Old Testament pseudepigrapha

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2013

Ted Erho
Ted Erho*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich
*
t.erho@lmu.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite noteworthy critical editions of each having appeared within the last twenty-five years, the textual states of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, and the Ascension of Isaiah remain in flux due to the continued discovery of previously unknown exemplars. Nowhere is this more evident than in their Ethiopic versions, as copies of a multitude of manuscripts attesting these pseudepigrapha have become readily accessible in recent years. Consequently, it is now possible to append twenty Ge‘ez manuscripts to the hitherto recognized evidence for Jubilees, and five and two further witnesses to the published lists for the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs and the Ascension of Isaiah respectively.

Keywords

Book of JubileesTestaments of the Three PatriarchsAscension of IsaiahOld Testament pseudepigraphaGe‘ez literature

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of SOAS , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 75 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2013

The study of the so-called Old Testament pseudepigrapha has long been hampered by the customarily poor state of the available textual evidence.Footnote 1 In many cases, documents which originated in the early centuries c.e., or even before the Common Era, are known from only a few late manuscripts from the medieval period and beyond, often translations of lost Greek originals. While the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought forth fragments of some of these compositions, the limited amount of extant text, despite its antiquity, has not been able to advance the text-critical state of these documents considerably. Therefore, without some surprising new discovery, scholars will remain reliant upon the later translational versions of these texts.

One of the most important of these ancient translations is Ge‘ez, for Ethiopian Christianity alone preserved and passed down several documents known and used in early Jewish and Christian times. Among the most famous of these are the books of 1 Enoch (Hēnok) and Jubilees (Kufālē), both of which are fully extant in Ethiopic alone, though portions of the Semitic Vorlagen of each were found at Qumran. Similarly, a slightly later pseudepigraphon, the Ascension of Isaiah (‘ergata’ Isāyyās nabiy), is also only completely preserved in Ethiopic, but Greek and Latin fragments from Late Antiquity are also attested. Other works, such as the Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (sometimes called the Gadla ‘Abrehām) and the Lives of the Prophets, were also translated into and transmitted in Ge‘ez, which constitutes an important secondary witness in these cases.Footnote 2

Nonetheless, as with many other Old Testament pseudepigrapha, only a small number of copies of these documents have survived and become known to scholars, meaning that editions of these texts, even those created in the last couple of decades, have often been compiled on the basis of fewer manuscripts than desirable. In some instances, the identification of even one new copy of a pseudepigraphon can be considered significant, especially if the manuscript is comparatively old.

Twenty-seven new Ge‘ez witnesses to three Old Testament pseudepigrapha, namely Jubilees, the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, and the Ascension of Isaiah, shall be briefly surveyed in the following pages, including a number of significant exemplars from the recently digitized library of the monastery of Gunda Gundē.Footnote 3 The vast majority of these have yet to be officially catalogued, including manuscripts from the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library (EMML) collection and Ethiopian libraries whose contents have been photographed in the past few years.Footnote 4 In a few instances, however, existing catalogue entries have been imprecise when describing some of these works, leading to the omission of certain exemplars in subsequent scholarship. Several such cases, which are a result of error, lack of detail, or obscurity, shall also be corrected in what follows.

Jubilees

In 1989, James C. VanderKam published a welcome update to R.H. Charles’ critical Ethiopic text of Jubilees, which had served as the default for scholars since its appearance in 1895.Footnote 5 By the late twentieth century, indeed, the edition of the latter had become hopelessly outdated. For instance, whereas Charles had been limited to four manuscripts in European libraries, VanderKam was able to expand this list by some twenty-three additional exemplars that had subsequently come to the attention of scholarship, more than half of which resided in Ethiopia.Footnote 6 In an updated survey of the manuscript tradition of Jubilees at the 2007 Enoch Seminar, VanderKam retained the same list of Ethiopic witnesses presented in his edition of two decades earlier, though noting a number of associated works mentioned in the published EMML catalogues.Footnote 7

However, both before and since that essay appeared, the number of known Ge‘ez copies of Jubilees has grown considerably, so much so that we may now add no fewer than twenty additional manuscripts of the book to the list of those that are accessible, at least partially, to Western scholarship. Of course, many others remain in Ethiopian libraries, the existence of only a few of which has been noted in articles and field surveys. In other cases, additional sets of images of previously known manuscripts have come to light, providing improved tools for the text-critical study of Jubilees, especially for a few cases in which the original microfilms are difficult to trace.Footnote 8

These new manuscripts are diverse in terms of both their chronological and geographic ranges (within Ethiopia). Although, as is to be expected, the majority hail from the last three centuries, whose text-critical value requires further study, eight antedate the mid-sixteenth century, of which four offer previously unknown complete copies of the book. One of these rivals the antiquity of the oldest previously known Ethiopic manuscript of this composition. Geographically, exemplars are attested from Addis Ababa and all regions north of the capital, including an incompletely microfilmed example from the monastic library of Dabra Bizan in Eritrea.

This section presents a roughly chronological survey of all of these new copies of Jubilees, providing abbreviated catalogue entries for each with information pertaining to the manuscripts, their locations and reference numbers, and listings of all major works contained therein. In the cases of the pre-seventeenth-century exemplars, additional information, primarily dealing with the results of a cursory text-critical analysis of each on the basis of the first and last folios of the work, is furnished.Footnote 9 Afterwards, notes will be supplied on the existence of some presently inaccessible manuscripts, along with a list of improved image sets for a quintet of previously known copies of the Book of Jubilees.

  • Gunda Gundē 162

  • Monastery of Gunda Gundē, Tigray

  • Parchment, 26.5 × 20 cm., iii + 105 + ii ff., 2 cols., 24–30 lines, wooden boards, late 14th c.

  • ff. 1r–105v: Jubilees Footnote 10

  • Indubitably the most ancient of the new exemplars of Jubilees, this late fourteenth-century manuscript was digitized at its home in the monastery of Gunda Gundē in 2006. While its age has not hitherto been revealed, scholars have known of its existence since the early 1950s, as documentary evidence suggests that it was among the quartet of copies of Jubilees included by Antonio Mordini in his partial handlist of the Gunda Gundē library.Footnote 11 Although a few leaves are displaced, this manuscript is in fairly good condition, and preserves almost the entire book apart from a few lines of the prologue. Notably, unlike examples of Jubilees copied at this location approximately one century later, this codex does not seem to display the distinctive Gunda Gundē style; for instance, although the top of the opening folio of the manuscript has been lost (f. 105r), the extant portions of the text make clear that there is insufficient room for the inclusion of the typical ornate introductory harag.Footnote 12 This distinctiveness extends textually. While all of the other Gunda Gundē manuscripts of Jubilees display a very similar and distinguishing text-type suggesting a singular textual stream, no. 162 lacks most of the idiosyncratic readings of the former group. A cursory examination reveals only a few pluses and minuses, along with some unimportant unique readings.Footnote 13 The end of the book displays some tendencies towards the Gunda Gundē text-type, and thus may be one of the prototypes for that group, but overall it is certainly not as corrupt.Footnote 14 Both the relative antiquity of this manuscript and its possibly unaffiliated text-type render it among the most important of the new witnesses to Jubilees, and its inclusion in the future text-critical study of the book is essential.

  • EMML 9001

  • Church of Gešan Māryām, Wallo

  • Parchment, 36.5 × 26.5 cm., 171 ff., 2 cols., 41–48 lines, wooden boards, early 15th c.

  • ff. 5r–24r: Exodus – ff. 25r–40r: Leviticus – ff. 41r–62v: Numbers – ff. 63r–79v: DeuteronomyFootnote 15 – ff. 80r–93v: JoshuaFootnote 16 – ff. 94r–106v: Judges – ff. 107r–108v: Ruth – ff. 109r–138r: Jubilees – ff. 139r–148r: DanielFootnote 17 – ff. 149r–159v: 1 Ezra – ff. 160r–163v: Zechariah – ff. 164r–170v: Genesis 37:28–50:26

  • This remarkable manuscript is almost unique in the Ethiopian tradition on several counts, the most immediately obvious being the decorative designs in the margins of every page, a feature whose only confirmed parallel lies in British Library Orient. 481.Footnote 18 The latter contains the Octateuch together with the four gospels and Sinodos in a seventeenth-century hand and is considered to be an exact copy of the late fourteenth or early fifteenth-century maṣḥafa ṭefut manuscript from Amba Gešan, suggesting that this style of decoration may be exclusive to codices from this location which contain the Octateuch.Footnote 19 Unlike the British Library exemplar, however, EMML 9001 contains unique ornate line fillers previously undocumented in Ethiopian scribal practice. While the rarity of its use of the thin-script style (another Amba Gešan peculiarity) poses some difficulties to palaeographic analysis due to the paucity of comparable examples, the formation of the characters is so thoroughly indebted to the style which Uhlig refers to as the square script (flourished c. 1350–1450) as to allow for its near certain placement within these confines, and most likely to the second half of the period.Footnote 20 However, the distinctiveness of the script and consequent strong possibility of locational peculiarities do not permit the further reduction of this timeframe with any certainty. Textually, EMML 9001 displays an expansionist tendency, one which appears generally unaffiliated at the beginning, but more closely aligned with members of VanderKam's group 1 towards the end, though still possessing a high number of singular readings.Footnote 21 Such extraordinarily robust expansionism will doubtless provide some interesting variants, but simultaneously casts doubt on the antiquity of any of those not additionally attested.

  • EMIP 654 (Mekane Yesus Seminary 54)

  • Mekane Yesus Seminary, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 18.3 × 17.5 cm., 55 ff., 2 cols., 24 lines, no boards, 15th c.

  • ff. 1rv, 4rv, 7rv, 10r–17v, 21r–25v, 28r–47v: Jubilees 15:3–19, 21:4–13, 23:11–20, 26:27–29:2, 30:17–32:21, 34:7–36:4, 37:19–50:13Footnote 22 – ff. 2r, 5r–6v, 27rv, 48r–53v: Hosea 2:2–10:5, 11:8–14:9Footnote 23 – ff. 3rv, 8r–9v, 18r–19v: Amos 1:1–4:10, 8:7–9:15Footnote 24 – ff. 19v–20v, 26rv: Micah 1:1–2:3, 6:11–7:12Footnote 25

  • This badly disordered codex was recently donated to Mekane Yesus Seminary in Addis Ababa and digitized by EMIP. A catalogue of the collection has since appeared, together with an article on the textual affiliation of this copy of Jubilees, which noted its multiplex textual orientation, one which vacillates between congruency with more than one of VanderKam's groups and non-alignment with the existing categories.Footnote 26 It should be noted that the date given in the catalogue – listed as late-fifteenth or early-sixteenth century – is too late from a palaeographic standpoint. For instance, the abutment of the loop of the lo against the right leg of the letter, the lesser height of the m-class relative to its counterparts, the outgoing hook of the we almost protruding from the upper crossbar, and the straightness of the descending shafts of the r- and f-classes are jointly more indicative of a date closer to the middle of the fifteenth century than the end of it.

  • IES 392

  • Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 32 × 25 cm., 94 ff., 2 cols., 25–30 lines, no boards, 15th c.

  • ff. 1r–40v: 1 Enoch 31:2–108:15Footnote 27 – ff. 41r–94v: Jubilees 1:1–39:16Footnote 28

  • Donated to the Institute of Ethiopian Studies in September 1972, the existence of this manuscript was not noted in Western scholarship until 1993, when Pierluigi Piovanelli mentioned its presence in the IES collection on the strength of a report from Alessando Bausi.Footnote 29 Unfilmed during either of the visits of the EMML project to this institution, it remained out of reach to those unable to travel to Ethiopia to view it in person until recently, when it was digitized under the auspices of the British Library Endangered Archives Programme.Footnote 30 Although the final few folios of the Book of Jubilees are missing, a textual examination reveals a very close affinity between IES 392 and EMML 207, a manuscript dated to 1919/1920 that also conjoins Enoch and Jubilees (in the opposite order). While the latter contributes a large number of unique readings to VanderKam's edition, predominantly of a reductionist variety, the former shares almost all of these.Footnote 31 Despite this link, which further demonstrates the interesting transmission history of this book unshared by many (in fact, probably almost all) others in the Ethiopic Old Testament canon,Footnote 32 sufficient disparity exists between the two to negate the possibility that EMML 207 was copied directly from IES 392.Footnote 33 Indeed, this manuscript offers a valuable new ancient witness to this peculiar textual strain of Jubilees.

  • Gunda Gundē 146

  • Monastery of Gunda Gundē, Tigray

  • Parchment, 25.5 × 19.5 cm., ii + 100 ff., 2 cols., 26–32 lines, back board missing, late 15th/early 16th c.

  • ff. 1r–71v: Jubilees – ff. 72r–81v: Tobit – ff. 82r–100v: Judith

  • As one might expect of a copy of Jubilees of this era from Gunda Gundē, this manuscript reflects the highly corrupt text-type of VanderKam's group 5. Numerous variants exist which support readings of EMML 3/1510, whose provenance can also be traced to the Stephanite monastery, as well as a lesser number attested more widely within this group.Footnote 34 This close affiliation and secondary text-type impedes the text-critical value of Gunda Gundē 146, though careful study might reveal the occasional important independent reading. There is considerable water damage, especially to the later folios of the codex.

  • Gunda Gundē 95Footnote 35

  • Monastery of Gunda Gundē, Tigray

  • Parchment, 25 × 19.5 cm., i + 88 ff., 2 cols., 29–30 lines, wooden boards, late 15th c.

  • ff. 1r–32r, 78r–79v, 84rv: 1 ChroniclesFootnote 36 – ff. 32v–77v, 85r–88v: 2 ChroniclesFootnote 37 – ff. 80r–83v: Jubilees 2:8–3:17, 7:39–8:14Footnote 38

  • Four poorly preserved leaves of Jubilees are included between ff. 79 and 84 of this codex of the biblical books of Chronicles, but their original situation is uncertain, although they certainly come from elsewhere. This matter is further complicated by stylistic differences between f. 80 and ff. 81–3, which may indicate origins in two separate manuscripts, though considerable diversity between quires in the same manuscript is not unknown.Footnote 39 Differences are particularly apparent in the manner of rubrication, which in the former always commences at the left margin and continues for a minimum of two full lines, and on one occasion includes only part of a word, while in the latter rarely begins at the margin, extends in several cases for less than a single line, and never splits words, in one case even including only the first letter of a new line. However, the sample size is too small to permit any definitive conclusions in this regard, especially as all leaves seem to display the same text-type of this book, that which is evidently the standard for Gunda Gundē during this era.Footnote 40

  • IES 436

  • Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 35.5 × 26.9 cm., 69 ff., 2 cols., 23–30 lines, no boards, late 15th/early 16th c.

  • ff. 1r–3v: Jubilees 41:5–42:1, 45:13–46:16, 48:7–49:6Footnote 41 – ff. 4r–9v: Sus 39–Dan 3:96 – ff. 10r–14r: Amos 3:1–9:15 – ff. 14r–18r: Micah – ff. 18r–21r: Joel – ff. 21r–22r: Obadiah – ff. 22r–23v: Jonah – ff. 23v–24v: Nahum 1:1–3:3 – ff. 25r–26v: Habakkuk 1:11–3:19 – ff. 26v–28v: Zephaniah – f. 28v: Haggai 1:1–10 – ff. 29r–37v: Zechariah 1:4–14:21 – ff. 37v–39v: Malachi 1:1–3:16

  • Three leaves from the end of a copy of Jubilees are contained within this manuscript, which is a composite of portions of two, or perhaps three, codices. While none of the trio is in optimum condition, the first leaf in particular has suffered much damage, most visibly in the gaping tear in its centre. The extant portions witness to a text closely comporting with that attested by EMML 207, discussed above with regard to IES 392, raising the possibility that these dissociated leaves may have originally formed part of the missing conclusion of the latter.Footnote 42

  • Dabra Bizan 1 (Donald Davies collection)Footnote 43

  • Monastery of Dabra Bizan, Eritrea

  • Parchment, 42 × 35.5 cm., total number of folios unknown (288 ff. microfilmed), 3 cols., 32 lines, wooden boards, dated 1530 c.e.

  • Genesis – Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers – Deuteronomy – Joshua – Judges – Ruth – Jubilees – 1 Samuel – 2 Samuel – 1 Kings – 2 Kings – 1 Chronicles – 2 ChroniclesFootnote 44

  • This splendid manuscript, dated in its colophon to 1530 c.e., was microfilmed by Donald Davies at the important monastic library of Dabra Bizan, located in present-day Eritrea, during his Ethiopian travels in the 1960s.Footnote 45 Unfortunately, although complete copies of both Jubilees and 1 Chronicles were apparently contained therein, the only portion of either of these books to be microfilmed was one side of the opening leaf of the former, containing Jub. 1:1(prologue)–10. On the basis of this limited amount of text, very strong agreement with VanderKam's group 1 of manuscripts is evidenced.Footnote 46 Insofar as is known, the full exemplar has never been imaged, though this is certainly a desideratum with respect to the text-critical study of the Ethiopic version of Jubilees and other books of the Ethiopian Old Testament.

Twelve additional later copies of Jubilees, the majority from the last one hundred years, have also been located:

  • EMML 6974

  • Monastery of Zammadu Māryām, Wallo

  • Parchment, 25 × 22 cm., 151 ff., 3 cols., 36–37 lines, wooden boards covered with leather, late 17th/early 18th c.

  • ff. 4r–23v: 1 Enoch – ff. 24r–34r: Job – ff. 35r–45r: Proverbs – ff. 45r–48v: Ecclesiastes – ff. 48v–55v: Wisdom of Solomon – ff. 56r–59v: Song of Songs – ff. 60r–80v: Isaiah – ff. 81r–89r: Daniel – ff. 89rv: Daniel 11:1–45 – ff. 92r–99v: 1 Ezra – ff. 100r–103v: Hosea – ff. 103v–106r: Amos – ff. 106r–108r: Micah – ff. 108r–109r: Joel – ff. 109rv: Obadiah – ff. 109v–110v: Jonah – ff. 110v–111r: Nahum – ff. 111r–112r: Habakkuk – ff. 112r–113r: Zephaniah – ff. 113rv: Haggai – ff. 114r–117v: Zechariah – ff. 117v–118v: Malachi – ff. 120r–151r: Jubilees Footnote 47

  • EMIP 743 (alaqot Sellasē 2)/EMDL 470Footnote 48

  • Church of alaqot Sellasē, Tigray

  • Parchment, 17.5 × 14.5 cm., i + 198 ff., 3 cols., 32 lines, wooden boards covered with leather, late 17th/early 18th c.

  • ff. 2r–23v: 1 Enoch – ff. 24r–47r: Genesis – ff. 47v–68r: Exodus – ff. 68v–84r: Leviticus – ff. 84r–105v: Numbers – ff. 105v–124r: Deuteronomy – ff. 125r–138v: Joshua – ff. 139r–152v: Judges – ff. 153r–154v: Ruth – ff. 155r–186r: Jubilees – ff. 187r–198r: Job

  • EMML 8768

  • Church of Gind Atemen Mikā’ēl, Gondar

  • Parchment, [dimensions unknown], 186 ff., 3 cols., 36–39 lines, wooden boards, 18th c.

  • ff. 1r–24r: Genesis – ff. 24v–44r: Exodus – ff. 44r–59r: Leviticus – ff. 59r–78v: Numbers – ff. 78v–95v: Deuteronomy – ff. 96r–106v: Joshua – ff. 106v–117v: Judges – ff. 117v–119r: Ruth – ff. 120r–131v: Job – ff. 132r–161v: Jubilees – ff. 163r–185v: 1 Enoch

  • Moṭa Giyorgis 13

  • Church of Moṭa Giyorgis, Gojjam

  • Parchment, [dimensions unknown], ii + 115 + i ff., 3 cols., 31–36 lines, wooden boards, 18th c.

  • ff. 1r–36v: Jubilees – ff. 37r–55v: 1 Maccabees – ff. 55v–66r: 2 Maccabees – ff. 66r–71v: 3 Maccabees – ff. 72r–84r: 1 Chronicles – ff. 84r–100v: 2 Chronicles – ff. 101r–115r: 1 Ezra

  • UNESCO 10.48Footnote 49

  • Monastery of Dimā Giyorgis, Gojjam

  • Parchment, 25.7 × 22.2 cm., ii + 127 ff., 3 cols., 38 lines, wooden boards, late 18th/early 19th c.

  • ff. 1rv, 124r–127r: TobitFootnote 50 – ff. 2r–38v: Jubilees – ff. 38v–46r: 2 Ezra – ff. 46v–58v: 3 Ezra – ff. 59r–75v: 1 Maccabees – ff. 75v–83v: 2 Maccabees – ff. 83v–88r: 3 Maccabees – ff. 88r–116v: Jeremiah – ff. 116v–118r: Baruch (chs. 1–5) – ff. 118r–120r: Lamentations – ff. 120rv: Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6) – f. 120v: Prophecy of Jeremiah to Pashur – ff. 120v–124r: 4 Baruch

  • UNESCO 2.13Footnote 51

  • National Library, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 21.5 × 17.5 cm., 133 ff., 2 cols., 22–27 lines, wooden boards covered with leather, 19th c.

  • ff. 2r–15r: Esther – ff. 15v–98v: Jubilees – ff. 103r–119v: Judith – ff. 120r–129r: Tobit

  • EMIP 947 (Maqallē Mikā'ēl 170)/EMDL 669 (Abuna Yoḥannes Museum 46)

  • Church of Maqallē Mikā'ēl, Tigray

  • Parchment, 29.5 × 22.7 cm., iv + 166 ff., 2 cols., 32–33 lines, wooden boards, dated 1919 e.c. (=1926–27 c.e.)

  • ff. 1r–32r: Jubilees – ff. 33r–58r: Genesis – ff. 58v–80r: Exodus – ff. 80r–96v: Leviticus – ff. 96v–119r: Numbers – ff. 119r–138v: Deuteronomy – ff. 138v–151v: Joshua – ff. 151v–164v: Judges – ff. 164v–166r: Ruth

  • UNESCO 10.77Footnote 52

  • Monastery of Dimā Giyorgis, Gojjam

  • Parchment, 25 × 22.5 cm., 104 + i ff., 3 cols., 28–29 lines, wooden boards, dated 1922 e.c. (=1929–30 c.e.)

  • ff. 1r–44v: Jubilees – ff. 45r–68r: 1 Maccabees – ff. 68r–81v: 2 Maccabees – ff. 81v–88r: 3 Maccabees – ff. 88r–94v: Tobit – ff. 94v–104v: Judith

  • UNESCO 2.26Footnote 53

  • National Library, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 17.8 × 13 cm., 99 ff., 2 cols., 28–42 lines, wooden boards covered with leather, 20th c.

  • ff. 3r–56v: Jubilees – ff. 57r–74v: 1 Chronicles – ff. 74v–96r: 2 Chronicles

  • IES 2480

  • Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 23 × 20 cm., 170 ff., 3 cols., 35–36 lines, wooden boards, 20th c.

  • ff. 5r–31r: Genesis – ff. 31v–52v: Exodus – ff. 52v–68v: Leviticus – ff. 69r–91r: Numbers – ff. 91r–110r: Deuteronomy – ff. 110r–123v: Joshua – ff. 123r–135v: Judges – ff. 135v–137r: Ruth – ff. 137v–168r: Jubilees

  • EMML 7399

  • National Library, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 34.5 × 25.9 cm., iv + 280 + iii ff., 2 cols. with parallel Ge‘ez and Amharic, 43 lines, wooden boards, 20th c.

  • ff. 1r–71v: Jubilees – ff. 72r–111r: 1 Maccabees – ff. 111v–131v: 2 Maccabees – ff. 131v–141r: 3 Maccabees – ff. 142r–153v: Tobit – ff. 153v–171v: Judith – ff. 172r–185r: Esther – ff. 188r–217v: Daniel – ff. 218r–228v: Hosea – ff. 229r–237r: Amos – ff. 237v–243v: Micah – ff. 244r–248r: Joel – ff. 248r–249v: Obadiah – ff. 249v–251v: Jonah – ff. 252r–254v: Nahum – ff. 254v–257v: Habakkuk – ff. 257v–261r: Zephaniah – ff. 261r–263v: Haggai – ff. 263v–276v: Zechariah – ff. 276v–280v: Malachi

  • EMML 1200Footnote 54

  • Holy Trinity Cathedral, Addis Ababa

  • Paper, 33.5 × 30 cm., 396 + viii ff., 2 cols., 33–51 lines, cardboard covers, from the 1950s

  • ff. 9v–15v: 2 Ezra – ff. 24r–159r, 164r–277v: Fetha nagaštFootnote 55 – ff. 284r–337r: Jubilees – ff. 347r–367r: commentary on Revelation (Amh.) – ff. 367r–397v: commentary on Enoch (Amh.)

In five instances additional sets of images for manuscripts included by VanderKam are now known. Tana/Kebran 9, whose microfilm by Hammerschmidt is quite poor and difficult to read despite the excellent condition of the manuscript itself, was subsequently filmed as EMML 8292 in a much more legible copy.Footnote 56 Likewise, UNESCO 5.3 is an earlier reproduction of the eighteenth-century manuscript from Holy Trinity Cathedral long known as EMML 1163, while EMML 5593 from Addis ʿĀlam has recently been digitized as EMIP 1120.Footnote 57 Colour images of EMML 3, which was subsequently re-microfilmed in a better copy as EMML 1510, are now available under the shelfmark IES 439 via the British Library Endangered Archives Programme. The fifth manuscript, which VanderKam identifies as Gunda Gundie 74,Footnote 58 has never been properly catalogued, and is thus deserving of a more detailed entry:

  • Gunda Gundē 101/Schneider Gunda Gundē 74

  • Monastery of Gunda Gundē, Tigray

  • Parchment, 25 × 19.5 cm., 100 ff., 2 cols., 28–32 lines, wooden boards covered with leather, late 15th/early 16th c.

  • ff. 1r–54v: Jubilees 1:1–13, 13:4–50:13 – ff. 55r–100v: Deuteronomy

  • As VanderKam observes, this manuscript displays a close textual affinity with EMML 3/1510/IES 439, a fact that is wholly consistent with the pattern evidenced here with Gunda Gundē 95 and 146.Footnote 59 It should be further noted that it is possible that the initial leaf of Jubilees comes from a different copy of the book: deterioration patterns usually cause quires or leaves to fall out and be lost from either end of a codex first, rendering the presence of a single leaf prior to the absence of roughly two quires highly suspect. Moreover, dissimilarities exist between the scribal hands of the initial folio and the remainder of Jubilees.

Several additional copies of this book not presently available to scholars are known from various sources. Although not explicitly stated, it is quite likely that the large 1491–92 c.e. codex from the Eritrean monastery of Dabra Bizan containing the eighty-one canonical biblical books seen by Alessandro Bausi in 1993 contains Jubilees.Footnote 60 Two reasons can be provided for this: first, that Jubilees is among the books included in both the broader and narrower canons of the Ethiopian Church, and thus its absence would be incongruous, and second, that the initial portion of its colophon is so closely related to that of the Davies Dabra Bizan 1 manuscript (examined above), which demonstrably contains the book, as to leave little doubt as to the scribal intent in this regard.Footnote 61 Another Eritrean manuscript viewed by Bausi, a fourteenth-century gospels codex at Dabra Māryām, includes an inventory that records the presence of two copies of the book, but the considerable chronological gap between the creation of this register and the almost inevitable discrepancies between such listings and the actual content of monastic libraries in the present day preclude any firm conclusions as to whether either of these are still in its possession.Footnote 62 A similar thing can be said for the copy of Jubilees recorded at the Aksum cathedral.Footnote 63 A fourth manuscript, albeit modern, is known from an unpublished EMML handlist (no. 6352), but no copy of the corresponding microfilm has yet been located. In addition, an excerpted copy of the book was transcribed into a volume deposited in a Maqallē library in the 1960s or 1970s, but it is probable that the text was reproduced from the manuscript dually digitized as EMIP 743 and EMDL 470.Footnote 64

Testaments of the Three Patriarchs

Although comprising important works from the early centuries c.e., the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, which in Ethiopia are often referred to collectively as the Gadla’Abrehām, remain less studied than many of their contemporary counterparts. Constrained by the fact that only the Testament of Abraham has been found in its entirety in Greek, the Testaments of Isaac and Jacob in particular have received little critical attention. Together with a more robust Ethiopic tradition, both Christian and falasha, seven Arabic manuscripts, as well as Sahidic and Boharic exemplars, attest these works.Footnote 65

The Ethiopic version of the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs has been critically edited twice.Footnote 66 In 1965, Maurice Gaguine submitted a doctoral thesis at the University of Manchester which presented an editio princeps of the Ethiopic text of the full work on the primary basis of five nineteenth- and twentieth-century falasha manuscripts.Footnote 67 This was superseded in part in the year 2000, when a critical edition of the Arabic and Ethiopic versions of only the Testaments of Isaac and Jacob by Martin Heide appeared in the Aethiopistische Forschungen series.Footnote 68 While including the five falasha manuscripts used by Gaguine, Heide incorporated two further Christian exemplars into his text, as well as offering by itself a representation of the highly divergent Bibliothèque nationale éth. 134 witness. A further volume devoted to the Testament of Abraham, which employs all of the presently accessible textual evidence (including the witnesses mentioned below) and makes corrections to the earlier published material on the Testaments of Isaac and Jacob, is due to appear shortly.Footnote 69

In the first volume, however, Heide failed to include three Ge‘ez manuscripts available to him, instead relying upon only those noted by his predecessor Gaguine. Regrettably, among the additional exemplars was the oldest copy of the text, EMML 5/1496 (now also IES 377), palaeographically datable to around the turn of the fifteenth century, and the final dislocated quire of the manuscript that served as the base text for much of his edition (Vat. Etiop. 279).Footnote 70 More recently, further manuscripts have been located among the uncatalogued EMML materials, one of which can be provenanced to the falasha community, and a new copy of one of the Gunda Gundē exemplars has become available. In approximate order of antiquity, these manuscripts are as follows:

  • EMML 5/EMML 1496/IES 377Footnote 71

  • Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa

  • Parchment, 20.5 × 14.5 cm., 145 ff., 2 cols. (ff. 61a–98a: 1 col.), 16–23 lines, wooden boards covered with leather, late 14th/early 15th c.

  • ff. 4r–20r: Testament of Abraham – ff. 20v–34v: Testament of Isaac – ff. 34v–46r: Testament of Jacob – ff. 46r–59r : Homily of St. Ephrem on Abraham and SarahFootnote 72 – ff. 61r–98r: Gadl of Abbā Nob – ff. 99r–117v: Report by Paphnutius of his visit to the ascetics of the Egyptian desert – ff. 119r–142v: Homily of St. Basil, bishop of Caesarea, for the dedication of the church of St. Mary

  • Vat. Etiop. 279Footnote 73

  • Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City (originally from the monastery of Gunda Gundē, Tigray)

  • Parchment, 18.3 × 13.3 cm., 6 ff., 1 col., 19–21 lines, late 15th c.

  • ff. 2r–5r: Testament of Jacob 6:8–9:2

  • Gunda Gundē 16/Schneider Gunda Gundē 67

  • Monastery of Gunda Gundē, Tigray

  • Parchment, 11 × 10 cm., 97 + i ff., 1 col., 13–17 lines, wooden boards, 18th c.

  • ff. 5r–20v: Homily of St. Ephrem on Abraham and Sarah – ff. 21r–28v, 37r–47v: Testament of Abraham – ff. 29r–36v, 48r–58r: Testament of Isaac Footnote 74 – ff. 58v–73v: Testament of Jacob – ff. 74v–90v: Greetings to Abraham and the Church – ff. 91r–97r: Excerpt from the Hāymānota’abaw

  • EMML 7703Footnote 75

  • Private library of Kes Melkie Azaria, Gondar

  • Paper, 14.5 × 9 cm., 79 ff., 1 col., 13–15 lines, wooden boards, 18th c.

  • ff. 3r–23r: Testament of Abraham – ff. 23r–43r: Testament of Isaac – ff. 43r–58r: Testament of Jacob – ff. 58r–77r: Homily of St. Ephrem on Abraham and Sarah

  • EMML 8812

  • Church of Gind Atemem Mikā'ēl, Gondar

  • Parchment, 23 × 21 cm., i + 45 ff., 2 cols. (ff. 36a–54a: 1 col.), 20–25 lines, wooden boards, late 18th/early 19th c.

  • ff. 1r–9r: Testament of Abraham – ff. 9r–16r: Testament of Isaac – ff. 16r–20v: Testament of Jacob – ff. 20v–25v: Homily of St. Ephrem on Abraham and Sarah – ff. 25v–31v: Vision of SinodaFootnote 76 – ff. 32r–33r: Hymn to St. Zamalakota – ff. 33r–34v: Image of John the Baptist – ff. 34v–35r: Greeting to St. John the Baptist – ff. 36r–45r: Song of Songs (in a different hand)

  • EMML 7040

  • Church of Na'akkweto La'ab, Wallo

  • Parchment, 19 × 15 cm., 63 + iii ff., 2 cols., 16 lines, wooden boards, late 18th/early 19th c.

  • ff. 3v–19v: Testament of Abraham – ff. 19v–35v: Testament of Isaac – ff. 35v–47v: Testament of Jacob – ff. 48r–61r: Homily of St. Ephrem on Abraham and Sarah

In this context, a few comments on the manuscript that Gaguine and Heide reference as Gunda Gundē 142 are necessary.Footnote 77 Photographs of the pertinent portions of this codex were given to each scholar by Roger Schneider, but in these the end of the Testament of Jacob is lacking, with the text breaking off at 6:7, an unfortunate situation in light of the antiquity and importance of this exemplar. However, these final few folios have been available to scholars for several decades now, residing in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana under the shelfmark Vat. Etiop. 279. While the donation of the manuscript by Cerulli in 1956 is noted on the inside of the cover, its initial presence at Gunda Gundē was mentioned prior to this by Mordini, who almost certainly acquired it during one of his trips to the monastery and brought it to Italy.Footnote 78

In addition, while Heide assigns a third manuscript of this work to Gunda Gundē, such a provenance is demonstrably erroneous. Rather, as Caquot clearly states, this exemplar, which contains the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs together with the homily of St. Ephrem on Abraham and Sarah and the maṣḥafa berhān, derives from the monastery of Dabra Ṣeyon.Footnote 79 While a handwritten transcription of the homily appears in the Schneider archives at the IES, together with information on the provenance and other contents of the manuscript, copies of the photographs, which were apparently sent to Caquot in late 1981, have not been located.Footnote 80

Despite this considerable augmentation in the number of copies of the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, several others, less readily accessible, are known as well. In addition to the aforementioned manuscript at Dabra Ṣeyon,Footnote 81 at least three – and possibly as many as five or more – copies of this work are included among the EMML microfilms that never reached the United States, and which are now only available at the National Library and Archives of Ethiopia. Two falasha exemplars from Gondar in the late 1970s can be confirmed through their EMML index cards (nos. 7699 and 7875), while one, probably of the Christian orientation, comes from Mahal Zage Giyorgis (no. 8223). Additional copies may appear in EMML 7083 (Beta Madḫānē ʿĀlam, Lālibalā) and 8317 (Kebrān Gabre’ēl), though less certainty exists in these cases, as a different work may be indicated by the title Gadla 'Abrehām. Nevertheless, together with the copies catalogued above, this represents a considerable expansion of the Ge‘ez witness, particularly that of the Christian orientation, to the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs.

Ascension of Isaiah

The rarest of the three works covered here, the Ascension of Isaiah, is known from only a dozen Ge‘ez manuscripts, despite the fact that the completeness of the Ethiopic version makes it a vital witness to this ancient document. The early scholastic history of this text involved all of the usual suspects. An editio princeps was prepared by Laurence in 1819 on the basis of a single manuscript in the Bodleian Library, with this being succeeded by Dillmann nearly sixty years later, who collated a further two manuscripts then in the possession of the British Museum.Footnote 82 The same three manuscripts were used by Charles in his 1900 edition.Footnote 83 Only recently has an up-to-date edited version of the Ethiopic text by Perrone appeared accounting for the new finds of the last century, which supplements a further seven full or partial manuscripts to the earlier trio.Footnote 84

At present, the list of witnesses to this pseudepigraphon can be expanded by one-fifth:

  • EMML 9009

  • Church of Gešan Māryām, Wallo

  • Parchment, 30.5 × 25 cm., 119 ff.(?), 2 cols., 27–29 lines, wooden boards, late 15th/early 16th c.

  • Enoch – Job – Isaiah – Ascension of Isaiah Footnote 85

  • The earlier of these two witnesses comes from the church of Gešan Māryām at the important royal and monastic site of Amba Gešan. As Perrone's last manuscript is given the siglum “L”, EMML 9009 can consequently be dubbed “M” for text-critical purposes. From the available text, it is clear that this manuscript represents a further exemplar of the BCFHIL family, with its closest relations being the nearly contemporaneous B and F.Footnote 86 Nonetheless, it also displays considerable autonomy on various occasions.Footnote 87

  • EMDL 668 (Abuna Yoḥannes Museum 27)

  • Abuna Yoḥannes Museum, Maqallē, Tigray

  • Paper, 17.5 × 11 cm., ii + 58 + vi ff., 1 col., 14 lines, wooden boards, dated 1918 e.c. (=1925–26 c.e.)

  • f. 1r: Ascension of Isaiah 1:1–2 – ff. 4r–57v: Ascension of Isaiah

  • The second new exemplar of the Ascension of Isaiah was recently digitized in Maqallē. It represents the latest, and only internally dated, Ge‘ez copy of this pseudepigraphon; in building upon Perrone's enumeration, this witness can be assigned the siglum “N”. Notably, this manuscript also preserves a truncated duplicate of the start of the book on f. 1r, which, although certainly penned first, differs from the full copy in a few places, in addition to the absence of an appendage to the title of the work found in the second version.Footnote 88 Although EMDL 668 frequently departs from the known witness to the Ascension of Isaiah, it commonly, though not always, shares textual variants with H and I, especially when they jointly attest a reading alone, suggesting a common ancestor.Footnote 89

A possible further copy of the Ascension of Isaiah belongs to the monastery of Dabra Bizan in Eritrea. As this document is reckoned to be among the canonical scriptures of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it is likely that it is included within the large codex dated to 1491–92 containing the eighty-one books, the Book of Enoch, the Testament of Our Lord, the Didascalia, and Sinodos which was viewed by Bausi in 1993.Footnote 90 Unfortunately, the present political situation makes it unlikely that this manuscript, although of great interest and value for the study of the Ethiopian Bible and canon in the fifteenth century, will become available to scholars in the near future.

Conclusion

In this article twenty-seven Ge‘ez manuscripts newly attesting three Old Testament pseudepigrapha – Jubilees, the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, and the Ascension of Isaiah – have been surveyed. With regard to the Book of Jubilees, to which by far the majority of the textual data outlined here belongs, it is now possible to speak of at least forty-five Ethiopic copies, including two (or possibly three) antedating the fifteenth century. In proportion to the previously known evidence, the witness to the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs improved even more dramatically, with the number of known Christian copies being doubled and the first falasha manuscript from Ethiopia itself being identified. Lastly, two new manuscripts of the extremely rare, but important, Ascension of Isaiah were presented, increasing its available textual evidence to a full dozen exemplars.

References

1 Reed, Annette Yoshiko, “The modern invention of ‘Old Testament pseudepigrapha’”, Journal of Theological Studies 60, 2009, 403–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar rightly recognizes many of the problems associated with the label “Old Testament pseudepigrapha”. However, I retain it here in particular light of the fact that the three major works discussed are all pseudepigraphically attributed to Old Testament figures, and most alternate terms are inappropriate in view of the disparate provenances of the books as originating in Jewish and Christian circles respectively.

2 Although all of these pseudepigraphic works hail from a few centuries both before and after the turn of the era, their translation into Ge‘ez follows two disparate routes. First, the Bible, including several pseudepigrapha not accepted elsewhere (e.g. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Ascension of Isaiah), along with a number of other religious documents (cf. Alessandro Bausi, “The Aksumite background of the Ethiopic ‘Corpus Canonum’”, in Siegbert Uhlig (ed.), Proceedings of the XV thInternational Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg July 20–25, 2003 (Aethiopistische Forschungen 65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 532–41 and more recently, Bausi, Alessandro, “La nuova versione etiopica della Traditio apostolica: edizione e traduzione preliminare”, in Buzi, Paola and Camplani, Alberto (eds), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125. Rome: Augustinianum, 2011), 19–69Google Scholar for one recently discovered example), were translated from Greek in Aksumite times. These were recopied for several centuries, but for various reasons the textual streams were deemed in need of revision, and so Arabic manuscripts – often translations of Syriac versions of texts – were used as a basis for correction (cf. Aaron Michael Butts, “The influence of Syriac Christianity on Ethiopic Christianity: shifting the discussion”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, Calif., 20 November 2011). (Of course, this Arabic-influenced revision did not occur with 1 Enoch, Jubilees and the Ascension of Isaiah, as there is no evidence that Arabic versions of these documents ever existed.) This occurred primarily during the reigns of the early kings of the Solomonic dynasty. At the same time, a number of hitherto unknown religious texts were translated from Arabic into Ge‘ez, including the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs (cf. van Lantschoot, A., “Abbā Salāmā, métropolite d’Éthiopie (1348–1388) et son rôle de traducteur”, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Roma 2–4 aprile 1959), 397–401, esp. 401Google Scholar), and perhaps the Lives of the Prophets.

3 It would be desirable to include other elements of the Old Testament pseudepigrapha as well, most notably the Book of Enoch, but too many new copies exist of that work (more than forty) to allow for a proper presentation of the material here. A complete listing of the Ethiopic Enochic exemplars will be published in conjunction with Loren Stuckenbruck at a later date.

4 With the exception of the EMDL material, microfilm or digital copies of all manuscripts discussed below are available at the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (HMML), St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota.

5 VanderKam, James C., The Book of Jubilees (2 vols; CCSO 510/511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87/88. Louvain: Peeters, 1989)Google Scholar; Charles, R.H., መጽሐፈ ፡ ኩፋሌ or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Anecdota Oxoniensia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895)Google Scholar. Charles was preceded by Dillman, August, መጽሐፈ ፡ ኩፋሌ sive Liber Jubilaeorum (Kiel: C.G.L. van Maack/London: Williams and Norgate, 1859)Google Scholar, who edited the editio princeps on the basis of two of the same manuscripts included by his successor.

6 For the complete listing of manuscripts used by and known to him, see VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 1:xiv–xv.

7 VanderKam, James C., “The manuscript tradition of Jubilees”, in Boccaccini, Gabriele and Ibba, Giovanni (eds), Enoch and the Mosaic Torah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 3–21Google Scholar (on Ethiopic text at 18–21).

8 Especially the microfilms from Gunda Gundē by Roger Schneider and those from the Maqallē-based project noted by Roger Cowley, from information supplied by Teferu, Fitawrari Aleme, “The study of Geez manuscripts in Tégre province”, Journal of Ethiopian Studies 9, 1971, 21–5Google Scholar. Many of the documents and photographs assembled by Roger Schneider over his lengthy career were donated to the Institute of Ethiopian Studies by his family after his death, and have now been partially organized and made available to scholars at the Walda Masqal Centre. See Derat, Marie-Laure, “Les archives Roger Schneider (1917–2002) au centre Walda Masqal (Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Abeba)”,Annales d’Éthiopie 26, 2011, 291–302Google Scholar. Unfortunately, only a handful of copies of manuscripts from Gunda Gundē are contained in this archive, as many of them were sent to scholars working on editions and translations of particular documents, and are consequently now nearly untraceable due to the passing of so many years. At least four of the gadlāt are in the library of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Warsaw and served as the basis of M.A. theses by Motkowska, Kamila, Miszczak, Miroslawa, Ferenc, Aleksander (= “Les Actes d'Isaïe de Gunda-Gundé”, Annales d'Éthiopie 10, 1976, 243–94Google Scholar), and Krzysztof Blazewicz respectively. (Information provided by Marcin Krawczuk in private correspondence, 7/3/2012). Microfilms of six of the biblical manuscripts, including Schneider Gunda Gundē nos. 31, 65, 94–6, were given to Donald Davies and subsumed into his collection. See Davies, Donald M., “The dating of Ethiopic manuscripts”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, 1987, 287–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 288 n. 2 for the provenance and William F. Macomber, “Catalogue of Ethiopian manuscripts in the collection of Dr. Donald Davies” (Collegeville, MN: privately reproduced, 1979), 38–47 for the specific details of each manuscript.

9 As observed in Erho, Ted M., “The textual character of Jubilees in Mekane Yesus Seminary 54”, in Terefe, Kesis Melaku, Delamarter, Steve and Brown, Jeremy R. (eds), The Meseret Sebhat Le-Ab Collection of Mekane Yesus Seminary, Addis Ababa (Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscript Imaging Project 7. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), lxv–lxxivGoogle Scholar, manuscripts of Jubilees are known to vacillate between the known textual groupings and types at different points. However, this does not seem to occur frequently, and consequently a brief survey of both the beginning and end of each copy of the book should verify with fair accuracy whether the initial textual inclinations persist throughout.

10 Ff. 1rv: Jub. 2:7–21; ff. 2r–3v: Jub. 1:13–2:7; ff. 4r–24v: Jub. 2:21–10:24; ff. 25rv: Jub. 11:1–13; ff. 26rv: Jub. 14:12–15:2; ff. 27rv: Jub. 10:24–11:1; ff. 28r–33v: Jub. 11:13–14:11; ff. 34r–104v: Jub. 15:2–50:13; ff. 105rv: Jub. 1:1(prologue)–12.

11 A. Mordini, “Il convento di Gunde Gundiè”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 12, 1954, 29–63 (with a note of L. Ricci, 64–70). In this article, copies of Jubilees are assigned the sigla 15, 35, 51, and 160 (p. 52). On the inside of the front cover of Gunda Gundē 162, a white sticker with the number 15 in Arabic and Ethiopic characters is present, corresponding with the first of Mordini's quartet. While not present in all, or even a majority, of the manuscripts imaged at Gunda Gundē in 2006, stickers with this same format of enumeration are evidenced in several other cases, for example, nos. 37 (Mordini 54), 80 (Mordini 59), 94 (Mordini 18), 95 (Mordini 11), etc., and generally align with the associated descriptions for each codex in the above article.

12 This is probably the case because this manuscript was copied before the unique Gunda Gundē style developed and/or because it was brought to the monastery from elsewhere. On this particular school of manuscript decoration, see Marilyn E. Heldman, “An Ewostathian style and the Gunda Gundē style in fifteenth-century Ethiopian manuscript illumination”, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on the History of Ethiopian Art (London: Pindar Press, 1989), 5–14; and Balicka-Witakowska, Ewa, “Gundä Gunde: art and architecture of Gundä Gunde”, in Uhlig, Siegbert and Bausi, Alessandro (eds), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (5 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003–), 2:919–21Google Scholar.

13 E.g. 1:4: ኵሉ] om. 9 38; 1:8: ኀበ] om. 21; 1:9: ኵሎ] om. 42 44 47 48 58, ርኵሶሙ] pr. ኵሉ 17 63; 50:5: ሰይጣነ ፡ ወአልቦ ፡ መነሂ] om. 38; 50:10: ግብረ] pr. ግብር 21. Unique readings include: 1:11: ዘዘ] ዘ; 50:5: እም(ውእቱ)] om.; 50:8: ይጌምና ፡ ለዛ] ይጌምን ፡ በዝ. In cases where specific textual readings are given in footnotes, these have been collated against VanderKam's critical edition of Jubilees and make use of his text-critical and manuscript sigla (listed in Book of Jubilees, 1:xv–xviii).

14 E.g. 50:10: ግብረ] pr. ግብር; 50:11: ያስተስርዩ] ያስተርእዩ. However, it is obvious that Gunda Gundē 162 does not display the thoroughgoing traits of the later Gunda Gundē text even at this juncture.

15 Ff. 78v–79r not filmed.

16 Final page, containing Joshua 24:22–33, is missing.

17 The final column, containing Bel vv. 40–42, has been cut off.

18 In this respect, there is also some similarity with the Church of Zion Aksum prophets codex from the Donald Davies collection (Macomber, “Catalogue of Ethiopian manuscripts in the collection of Dr. Donald Davies”, 14–16).

19 On the maṣḥafa ṭefut, see further Bosc-Tiessé, Claire and Derat, Marie-Laure, “Ṭefut: Mäṣḥafä ṭefut”, in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, 4:887–8Google Scholar.

20 For the characteristic traits of this style of script, see Uhlig, Siegbert, Äthiopische Paläographie (Äthiopistische Forschungen 22. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1988), 177–299Google Scholar or Uhlig, Introduction to Ethiopian Palaeography (Äthiopistische Forschungen 28. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990), 41–53Google Scholar.

21 Noteworthy singular readings from the beginning and end of the book, all containing the addition of at least one word from the known manuscript tradition, include 1:2: እግዚአብሔር] +ውስተ ፡ ደብረ ፡ ሲና; 1:5: ትውልዶሙ] ወይርእዩ ፡ ለቱልዶሙ; 1:9: ኵሎ] +ስምዐ; 1:14: ፍትሕየ] +ወኵሎ ፡ ኵነኔየ; 1:15: ከመ] +አትራድኦሙ, ነፍሶሙ] +ወአዐቅቦሙ; 50:8: ባቲ] +ሞተ ፡ ለ; 50:12: ግብረ] +ባቲ; 50:13: እስራኤል] +እንከ. Some affiliation of EMML 9001 with VanderKam's group 1 (20, 25 and 35; for the constituents of his textual groupings, see Book of Jubilees, 2:xxxi) is evidenced, for example, in 1:9: ትእዛዝየ] +ወ with 20 21 35; 1:12: የኀሥሡ] የኀሡ with 20 21 25 35, ሕገ] +ይቀትልዎሙ ፡ ወ with 20 25 35 39 42 47 48 58; 50:4: ዓመት ፡ ርሑቅ] ዓመተ ፡ ርሑቀ with 12 20 25, ዮርዳኖስ] ዮርዳንስ with 25; 50:7: ሰንበት] ሰንበታት with 20, አምላክክሙ] +ወ with 20; 50:8: ወዘኒ] ወዘሂ with 20 25 44 48, ያውፅእ] ያውፅኦ with 25 58; 50:9: ግብር] ምግባር with 25; 50:10: ለ(አዕርፎ)] om. with 25; and the omission of the postscript together with 20 25 63. Although VanderKam's groupings are helpful in establishing certain pockets of similar witnesses to the text, such clusters pose a problem insofar as they do not aid in the establishment of the precise nature of their familial relations, both to one another and internally. Thus while 20 and 25 are fairly closely related, it is impossible to determine readily their positions relative to one another, 35, EMML 9001, or any other manuscript on such a basis. Likewise, near duplicates, for example, the many exemplars of Jubilees copied at Gunda Gundē in the late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth centuries, are not represented any differently from manuscripts that only nominally attest the putative text-type (e.g. 12), which itself is not delineated. Moreover, this formulation provides no leeway for a manuscript such as EMIP 654, which vacillates between several of these groups (see further below). This methodology also lacks a chronological component, which would be useful in understanding the vicissitudes that the various textual streams undergo as time passes.

22 Ff. 1rv: Jub. 15:3–19; ff. 4rv: Jub. 49:1–11; ff. 7rv: Jub. 43:21–44:12; ff. 10r–11v: Jub. 31:3–28; ff. 12r–15v: Jub. 26:27–28:19; ff. 16rv: Jub. 30:17–31:2; ff. 17rv: Jub. 28:19–29:2; ff. 21rv: Jub. 43:7–21; ff. 22rv: Jub. 23:11–20; ff. 23rv: Jub. 21:4–13; ff. 24rv: Jub. 42:4–20; ff. 25rv: Jub. 37:19–38:8; ff. 28r–31v: Jub. 34:7–36:4; ff. 32rv: Jub. 32:9–21; ff. 33r–37v: Jub. 38:8–42:3; ff. 38rv: Jub. 42:20–43:7; ff. 39r–40v: Jub. 44:13–45:13; ff. 41rv: Jub. 31:21–32:9; ff. 42r–45v: Jub. 45:14–49:1; ff. 46r–47v: Jub. 49:20–50:13.

23 F. 2r: Hosea 14:4–9; ff. 5rv: Hosea 11:8–13:2; ff. 6rv: Hosea 9:5–10:5; ff. 27rv: Hosea 13:2–14:3; ff. 48r–53v: Hosea 2:2–9:4.

24 Ff. 3rv: Amos 1:9–2:10; ff. 8r–9v: Amos 2:10–4:10; ff. 18r–19v: Amos 8:7–9:15.

25 F. 19v: Micah 1:1–5; ff. 20rv: Micah 6:11–7:12; ff. 26rv: Micah 1:5–2:3.

26 Catalogued in Terefe, Kesis Melaku, Delamarter, Steve and Brown, Jeremy R. (eds), The Meseret Sebhat Le-Ab Collection of Mekane Yesus Seminary, Addis Ababa (Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscript Imaging Project 7. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 215–17Google Scholar. The textual affiliation of this manuscript is discussed at length by Erho, “The textual character of Jubilees in Mekane Yesus Seminary 54”, lxv–lxxiv.

27 Ff. 1rv: 1 En. 57:3–60:13; ff. 2r–7v: 1 En. 37:4–57:3; ff. 8rv: 1 En. 31:2–37:4; ff. 9r–15r: 1 En. 60:13–71:12; ff. 15r–17v: 1 En. 78:8–82:20; ff. 17v–40v: 1 En. 72:1–108:15.

28 Ff. 41r–72v: Jub. 1:1(prologue)–22:20; ff. 73rv: Jub. 32:8–33; ff. 74r–86v: Jub. 22:20–32:8; ff. 87r–94v: Jub. 32:33–39:16.

29 Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes en Éthiopie”, Apocrypha 4, 1993, 197–224, at 194 n. 2. Piovanelli's suggestion that the provenance of this codex could possibly be attributed to Gunda Gundē is unsustainable. Not only does Jubilees not begin with the style of harag that would be typical of this location at the time, the text-type of this book differs markedly from that recorded in those manuscripts whose provenance can be firmly attributed to Gunda Gundē. Indeed, this copy of Jubilees has a reductionist rather than an expansionist tendency. Conversely, the text of 1 Enoch in IES 392 contains the same lengthy repetition of 1 En. 78:8–82:20 found in the contemporaneous Tana 9 manuscript from the monastery of Kebrān Gabre'ēl, implying a genetic link between the two, though its precise nature (copied from the same exemplar once, twice, or several times removed?) remains open to question. The precise date and identity of the donor of IES 392 are given in the acquisition log IES 00RB2.

30 From this case, as well as others that have recently come to light, it seems that EMML microfilming customarily did not include codices lacking covers, probably because such manuscripts, despite their occasional importance and antiquity, are generally in poor states of preservation. Thus it is probable that in certain locations visited by this project more fragmentary manuscripts remain unknown to scholars, some of which could prove to be quite significant. The British Library Endangered Archives Programme website provides a list of its sponsored projects: http://www.bl.uk/about/policies/endangeredarch/homepage.html.

31 Readings shared only by these two manuscripts include, e.g. 1:1: ደብር] pr. ርእሰ; 1:5: መጽሐፍ] pr. ዝንቱ, ወማእከሌከ] om.; 1:6: ጸደቁ] om.; 1:7: ኵሎ] ኵሉ; 1:9: አሕዛብ ፡ ወድኅረ] ኵሉ, ይከውንዎሙ] ይከውኖሙ; 1:10: ኀደጉ] om.; 38:16: ባላቅ] በቃለ; 38:21: ራአቦት] ራበኦታ; 38:22: ህየንቴሁ] om.; 38:23: አዳት] አዱታ, መይጠቢት] መጣቢታ; 39:2: እለ] om.; 39:3: ቤተ] +ውእቱ, በእንተ] om.; 39:4: ከመ] om.; 39:6: ሎቱ] ቦሙ; 39:10: ምስሌሃ] om. Among the most noteworthy variants shared by IES 392 and EMML 207 with others is the omission of አሳም ፡ ዘእምነ ፡ ደብረ ፡ ቴማን ፡ ወሞተ ፡ አሳም ፡ ወነግሠ ፡ ህየንቴሁ in 38:18–19, which is also attested by 42t and 47.

32 Many of these books seem to have been revised during the seventeenth century, with the previous version(s) no longer being copied thereafter. Jubilees is represented by a pluriform text-type, most strands of which seem to extend back to the earliest extant Ge‘ez manuscripts. The lack of a systematic revision, unlike in, for example, the case of 1 Enoch, wherein only the revised text survived to be copied in subsequent years, has probably contributed greatly to the textual stability of Jubilees, and should be added to the list of reasons for this situation posited by VanderKam, “The manuscript tradition of Jubilees”, 20–21.

33 The majority of readings in which IES 392 disagrees with EMML 207 seem to be unique to the former, and in some cases may be outright scribal errors or regional idiosyncrasies. Examples include the reading ባቢር rather than ቦሲር in 38:17, አድያም rather than ዕድያምሃ in 38:19, ዘብአ rather than ሰብእ in 39:6, አጠቀቀቶ rather than ዐጠቀቶ in 39:9, and ወዶሙ rather than ወደዮሙ in 39:14. Variants shared by IES 392 and other manuscripts, but not EMML 207, are quite scarce, and include the omission of ኀበ in 1:8 together with 21, the omission of ኵሎ in 1:9 with 42 44 47 48 58, and the reading of ክልኤ instead of ክልኤተ in 39:13 with 9 12 25.

34 The end of the colophon of EMML 3/1510/IES 439 (f. 85a) notes that “this book belongs to the men of Garezēn” (ዛቲ ፡ መጽሐፍ ፡ ዘስብአ ፡ ገርዜን), this name being one of several attributed to this monastery. It should be noted that in his edition, VanderKam only collates EMML 3/1510 and not the other two known Gunda Gundē manuscripts (his nos. 22 and 23), asserting that the latter two are near copies of the former (Book of Jubilees, 2:xxxi). Their shared provenance explains this situation. Consequently, it is highly likely that these counterparts jointly attest most of the superficially independent readings of EMML 3/1510 in VanderKam's edition. Variants in Gunda Gundē 146 that are probably of this type include, for example, expansions in 1:6 (አነ ፡ ኮንኩ ፡ ህልወ rather than ህልወ ፡ ኮንኩ) and 1:11 (ሐሰት ፡ ውስተ rather than ስሕተተ), additions in 1:10 (ሎሙ after እሚም) and 50:10 (ግብር before ግብረ), and numerous altered, truncated and corrupted forms throughout, e.g. 1:6: ወአንተ/ወአንተኒ; 50:6: ውስተ/ወኵሎ; 50:7: ግብርከ/ግብረ; 50:8: ሰብእ/ብእሲ; 50:11: ያስተርእዩ/ያስተስርዩ). Others are displayed within group 5 more widely, such as 1:1: ዘ(መጠነ)] om. with 12 21; 1:10: ፀር] ፀሮሙ with 12 21; and 50:10: አመ] እም with 12 21.

35 This is the same manuscript as Mordini no. 11 (“Il convento di Gunde Gundiè”, 52).

36 Ff. 1rv: 1 Chr 1:1–40; ff. 2r–14v: 1 Chr 2:23–12:15; ff. 15r–21v: 1 Chr 12:38–20:6; ff. 22r–32r: 1 Chr 21:17–29:30; ff. 78rv: 1 Chr 12:15–38; ff. 79rv: 1 Chr 20:6–21:17; ff. 84rv: 1 Chr 1:40–2:23.

37 Ff. 32v–37v: 2 Chr 1:1–6:11; ff. 38rv: 2 Chr 11:18–12:14; ff. 39r–46v: 2 Chr 6:11–11:18; ff. 47r–77v: 2 Chr 12:14–35:12; ff. 85r–88v: 2 Chr 35:12–36:23.

38 Ff. 80rv: Jub. 3:6–17; ff. 81r–82v: Jub. 2:8–3:5; ff. 83rv: Jub. 7:39–8:14.

39 In the latter respect, note especially Gunda Gundē 146 ff. 8–9.

40 This is evident in such readings as 3:3: ወ(ውእቱሰ)] om. with 12 21; 3:4: የሐዩ] pr. ዘ with 21; 3:17: ሰብዓቱ] ሳብዕ with 12 21, ጥንቁቀ] ጠንቀቀ with 21; 8:1: ዘ(ሱባዔ)] om. with 21; 8:12: ውስተ] እስከ with 12 21, ዝንቱ ፡ ፈለግ] om. with 21, ገጸ] om. with 21; 8:13: ወ] om. with 12 21; and 8:14: መንገለ] ማእከሉ with 21.

41 Ff. 1rv: Jub. 48:7–49:6; ff. 2rv: Jub. 41:5–42:1; ff. 3rv: Jub. 45:13–46:16.

42 Readings shared only with EMML 207 include: 41:6: መርዓቱ] om.; 41:7: ቤድሱኤል] ቤዴሴኤል; 41:13: ይእቲኒ] እዜኒ; 41:23: አበሰ] አእመረ; 41:28: ያውዕያ] ያውዕዮሙ; 45:14: ዘኮነ] ዘ; 46:1: ወበዝኁ ፡ ወፈድፈዱ] tr.; 46:2: ግብጽ] om.

43 Macomber, “Catalogue of Ethiopian manuscripts in the collection of Dr. Donald Davies”, 23–4.

44 Foliation is not included because the length of the unmicrofilmed sections is unknown.

45 Although its size (nearly 600 codices) and the relative antiquity of the books contained therein have been noted by several scholars, the library of Dabra Bizan remains enigmatic. Cf. Lusini, Gianfrancesco, “Däbrä Bizän”, Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 2:15–7Google Scholar. For the most recent scholarly visit to this location, see Bausi, Alessandro and Lusini, Gianfrancesco, “Appunti in margine a una nuova ricerca sui conventi Eritrei”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 36, 1994, 5–36Google Scholar, esp. 22–5.

46 Six non-orthographic variants are attested in the available text when collated against the published edition of VanderKam, five of which reflect readings found in two or all three group 1 manuscripts: 1:1(prologue): ተሳብዖቶሙ] ትስብዕቶሙ 20 25 35; 1:1 ክልኤ] ክልኤተ 25 35; 1:5: ወይቤሎ] om. 20 25, ልበከ] ለከ 20 25, and አነ] ኮነ 20 25. A unique variant is present in 1:9 with the reading of ኵሉ for the first instance of ኵሎ.

47 A lengthy lacuna (ff. 138rv) exists between Jub. 24:22 and 28:1.

48 This is the same copy of Jubilees microfilmed in the Maqallē project in the late 1960s or early 1970s, but the present whereabouts of that series of films remains a mystery. Cf. Cowley, “The study of Geez manuscripts in Tégre province”, 23.

49 Cf. Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit in Addis Ababa and Gojjam Province (Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education and Fine Arts, Department of Fine Arts and Culture, 1970)Google Scholar, no pages. Although this catalogue and the associated microfilms have existed for several decades, the latter, in particular, were extremely difficult to access until recently, contributing to a general lack of knowledge and use of this material in Western scholarship.

50 Ff. 1rv: Tobit 12:6–14:15; ff. 124r–127r: Tobit 1:1–12:6.

51 Cf. Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit; also [in Amharic] Catalogue of the Ethiopian Manuscripts in the National Library of Ethiopia (Imperial Ethiopian Government and Antiquities Administration: Addis Ababa, 1962 e.c.), 10 (no. 15).

52 Cf. Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit. This codex is also included on the second page of IES 196, an Amharic handlist of manuscripts from the monastery of Dimā Giyorgis.

53 Cf. Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit; also Catalogue of the Ethiopian Manuscripts in the National Library of Ethiopia, 15–16 (no. 26).

54 This manuscript had been catalogued prior to the publication of VanderKam's edition of Jubilees by Haile, Getatchew (Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts Microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library, Collegeville – Vol. IV: Project Numbers 1101–1500 (Collegeville, MN: St. John's Abbey and University, 1979), 159–61)Google Scholar, but was omitted from the former's list of Ge‘ez copies of the book, possibly because it is written on paper rather than parchment.

55 Cf. Guidi, Ignazio, Il “Fetha Nagast” o “Legislazione dei Re” (Napoli: R. Istituto Orientale, 1897; repr. 1936)Google Scholar.

56 Catalogued in Hammerschmidt, Ernst, Äthiopische Handschriften vom Tänäsee 1 (VOHD XX, 1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), 107–8Google Scholar. I am grateful to Loren Stuckenbruck for confirming the EMML number of this manuscript and providing information on the quality of the microfilm.

57 Cf. Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit; Haile, Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts, 93.

58 VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 1:xv.

59 VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 2:xxxi.

60 Bausi, Alessandro, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunità monastiche dell'Eritrea”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 39, 1997, 25–48Google Scholar, at 34–9.

61 For Jubilees and the reckoning of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, see Cowley, R. W., “The biblical canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church today”, Ostkirchliche Studien 23, 1974, 318–23Google Scholar; cf. also Bausi, Alessandro, “Alcune considerazioni sul Sēnodos etiopico”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 34, 1990, 5–73Google Scholar, at 46–51.

62 Bausi, Alessandro, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunità monastiche dell'Eritrea”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 38, 1996, 13–69Google Scholar, at 35–6.

63 Kolmodin, J., “Abessinische Bücherverzeichnisse (aus den Inventaren der Zion von Aksum und einiger anderen Kirchen)”, Le Monde Oriental 10, 1916, 241–55Google Scholar, at 246.

64 Cowley, “The study of Geez manuscripts in Tégre province”, 25.

65 See Haelewyck, J.-C., Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 56–9, 66Google Scholar. Previously unknown Sahidic fragments of T. Isaac 3:15–18 and 4:9–18 were identified in 2012 by Alin Suciu; for further details, see Heide, Martin, Das Testament Abrahams: Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen 76. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 29Google Scholar.

66 In addition, an editio princeps of the falasha version of the Testament of Abraham alone on the basis of Abb. 107 was published by Rossini, Carlo Conti (“Nuovi appunti sui Giudei d'Abissinia”, Rendiconti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 31, 1922, 221–40)Google Scholar.

67 Maurice Gaguine, “The Falasha version of the Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: a critical study of five unpublished Ethiopic manuscripts”, (PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1965).

68 Heide, Martin, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs: Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen 56. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000)Google Scholar. This book originated as his doctoral dissertation at the Philipps-Universität Marburg.

69 Heide, Das Testament AbrahamsGoogle Scholar. The criticisms below are directed primarily towards the earlier tome on the Testaments of Isaac and Jacob, and have largely been corrected in its companion volume.

70 For the latter, cf. Alessandro Bausi, review of Heide, Martin, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs: Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen, Journal for the Study of Judaism 34, 2003, 86–92Google Scholar, at 87, though Bausi fails to connect it with the missing end of Schneider Gunda Gundē 142. The provenance of this quire can be traced with substantial certainty, for which see further below. If the attribution of the translation of the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs to the metropolitan Salāmā as noted in both Gunda Gundē exemplars is correct (cf. van Lantschoot, “Abbā Salāmā”, 397–401, esp. 401), EMML 5/1496 is a particularly valuable witness as it lies within a few decades of the beginning of the textual stream. It should also be noted that, although available since the 1980s, the third manuscript – EMML 7040 – was not identified until 2011.

71 Macomber, William F., A Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts Microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa, and for the Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library, Collegeville – Vol. I (Collegeville, Minn.: Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library, 1975), 8Google Scholar, followed by Getatchew Haile, Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts, 630–2, in which the Gadla’Abrehām was catalogued somewhat obscurely as a work “on the departure of the souls of the Old Testament Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. (According to the IES register 00RB2, this item was acquired in March 1972. Recently, a new set of colour images, listed as IES 377, has been created for this manuscript via the British Library Endangered Archives Programme.) This unrecognizableness has contributed to the omission of this important witness to the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs in various pieces of scholarship, most notably Haelewyck, Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti and Heide, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs (as well as Bausi's extremely thorough review thereof). While one cannot entirely exonerate Macomber (and, by extension, Getatchew Haile) for this obfuscation, it is, at the same time, difficult to fault a cataloguer with relatively little background in Ge‘ez literature for providing such a description for a work of comparative scarcity at the very start of his work. Nevertheless, this unfortunate situation, which should not have occurred, highlights the need for a clavis of Ethiopian literature similar to the major reference works that exist for other Oriental languages, e.g. Baumstark, Anton, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur: mit Ausschluss der christlich-palästinensischen Texte (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1922)Google Scholar and Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (5 vols. Studi e Testi 118, 133, 146, 147, 172. Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944–1953)Google Scholar. This would create standardization in titles, a matter that has long caused difficulties (cf. e.g. Leslau, Wolf, review of Macomber, William F. and Haile, Getatchew, A Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts Microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa, and for the Hill Monastic Library, Collegeville (vols. 2–4), Northeast African Studies 3, 1981–82, 95–9Google Scholar, at 98 for one longstanding and persistent minor problem with the description of gadlāt), and allow for greater ease in the proper identification of scarcer works during the cataloguing of new manuscript collections. Although still undeniably useful with respect to the older European collections, the index of works contained in catalogued Ethiopian manuscripts made by Conti Rossini, Carlo (“Manoscritti ed opere Abissine in Europa”, Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 8, 1899, 606–37)Google Scholar at the close of the nineteenth century is now desperately incomplete and inadequate.

72 Cf. Caquot, André, “Une homélie éthiopienne attribuée à Saint Mari Éphrem sur le séjour d'Abraham et Sara en Égypte”, in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont (Cahiers d'orientalisme 20. Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1988), 173–85Google Scholar. This homily is always included before or after the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs in both Christian and falasha manuscripts (though a partial exception lies with Abb. 107 wherein the Testament of Abraham alone is included without Ephrem's work), and is only attested independently once (Faitlovitch Eth. 14).

73 This manuscript was catalogued in van Lantschoot, Arnold, “Inventaire sommaire des mss Vaticans éthiopiens 251–299”, in Collectanea Vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda (2 vols. Studi e testi 219. Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1962), 1:453–512Google Scholar, at 483. It comprises a single quire and, according to a note on the inside of the cover, was donated by Enrico Cerulli on October 23, 1956.

74 Ff. 29r–36v: T. Isaac 3:12–6:5; ff. 48r–52v: T. Isaac 1:1–3:12; ff. 53r–58r: T. Isaac 6:5–9:2.

75 This is a falasha manuscript, as demonstrated through the use of the introductory phrase ይተባረክ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ አምላከ ፡ እስራኤል.

76 Cf. Grohmann, Adolf, “Die im Äthiopischen, Arabischen und Koptischen erhaltenen Visionen Apa Schenute's von Atripe”, ZDMG 67, 1913, 187–267Google Scholar.

77 Gaguine, “Falasha version”, 6; Heide, Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs, 9, 32–3. A preliminary survey of the photographs resulting from the 2006 expedition to the monastery has not revealed this manuscript. It is possible, however, that it may be conjoined to or incorporated within another codex and will come to light as the collection is catalogued.

78 Mordini, “Il convento di Gunde Gundiè”, 48 n. 12. Unlike the majority of manuscripts in Mordini's handlist, this entry includes detailed information regarding dimensions, length, and precise contents, probably because he had more time to study the piece. This practice aligns with many other entries belonging to manuscripts known to have been in his possession, for example nos. 196–202, which form a portion of the Mordini fonds at the Biblioteca Palatina di Parma; the acquisition of several of these was already noted in Mordini, Antonio, “Informazioni preliminari sui risultati delle mie ricerche in Etiopia dal 1939 al 1944”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 4, 1946, 145–54Google Scholar, at 153. For an introduction to this collection, see Farinelli, L. et al., “I manoscritti etiopici di Antonio Mordini alla Biblioteca Palatina”, Malacoda 57, 1994, 11–28Google Scholar. A catalogue is currently in preparation under the direction of Gianfranco Fiaccadori.

79 Caquot, “Une homélie éthiopienne”, 173.

80 Cf. Derat, “Les archives Roger Schneider”, 299; Caquot, “Une homélie éthiopienne”, 173. It is evident that Caquot had images of the codex itself rather than merely copies of Schneider's work as now preserved at the IES, as the former discusses the palaeography and format of the manuscript, neither of which appear in the latter's notes.

81 It is possible that in the mid-twentieth century this copy of the Gadla 'Abrehām was copied into a volume possessed by a library in Maqallē. Cf. Cowley, “The study of Geez manuscripts in Tégre province”, 25.

82 Laurence, Ricardo, Ascensio Isaiae vatis opusculum pseudepigraphum, multis abhinc seculis, ut videtur, deperditum, nuc autem apud Aethiopas compertum, et cum versione Latina Anglicanaque publici juris factum (Oxford: J. Parker, 1819)Google Scholar; Dillmann, Augusto, Ascensio Isaiae Aethiopice et Latine (Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus, 1877)Google Scholar.

83 Charles, R.H., The Ascension of Isaiah Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which, Together with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions, and the Latin Translation of the Slavonic, Is Here Published in Full (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900)Google Scholar.

84 Perrone, Lorenzo and Norelli, Enrico (ed.), Ascensio Isaiae: Textus (CCSA 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 1–129Google Scholar.

85 Knowledge of this manuscript comes from a series of high numbered EMML microfilms that were scanned by HMML at the National Library and Archives of Ethiopia in 2005, the institution holding the master set from that project. Unfortunately, a number of images in the digital version have missing portions of text, and almost all of the frames from Ascension of Isaiah ch. 6 onwards are missing, though they doubtless appear on the original microfilm. Consequently, folio numbers are not provided since the length of some of the books remains unknown due to the absence of various frames. (HMML possesses microfilm copies of EMML manuscripts between nos. 1 and 7637 with occasional absences, as well as several hundred of the higher numbered items in scans of varying quality.)

86 For this textual family, see Perrone and Norelli, “Ascensione di Isaia profeta”, 32–9. As collated against Perrone's edition of the Ethiopic text, major variants in the first few folios suggesting such a classification include 1:4: ፲ወ፭ ፡ ዓመተ] tr. BFHILM; 1:6: ወልደ ፡ ኢሳይያስ] ወልዱ ፡ ለኢሳይያስ ABCEHILM; 1:7: አነ] om. BCFHILM; 1:10: ዐቢየ] om. FGM; 1:11: ኢ(ይበቍዐከ)] om. BFM; 2:5: ንዋይ] om. BCFGHILM; 2:10: ኵሎሙ ፡ ሠቀ ፡ ይትዓፀፉ] om. BCFHILM, ላሐ ፡ ዐቢየ] tr. BFGM; 2:13: ሚክያስ] om. BFM; 3:1: ይነብር] om. BCFHILM. Even the title ዘኢሳይያስ ፡ ነቢይ as opposed to ዕርገተ ፡ ኢሳይያስ ፡ ነቢይ is indicative of this categorization. With regard to the AEG family, it should be noted that, contrary to the official catalogue entry (van Lantschoot, “Inventaire sommaire des mss Vaticans éthiopiens 251–299”, 1:465; followed by Perrone and Norelli, “Ascensione di Isaia profeta”, 5, 39), Vat. Etiop. 263 is palaeographically datable to the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, approximately 100 years earlier than is stated. Cf. Uhlig, Äthiopische Paläographie, 125–8.

87 E.g. 1:7: ይቤሎ ፡ ኢሳይያስ] om. M; 1:8: በምናሴ] om. M; 1:9: እም(ሃይማኖተ)] በ M; 1:10: ሕዝቅያስ ፡ ዘንተ] tr. M; ቃለ] om. M; 2:12: ለአርባዕቱ ፡ ምእት] om. M; 2:14: ወለሰማርያ ፡ ወውእቱ ፡ ተነበየ ፡ በእንተ ፡ አኩዝያ] om. M, 3:1: ወብዙኃን ፡ እምኢየሩሳሌም] om. M.

88 After the title ዕርገተ ፡ ኢሳይያስ ፡ ነቢይ, the clause በረከቱ ፡ ወበረከተ ፡ አምላኩ ፡ ትኩን ፡ ምስለ ፡ ንግሥትነ ፡ አስካለ ፡ ማርያም ፡ አሜን is inserted on f. 4r, whereas the text of the Ascension of Isaiah immediately begins at the same juncture on f. 1r. It is most probable, therefore, that the scribe restarted his work in order to include this piece of text, which did not appear in the manuscript from which he was making the copy. Other differences between the two include ንጉሠ/ንጉሥ and ው(letter erased?)ቱ/ውእቱ on f. 1r and f. 4r respectively.

89 Unique readings are common, and include both significant pluses and minuses, e.g. 1:7: ወእሉ ፡ ቃላት] om. N; 2:1: አላ] om. N; 2:4: ተዘርአ] +በዓመፃ ፡ ውስተ N; 2:7: ወኢሳይያስ] om. N; 2:10: ሠቀ ፡ ይትዓፀፉ ፡ ወኵሎሙ] om. N; 2:14: ትዝቦጠን] +ወኤልያስ ፡ ነቢይ N; 11:1: ይቤለኒ] +ወይቤለኒ N; 11:3: ትትረከብ] om. N; 11:5: ፅንስ] om. N, ባቲ] +ጽንስተ N; 11:17: ወበከመ ፡ ሥርዓት ፡ ሀሎ ፡ ይጠቡ] om. N; 11:21: ይነብር] +፵ N; 11:31: ወባሕቱ] om. N; 11:39: ከመ ፡ ኢየሀብ] om. N, ሰብእ] +ከመ ፡ ኢየሀብ N. Congruence with H and I is evidenced throughout, both when this duo produces independent readings and when it forms part of a wider group (e.g. 1:6: ፳] om. HIN; 1:7: አነ] om. BCFHILN; 1:10: ብካየ] +ፈድፋደ ABCEGHILN; 2:5: እም(አናቶት)] om. HIN; 2:12: ዘበዓል] om. BCFGHILN; 2:13: ውስተ ፡ ሞቅሕ] om. HIN; 2:14: እስመ ፡ ቀተለ] እለ ፡ ቀተሉ HIN; 3:1: ይነብር] om. BCFHILN; 11:7: ብእሲቱ] om. AcEcGcHIN; 11:8: ማርያም] om. HIN; 11:10: ምታ] om. AcEcGcHIN; 11:13: ማርያም ፡ ድንግል] tr. AHILN; 11:19: ዘውስተ ፡ ሲኦል] om. ABCFHILN; 11:26: ሎቱ] om. HIN; 11:27: ከማሁ] ካዕበ HIN; 11:34 እስመ] እስከ BCFIN; 11:42: ወልዱ] om. ABCFHILN; 11:43: ለእላ] om. BCFHILN), though on select occasions disunity occurs (e.g. 11:14: እለ] om. N, pr. ወ HI; 11:36: እላንተ] እሎንቱ ፡ ራዕያት ፡ ዘ N, እለ ፡ ዘንተ B, እሎንተ C, እሎንቱ EHI, እሉንተ G; 11:38: ኵሉ ፡ ዛቲ] እላ ፡ ውእቱ N, እሉ ፡ ዛቲ HI; 11:41 በዘንተ] pr. ወዘንተ ፡ ርእዮ N, pr. ወዘንተ HI).

90 Bausi, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunità monastiche dell'Eritrea”, 34–9.