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 42^t 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. A^cE^cG^cHIN; 11:8: ማርያም] om. HIN; 11:10: ምታ] om. A^cE^cG^cHIN; 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.