Ägyptische Handschriften, Pt. 4 by Erich LüddeckensReview by: William WardJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1996), pp. 296-297Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605730 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996) Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)

McKay's "negative" results serve a positive function. At the

very least, her work should make students of Jewish and early Christian texts be more cautious about assuming that references to synagogues necessarily imply special buildings and that the sabbath before 200 C.E. was preeminently a day of worship. Thus she frees us from some unwarranted presuppositions in

approaching the ancient sabbath texts and reminds us how little we know about what Jews in antiquity actually did on the sabbath day.

DANIEL J. HARRINGTON WESTON JESUIT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

Agyptische Handschriften, pt. 4. Edited by ERICH LUDDECK- ENS. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutsch-

land, vol. XIX.4. Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VERLAG, 1994.

Pp. 255; 6 plates. DM 168, FS 168, OS 1311.

Compiled by Gunter Burkard and Hans-Werner Fischer- Elfert, this is the fourth in a projected series of five volumes

cataloguing Egyptian papyri and papyrus fragments in German collections. The initial volume dealt with the papyri of the Illahun archives in Berlin, the next two with Demotic papyri in various institutions. The present volume is a "miscellany" of texts of all genres dating from the Fifth Dynasty to Roman

times, the majority of which are housed in the two main Berlin museums. Following the general pattern of the series, each of the 350 entries gives a physical description of the papyrus (or fragments), the date, the provenance (where known), previous publications, and a brief outline of the contents. This is accom-

panied by the beginning and final words of the text in trans- literation and hieroglyphic transcription. While this and its

companion volumes are catalogues and not reproductions of

manuscripts, they are collectively a significant reference work in that Egyptologists now know what is available in German col- lections. Just as important, the published papyri and fragments catalogued in the present volume (about a quarter of the total) are fully documented, including publications where one would

normally not look for Egyptian documents (see, e.g., no. 302). Of the total papyri and fragments included here, half date to

the twenty-first to thirtieth dynasties, one-fifth each to the New

Kingdom and Ptolemaic-Roman times, the remaining tenth be-

ing of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. As with other large Eu-

ropean collections of papyri, the origin of a substantial part of the material listed here (forty percent) is unknown since it was

purchased in the nineteenth century prior to scientific excava-

McKay's "negative" results serve a positive function. At the

very least, her work should make students of Jewish and early Christian texts be more cautious about assuming that references to synagogues necessarily imply special buildings and that the sabbath before 200 C.E. was preeminently a day of worship. Thus she frees us from some unwarranted presuppositions in

approaching the ancient sabbath texts and reminds us how little we know about what Jews in antiquity actually did on the sabbath day.

DANIEL J. HARRINGTON WESTON JESUIT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

Agyptische Handschriften, pt. 4. Edited by ERICH LUDDECK- ENS. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutsch-

land, vol. XIX.4. Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VERLAG, 1994.

Pp. 255; 6 plates. DM 168, FS 168, OS 1311.

Compiled by Gunter Burkard and Hans-Werner Fischer- Elfert, this is the fourth in a projected series of five volumes

cataloguing Egyptian papyri and papyrus fragments in German collections. The initial volume dealt with the papyri of the Illahun archives in Berlin, the next two with Demotic papyri in various institutions. The present volume is a "miscellany" of texts of all genres dating from the Fifth Dynasty to Roman

times, the majority of which are housed in the two main Berlin museums. Following the general pattern of the series, each of the 350 entries gives a physical description of the papyrus (or fragments), the date, the provenance (where known), previous publications, and a brief outline of the contents. This is accom-

panied by the beginning and final words of the text in trans- literation and hieroglyphic transcription. While this and its

companion volumes are catalogues and not reproductions of

manuscripts, they are collectively a significant reference work in that Egyptologists now know what is available in German col- lections. Just as important, the published papyri and fragments catalogued in the present volume (about a quarter of the total) are fully documented, including publications where one would

normally not look for Egyptian documents (see, e.g., no. 302). Of the total papyri and fragments included here, half date to

the twenty-first to thirtieth dynasties, one-fifth each to the New

Kingdom and Ptolemaic-Roman times, the remaining tenth be-

ing of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. As with other large Eu-

ropean collections of papyri, the origin of a substantial part of the material listed here (forty percent) is unknown since it was

purchased in the nineteenth century prior to scientific excava-

tions or comes from private collections (Reinhard, Ibscher, etc.). Some eighty-one items come from El-Hibeh, mostly of the late twentieth and twenty-first dynasties, fifty items of all periods were found at Elephantine, twenty-three can be ascribed to Thebes, nineteen to Abu Sir, a dozen to Deir el-Medineh, eight to Dimeh in the Fayum, and one or two items each from a few other sites.

The subject matter of the earlier material is quite limited. Most of the fragments are from the Abu Sir archives and are in- cluded in the publication of that collection. The only new item of interest is a group of one hundred fragments of Sixth Dy- nasty letters, accounts, and lists from the family archive of the nomarchs of Elephantine (no. 143). For the Middle Kingdom, the bulk of the entries concerns the well-known literary texts in Berlin-Sinuhe, Eloquent Peasant, Papyrus Westcar, etc. Two further groups of unpublished small fragments from the Illahun archive (nos. 103, 125) are included. Only three other entries list unpublished Middle Kingdom material, all in fragments, one in which not a single word is complete (no. 341).

From the New Kingdom into Saite times, the scope of the material catalogued is remarkable: letters, oracles, legal pro- ceedings, administrative documents, literary texts, and a wide

range of religious literature other than the Book of the Dead. The collection from the Late Period and Ptolemaic and Roman times is almost devoid of secular literature since Demotic and Greek were used for letters, administrative texts, and the like. The entries for this period consist mostly of fragments of the Book of the Dead and various religious texts, largely unpub- lished. Notable among the latter are part of a mythological tale of the Battle between Horus and Seth (no. 218) and a complete copy of the Book of Atmen of the first century A.D. (no. 259), a

composition that replaced the Book of the Dead in late times. The bulk of these papyri is preserved only in fragments,

some so small that it is not possible to define their content.

Still, fragments often offer interesting bits of information, addi- tions to long-known texts, and the like. Note, for example, a reference to "The Rebel" (Akhnaton) in a latter of the reign of Ramses II (no. 104), hitherto unknown lines from the Teaching of a Man for his Son (no. 174), and a few lines from the Teach-

ing of Amenemhat I on a Late Period fragment (no. 177), now the latest-known manuscript of that Middle Kingdom work.

Some of the unpublished texts deserve to be studied and made generally known. As the editors note, while the large collection of Twenty-first Dynasty administrative texts from El- Hibeh offer little by way of content, they add a substantial cor-

pus of hieratic writing for that period and should eventually be

published for that reason alone. The publication of other texts is already in process. Zauzich is preparing two legal texts of the late Ramesside age from Deir el-Medineh (nos. 156, 157) and Fischer-Elfert is working on several texts of varying con- tent: oracles (nos. 2-3), fragments of The Teaching of a Man

tions or comes from private collections (Reinhard, Ibscher, etc.). Some eighty-one items come from El-Hibeh, mostly of the late twentieth and twenty-first dynasties, fifty items of all periods were found at Elephantine, twenty-three can be ascribed to Thebes, nineteen to Abu Sir, a dozen to Deir el-Medineh, eight to Dimeh in the Fayum, and one or two items each from a few other sites.

The subject matter of the earlier material is quite limited. Most of the fragments are from the Abu Sir archives and are in- cluded in the publication of that collection. The only new item of interest is a group of one hundred fragments of Sixth Dy- nasty letters, accounts, and lists from the family archive of the nomarchs of Elephantine (no. 143). For the Middle Kingdom, the bulk of the entries concerns the well-known literary texts in Berlin-Sinuhe, Eloquent Peasant, Papyrus Westcar, etc. Two further groups of unpublished small fragments from the Illahun archive (nos. 103, 125) are included. Only three other entries list unpublished Middle Kingdom material, all in fragments, one in which not a single word is complete (no. 341).

From the New Kingdom into Saite times, the scope of the material catalogued is remarkable: letters, oracles, legal pro- ceedings, administrative documents, literary texts, and a wide

range of religious literature other than the Book of the Dead. The collection from the Late Period and Ptolemaic and Roman times is almost devoid of secular literature since Demotic and Greek were used for letters, administrative texts, and the like. The entries for this period consist mostly of fragments of the Book of the Dead and various religious texts, largely unpub- lished. Notable among the latter are part of a mythological tale of the Battle between Horus and Seth (no. 218) and a complete copy of the Book of Atmen of the first century A.D. (no. 259), a

composition that replaced the Book of the Dead in late times. The bulk of these papyri is preserved only in fragments,

some so small that it is not possible to define their content.

Still, fragments often offer interesting bits of information, addi- tions to long-known texts, and the like. Note, for example, a reference to "The Rebel" (Akhnaton) in a latter of the reign of Ramses II (no. 104), hitherto unknown lines from the Teaching of a Man for his Son (no. 174), and a few lines from the Teach-

ing of Amenemhat I on a Late Period fragment (no. 177), now the latest-known manuscript of that Middle Kingdom work.

Some of the unpublished texts deserve to be studied and made generally known. As the editors note, while the large collection of Twenty-first Dynasty administrative texts from El- Hibeh offer little by way of content, they add a substantial cor-

pus of hieratic writing for that period and should eventually be

published for that reason alone. The publication of other texts is already in process. Zauzich is preparing two legal texts of the late Ramesside age from Deir el-Medineh (nos. 156, 157) and Fischer-Elfert is working on several texts of varying con- tent: oracles (nos. 2-3), fragments of The Teaching of a Man

296 296

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

for his Son (nos. 174-76), and ritual and magical texts (nos. 253, 296, 311-14).

The indices at the end of the book include a list of the cata-

logued material by subject matter, a list of the chapters found in the numerous Book of the Dead papyri and fragments (over

sixty entries), and a list of those for whom these and other reli-

gious documents were written.

WILLIAM WARD BROWN UNIVERSITY

Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: Die Katholischen Briefe. Ed- ited by JOSEF HOFMANN (t) and SIEGBERT UHLIG. Athiopist- ische Forschungen, vol. 29. Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VER-

LAG, 1993. Pp. 264.

This volume (hereafter, KathBr) was published posthumously for its author, Josef Hofmann, by Siegbert Uhlig. In the course of his work on the traditions of the Ethiopic versions of the New Testament (see the items listed on p. 20), Hofmann, in the latter

years of his life, had concentrated more and more on the so- called "Catholic Epistles." Notwithstanding his frailty, he had been able to procure from major European libraries for his

perusal fifteen Ethiopian manuscripts and several others in Arabic. Uhlig, who took charge in 1987 on Ernst Hammer- schmidt's suggestion, "dass die Arbeit moglichst bald zum Druck

gebracht werden sollte, dass aber auch.... neue Erkenntnisse, besonders durch Veranderungen im Bestand der verfiigbaren Handschriften, eingearbeitet werden miissten" (p. 9), added what had been gained from the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana of Milan and the Ethiopian Microfilm Library, altogether approximately one- third of the materials (pp. 9-10). Due to the additions and the

necessity of adjustments and alterations, Uhlig became chiefly responsible for the completion of Hofmann's book and its edi- torial work (p. 12).

Hofmann had aimed to investigate the variations of the

Ethiopian texts from the Greek original to find out whether the

Ethiopian translation had used a Greek Vorlage or was ren- dered from a translation thereof in another language, i.e., a

Syrian, Coptic, or Arabic text. Uhlig continued in this vein and discussed this matter in part one of his Einleitung to the anno- tated Ethiopian text, taking into consideration the possibility of either a direct Greek Vorlage or one in a Syrian or Coptic me- dium in the Bohairic or Sacidic dialects. Uhlig concluded that the Ethiopic version represents a rendition from a Greek text. He then asks where the Greek Vorlage came from, Alexandria or Antiochia (pp. 29-49). He opts for Alexandria (pp. 41-49).

for his Son (nos. 174-76), and ritual and magical texts (nos. 253, 296, 311-14).

The indices at the end of the book include a list of the cata-

logued material by subject matter, a list of the chapters found in the numerous Book of the Dead papyri and fragments (over

sixty entries), and a list of those for whom these and other reli-

gious documents were written.

WILLIAM WARD BROWN UNIVERSITY

Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: Die Katholischen Briefe. Ed- ited by JOSEF HOFMANN (t) and SIEGBERT UHLIG. Athiopist- ische Forschungen, vol. 29. Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VER-

LAG, 1993. Pp. 264.

This volume (hereafter, KathBr) was published posthumously for its author, Josef Hofmann, by Siegbert Uhlig. In the course of his work on the traditions of the Ethiopic versions of the New Testament (see the items listed on p. 20), Hofmann, in the latter

years of his life, had concentrated more and more on the so- called "Catholic Epistles." Notwithstanding his frailty, he had been able to procure from major European libraries for his

perusal fifteen Ethiopian manuscripts and several others in Arabic. Uhlig, who took charge in 1987 on Ernst Hammer- schmidt's suggestion, "dass die Arbeit moglichst bald zum Druck

gebracht werden sollte, dass aber auch.... neue Erkenntnisse, besonders durch Veranderungen im Bestand der verfiigbaren Handschriften, eingearbeitet werden miissten" (p. 9), added what had been gained from the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana of Milan and the Ethiopian Microfilm Library, altogether approximately one- third of the materials (pp. 9-10). Due to the additions and the

necessity of adjustments and alterations, Uhlig became chiefly responsible for the completion of Hofmann's book and its edi- torial work (p. 12).

Hofmann had aimed to investigate the variations of the

Ethiopian texts from the Greek original to find out whether the

Ethiopian translation had used a Greek Vorlage or was ren- dered from a translation thereof in another language, i.e., a

Syrian, Coptic, or Arabic text. Uhlig continued in this vein and discussed this matter in part one of his Einleitung to the anno- tated Ethiopian text, taking into consideration the possibility of either a direct Greek Vorlage or one in a Syrian or Coptic me- dium in the Bohairic or Sacidic dialects. Uhlig concluded that the Ethiopic version represents a rendition from a Greek text. He then asks where the Greek Vorlage came from, Alexandria or Antiochia (pp. 29-49). He opts for Alexandria (pp. 41-49).

In part two of his introduction (pp. 49-91), Uhlig turns to the method of the translator(s) and the results. He feels that the rendition is, on the one hand, clumsy, slavishly following its

Vorlage, and is, on the other, often too liberal, lacking pre- cision and clarity, and is even mistaken or misleading, or omits words or passages of the text. Some of the shortcomings he traces to later copyists. Uhlig notes revisions of the Ethiopian version to be dated to the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries.1 He attributes this revision to the desire to improve the Ethiopian text by drawing on the materials provided by Arabic texts based on an Alexandrian or Egyptian "vulgate" with a chiefly Bohairic background (see pp. 60-75 for details). However, on various grounds, Uhlig feels it is correct to date the revision of the Ethiopic rendition of the "Catholic Epistles" to the four- teenth century, i.e., the time of the climax of the second period in the history of Ethiopia's literature. What causes Uhlig to

post-date the revision, is inter alia this:

Der revidierte Text setzte sich nicht binnen kiirzester Frist durch; es dauerte vielmehr relativ lange, bis er un-

eingeschrankt Anerkennung erfuhr. Die H(and)s(chrift) aeth D2 aus dem 16.Jh. und das Fragment aeth F,3 ver- mutlich auch aus dem 16.Jh. stammend reprasentieren im wesentlichen noch den unrevidierten Text, wahrend die Hs aeth E,4 gleichfalls ins 16.Jh. zu datieren, schon den neuen Text bietet. Vereinzelt kommen Lesarten der neuen Revisionsstufe schon in den Handschriften des 15.Jh. (aeth B5 und C6) vor. (pp. 76-77)

In this context, Uhlig points to variations in the text which

may be of relevance to the text-critical evaluation of the writ-

ings in the New Testament,7 "weil es sich bei ihr [the Ethiopic translation thereof] um eine Primariibersetzung handelt" (p. 90). He concedes, however, "dass der athiopische Text in hohem Masse der Verbesserung bedarf," as the text-critical apparatus shows (pp. 90-91).

1 See, however, below in this paragraph. 2 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 28. 3 Bibliotheca Vaticana, Aeth. 21 offering Jas 4:7-12, lPet

1:13-25, 2:19-25, 3:18-22, 2Pet 3:8-14, Jude 17-21. 4 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 24. 5 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 25. 6 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 26. 7 Note should be taken here that he recognizes that certain

manuscripts of more recent date have retained older materials in passages which have not been altered under the impact of the Arabic "vulgate." He pays particular attention to agree- ments with the Greek koine.

In part two of his introduction (pp. 49-91), Uhlig turns to the method of the translator(s) and the results. He feels that the rendition is, on the one hand, clumsy, slavishly following its

Vorlage, and is, on the other, often too liberal, lacking pre- cision and clarity, and is even mistaken or misleading, or omits words or passages of the text. Some of the shortcomings he traces to later copyists. Uhlig notes revisions of the Ethiopian version to be dated to the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries.1 He attributes this revision to the desire to improve the Ethiopian text by drawing on the materials provided by Arabic texts based on an Alexandrian or Egyptian "vulgate" with a chiefly Bohairic background (see pp. 60-75 for details). However, on various grounds, Uhlig feels it is correct to date the revision of the Ethiopic rendition of the "Catholic Epistles" to the four- teenth century, i.e., the time of the climax of the second period in the history of Ethiopia's literature. What causes Uhlig to

post-date the revision, is inter alia this:

Der revidierte Text setzte sich nicht binnen kiirzester Frist durch; es dauerte vielmehr relativ lange, bis er un-

eingeschrankt Anerkennung erfuhr. Die H(and)s(chrift) aeth D2 aus dem 16.Jh. und das Fragment aeth F,3 ver- mutlich auch aus dem 16.Jh. stammend reprasentieren im wesentlichen noch den unrevidierten Text, wahrend die Hs aeth E,4 gleichfalls ins 16.Jh. zu datieren, schon den neuen Text bietet. Vereinzelt kommen Lesarten der neuen Revisionsstufe schon in den Handschriften des 15.Jh. (aeth B5 und C6) vor. (pp. 76-77)

In this context, Uhlig points to variations in the text which

may be of relevance to the text-critical evaluation of the writ-

ings in the New Testament,7 "weil es sich bei ihr [the Ethiopic translation thereof] um eine Primariibersetzung handelt" (p. 90). He concedes, however, "dass der athiopische Text in hohem Masse der Verbesserung bedarf," as the text-critical apparatus shows (pp. 90-91).

1 See, however, below in this paragraph. 2 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 28. 3 Bibliotheca Vaticana, Aeth. 21 offering Jas 4:7-12, lPet

1:13-25, 2:19-25, 3:18-22, 2Pet 3:8-14, Jude 17-21. 4 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 24. 5 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 25. 6 Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Eth. 26. 7 Note should be taken here that he recognizes that certain

manuscripts of more recent date have retained older materials in passages which have not been altered under the impact of the Arabic "vulgate." He pays particular attention to agree- ments with the Greek koine.

297 297

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:15:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions