Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante Ézéchiel et

Daniel dans le Papyrus 967

Pierre-Maurice Bogaert
Published in Biblica 53, no. 3 (1978): 384–95

Translated by Carson Bay

The Witness of the Old Latin in the Study of the Tradition of the Septuagint’s Ezekiel and
Daniel in Papyrus 967

In the publication of a critical text of the Septuagint, the use of ancient Latin versions ought
necessarily to remain limited. At the same time, here and there a Latin reading without the corresponding
Greek may appear original, and the editor of the Greek should depart from the Greek manuscripts and
may not habitually yield to retroversion. In return, the ancient Latin versions make it possible to clarify
certain delicate points of the history of the tradition and revisions of the Septuagint. The observations
which follow aim to contribute to such research.

I. The Order of Chapters (or visions) in the Book of Daniel

Until the publication in 1937 of the Chester Beatty Papryus (the first published part of Papyrus
967), the Septuagint text of Daniel was known only in its hexaplaric recension by Origen. Only the
revision given by Theodotion had been consistently transmitted through the Greek Churches. But in order
to give a complete idea of the character of this most ancient witness (datings fluctuate around 200 C.E.), it
was necessary to await the publication of the parts housed at Princeton, Cologne, Barcelona and Madrid. 1
For Daniel, the leaves at Cologne are decisive and are essentially the only ones in question. 2
The most visible and the most extraordinary characteristic of this witness is the inversion in the
order of the chapters of the greater visions. 3 In the papyrus at Cologne, chapters 7 and 8 are placed before
chapters 5 and 6. Angelo Geissen, 4 one of the folio’s editors, has made the observation that this
presentation succeeds in placing the death of Belshazzar, recounted in chapter 5, after the stories

* The contents of this note were the object of a paper given at the Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies, held at the Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, August 19–20, 1977.
1
See in more detail Kurt Aland and Hans-Udo Rosenbaum, eds., Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri.
I, Biblische Papyri. Altes Testament, Neues Testament, Varia, Apokryphen (Patristische Texte und Studien 18;
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976), 30–33, 207–208, 212.
2
Angelo Geissen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 5–12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel at Draco, sowie
Esther Kap. 1,1a–2, 15, nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 5; Bonn:
Habelt, 1968); Winfried Hamm, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 1–2 nach dem Kölner Teil des
Papyrus 967 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 10; Bonn: Habelt, 1969); R. Roca-Puig, “Daniele, Due
semifogli del codice 967. P. Barc.inv.nn. 42 e 43,” Aegyptus 56 (1976): 3–18.
3
Our chapters have been recently introduced (18th cent.). In the case of Daniel, they correspond precisely to the
content, not to the numbering, of the most ancient division of visions to which the vast majority of Greek
manuscripts testify, including 967. The latter contains only the numbers; it does not employ the order of the visions.
4
Der Septuaginta-Text, 31–33.
concerning him and in harmonizing the dates of the episodes of the reign of Darius “the Mede.” The order
is as follows:

ch. 1.2.3.4 : concerning Nebuchadnezzar,

ch. 7.8.5 : concerning Belshazzar, his sons, the 1st, the 3rd, the years of his reign,
ch. 6.9 : concerning Darius the Mede,
ch. 10.11.12: concerning Cyrus. 5

Even if it did not raise the difficulty of the succession Darius – Cyrus, such an arrangement is
more logical than that of the Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic text. It is not possible to decide whether the
arrangement of the chapters in 967 is the result of a revision within the Greek or if it had already existed
in a Semitic Vorlage or again, a mediating solution, if it was introduced by the first Greek redactor. A
single hypothesis tempers the significance of this observation: if the order of the chapters was peculiar to
967, it could have had no influence on the text tradition and is only an accident due to a scribe’s fastidious
yet isolated concern with chronology. And it is true that, among the Greek witnesses, 967 is unique.
However, its singularity is only apparent, because the Latin tradition provides unforeseen
illumination. The light does not come from several ancient Latin witnesses preserving the Book of Daniel
(the Wirceburgensis [VL 177], 6 the Constantiensis [VL 175], the Sangallensis [VL 176]) which are
connected to the Greek recension given by Theodotion; they come from Liber Promissionum, formerly
attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine and now to Quodvultdeus, bishop of Carthage, who was chased from
his seat by Geiseric, king of the Vandals, and who arrived at Naples in 439. 7 In the Liber Promissionum,
Quodvultdeus surveys a number of biblical books, in particular that of Daniel. He uses few citations; most
often he summarizes, but he is explicit about the order, and this is adequate.
This order is presented as a sequence of twelve visions.
I : Suzanne and the old men
II : Daniel 1: Danihel suique amici statuerunt … ex cibis mensae regis … non contaminari
III : Daniel 2: quattuor regna in quattuor metallis e quibis statua …
IV : Daniel 3: amici Danihelis … camino detrusi
V : Daniel 4: arborem magnificam
VI : Daniel 7: quattuor sibi apparentibus bestiis
VII : Daniel 8: ex ariete et hirco Persarum et Graecorum … proelia
VIII : Daniel 5: Baltasar rex cenam faciens
IX : Daniel 6: Darius Medus. (Danihel) missus leonibus
X : Daniel 9: propinquante fine temporis LXX annorum
XI : Daniel (10).11.12: sub persona bellantium regnum facta Antichristi …, resurrection
etiam mortuorum
XII : Bel and the Dragon

There is no room for doubt. Quodvultdeus is depending upon a Latin manuscript which follows
the order of 967, although he also uses Jerome’s version complementarily (hebraeus interpres). 8 This fact

5
In Daniel 11:1, the Hebrew and the Vulgate mention Darius the Mede and not Cyrus.
6
We use here the sigla of Beuron’s Vetus Latina, employing the acronym VL in order to distinguish them from
those of the Septuaginta-Unter-Nehmen of Göttingen.
7
R. Braun, ed., Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi episcopo tribute (CChL 60; Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), 139–46
(Liber Promissionum II, XXXIV–XXXV, § 73–81).
8
It is true that it is Jerome’s Vulgate which he cites at § 78 in referring to the hebraeus interpres. But elsewhere
Quodvultdeus knows that the Hebrew (-Aramaic) text contains only ten of the visions that he surveys (§ 73).
is all the more extraordinary in that, furthermore, when Quodvultdeus cites Daniel with precision, it
follows a Latin text made from a revision of “Theodotion.” 9 And the relationship with “Theodotion” is
demonstrated not only through word-for-word citations, but also through the division of the visions and
through the same positioning of the Greek narratives of Suzanna and Bel. The order Suzanna – Daniel –
Bel, which is that followed by Quodvultdeus, is that of “Theodotion,” while the order of the old Greek
ought to have been, as A. Geiseen has demonstrated, 10 Daniel – Bel – Suzanna, and that of the hexaplaric
recension, Daniel – Suzanna – Bel.
It is consequently easy to see that the division of the twelve visions in Quodvultdeus does not
correspond to that of 967, which knows only one vision, the first, for chapters 1 and 2, 11 but that he also
has those best attested in the manuscripts, of which “Theodotion” produces only one vision, the eleventh,
from chapters 10, 11, and 12. 12
Thus the summary that Quodvultdeus proffers of the contents of the Book of Daniel leads one to
conclude that he had before him a Latin manuscript in which the order of the chapters was that of papyrus
967. But the text itself and certain elements of its character were borrowed from a copy translated from a
proof copy of Theodotion. Quodvultdeus also had at his command Jerome’s translation.
The witness of Quodvultdeus is no less important for the history of the Septuagint than for the
Latin versions. It does away with the isolation of Papyrus 967 which, ever since, is not a meteor, but
represents a text type which has played a role in the history of the Greek and Latin editions of the Book of
Daniel.

II. The Place of Chapters 38 and 39 of Ezekiel according to Wircenburgensis

When Ernst Ranke edited in 1871 the Old Latin leaves of the Prophets 13 contained in the
palimpsest manuscript at Würzburg (Universitätbibliothek M.p.th.f.64a [VL 177]), uncial leaves of the 5th
century, he ought to have established that one of them contained without any interval 14 the end of chapter
37 and the beginning of chapter 40 of Ezekiel. He was not able to infer the omission of chapters 38 and
39, because one preserved page showed a part of chapter 38. In the adnotationes diplomaticae, 15 Ranke
simply writes: Hic scriba capita XXXVII. et XXXVIII., quae ex ipsa nostra editione tibi apparebit postea
ab illo esse compensate, omisit. Accordingly he reckons that the scribe has omitted here not chapters 37
and 38, as he erroneously writes, but 38 and 39, and that he continued to copy them thereafter. At what
spot? Ranke has intercalated the page containing Ezekiel 38:3–20 between a page containing part of
chapter 42 and another containing part of chapter 45. Why right here? Nothing in Ranke’s work permits a
conclusion to be made on this subject.

9
The verbatim citations are not numbered, but they never allow for doubt as to the point.
10
Der Septuaginta-Text, 33.
11
Papyrus 967, to the extent to which it has been published (chapters 3 and 4 still remain), suggests the following
data: delta (4) before 7:1; epsilon before 8:1; sigma before 5:prologue; zeta before 5:31–6:1; theta before 9:1; eta
before 10:1; iota before 11:1. Since there is no division between chapters 1 and 2, it is necessary to assume that the
second vision (beta) precedes 3:1. Miniscule 106 (see the apparatus of J. Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta, XVI.2
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), in spite of an inconsistency (an alpha before 2:1), also joins chapters
1 and 2 in a single vision.
12
See the apparatus of J. Ziegler, Septuaginta, XVI.2, ad locum.
13
Ernest Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae veteris testament versionis latinae fragmenta
e codd. Rescriptis (Vienna: Braumüller, 1871), in-4°, XVI–432 p., 2 pl. See also the succinct but excellent
description of E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores. Part IX (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959), 51, n°
1420. Lowe implicitly corrects a number of Ranke’s remarks, in addition to other authors.
14
This is not because of the majuscule nature of the letters, but the copyist who left blank the end of the last line
appearing in chapter 37.
15
Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, 155, col. 1.
 The discovery at Aphroditopolis, followed by the publication in 1938 of the Princeton fragments
of Papyrus 967 16 proceeded to allow for progress toward a solution. Allan Chester Johnson and Edmund
Harris Kase reconciled Wirceburgensis with the newly discovered papyrus. 17 At this stage, the
reconstitution of the Greek codex – of which all the sheets were not yet known, far from it – remained
partially uncertain, but the succession of chapters proposed by the editors – 35, 36:1–23a, 38, 39, 37, 40 –
was to be confirmed by subsequent publications.
The introduction to the Princeton edition contained two original studies of the Würzburg
manuscript which had largely passed unnoticed. Kase shows there that, among the Latin witnesses,
Tyconius is the nearest to Wircuburgensis and that, of all the Latin witnesses, Wirceburgensis is the
nearest to the Greek papyrus from Princeton.18 Since then, he has identified three stages within the history
of the Old Latin of Ezekiel:
1. The Hexaplaric Recension Stage, represented by Jerome and Augustine;
2. The Intermediate Stage, represented by the manuscripts of Constance and Saint-Gall,
closest to Vaticanus (B);
3. The Ancient Stage, represented by the Würzburg manuscript and by Tyconius, and
apparently by 967.
This schema may be a bit exact, but it is not my intention here to examine so vast a question.
In the other part of the same introduction, Johnson proposes a reconstruction of the Würzburg
papyrus based partially on the Princeton papyrus (967). 19 He comes to the conclusion, recognized by
Kase, that the order of chapters there is the following: 35, 38, 39, 36, 37, 40. He also says that whereas in
967 chapters 38 and 39 follow chapter 36, in Wircuburgensis they follow chapter 35. The reconstitution is
based upon calculations of letters taken from part of the Vulgate; it is not accompanied by any
codicological study. This results in the disassociation of the witness of the Greek manuscript from that of
the Latin on an important point and in the maintenance of uncertainty.
With regard to the absence at the end of chapter 36, namely verses 23b and 38, it is certain in 967,
and Johnson reckons it probable in the Würzburg manuscript.
The only codicological study of the Würzburg palimpsest-manuscript, based accordingly on
calculations made from the Septuagint and not from the Vulgate, may confirm or disconfirm the proposed
reconstructions. Two points need to be examined: the order of the chapters and the omission of the end of
chapter 36.
In order to see more clearly here, we propose to list in a synoptic table the list of preserved sheets
of Ezekiel in the order we consider original. An asterisk marks the pagination which Ranke indicated in
the sheet’s margin. 20

16
A. Ch. Johnson, H. S. Gehman, and E. H. Kase, eds., The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri: Ezekiel (Princeton
University Studies in Papyrology 3; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938), in-4°, XII–181 p.
17
See the references indicated above in notes 1 and 2.
18
Johnson, Gehman, and Kase, The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri: Ezekiel, 42–48.
19
Johnson, Gehman, and Kase, The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri: Ezekiel, 11–13 (and n. 6).
20
In the adnotationes diplomaticae of his edition (145–60), Ranke signals via an asterisk on the right the page
number on the hair side, the place on the page where the ink is the faintest (see the explanation at the head of
column 1 on 145). The complete absence of an asterisk in most instances shows that the editor was not able to come
to a decision. Certainly, the conclusion is fragile, because the manuscript is a palimpsest and has suffered from the
chemical reactors employed in its reading. I commend to you Ranke’s indications, who is seen to make a judgment
in the most favorable of conditions, but who has been prudent enough to make no pronouncement in certain cases.
Dr. H. Thurn, of the university library at Würzburg, has provided me with useful information during this work and
has spared no trouble in doing so. He ought to be thanked here.
 Restored Ranke’s Ranke’s Contents Majuscules Ziegler’s Missing
Order Order Pages Lines Sheets
A 1 101*–102 24:4–21 10 34
70 = 35 x 2
B 2 103–104* 26:10–27:4 6 34
436 = 36 x 12
C 3 105*–106 34:16–35:5 6 37
110 = 36.6 x 3
Or or 21
76 = 39 x 2
D 10 119–120* 38:8–20 5 34
109 = 36 x 3
E 4 107–108* 37:19–28; 40:1–6 1 39
F 5 109*–110 40:6–25 0 41
G 6 111–112* 40:25–45 0 40
H 7 113*–114 40:45–41:12 0 39
I 8 115–116* 41:12–42:5 0 40
J 9 117*–118 42:5–18 1 37
153 = 38.2 x 4
K 11 121–122* 45:1–17 2 40
L 12 123*–124 45:17–46:9 5 40
162 = 40.5 x 4
M 13 125–126* 48:28–35; Dan. 1 30 + Title
Suz. 1–10

The reconstruction of the manuscript comes from two types of observations. A first type of
observation concerns the correspondence between the flesh side and the hair side of the pages that
possibly belong to the same two-page original. Recalling that, in the preparation of the codex rescriptus,
the bi-folios of the manuscript of the prophets were coupled by two along the fold, each page existing
from a new fold to form two bi-folios through the codex rescriptus. A second observation is connected to
the first. It is highly probable that in this case these are two halves of the same original bi-folio which
have been reemployed.
Six folios appear in succession: E, F, G, H, I, J. Ranke’s marks on the hair side and the flesh side
allow the existence of these bi-folios to be considered certain: E-J, F-I, G-H. Since the quadruplet 22
constitutes a very common ancient formula, we propose the following reconstruction:

21
We will see later that the odd number is not kept.
22
This is also the opinion of E. A. Lowe concerning our codex (see note 13 above), contra E. Ranke, who speaks of
sextuplets.
 There are four lost pages between J and K. This allows the following proposal as to the
composition of the quadruplet:

It is likewise possible to reconstruct the quadruplet containing the end of Ezekiel and the
beginning of Daniel, since there must be four pages between L and M:

But it is the reconstructed quadruplet containing the pages C and D which is decisive. Between D
and E, there is space for three missing pages. On the other hand, C and D may belong to the same couplet
since the flesh and hair sides match. This belonging to the same couplet is rendered more probable by the
fact that, in all the case studies (Ezekiel and Daniel), two halves of the same couplet are preserved. 23
Since it is not normally possible to see when there is a numbered pair of pages between the parts of a
single couplet and it is possible to see either two or three pages between C and D, only the number two,
the number of a pair, remains to be considered. The reconstituted book is therefore presented thus:

It is now possible to respond to two questions posed at the outset.

A. The omission of 36:23b–38 previously appeared indemonstrable to A. Ch. Johnson, because
the evaluation of the place occupied by these verses (32 lines in Ziegler’s edition) correspond
to about one page of the palimpsest. The text missing between C and D 110 or 78 lines of

23
Concerning the arrangement of the manuscript of the prophets, only two pages have certainly been lost,
corresponding to 57–58 (Jonah 3:10–4:11) and 63–64 (Isaiah 45:20–46:11) in Ranke’s edition. If my reconstruction
is correct, it is necessary to add the pages 65–66 (Jeremiah 12:12–13:12) and 69–70 (Jeremiah 15:5–15:19), i and k
in the appendix.
 Greek, which is to say three pages of 36 Greek lines or two pages of 39 Greek lines. Two
solutions are possible. But the reconstruction of the manuscript has shown that, between C
and D, the greatest likelihood tends in favor of a numbered pair of pages, thus two here. We
conclude, with the same degree of certainty, that 36:23b–38 was missing in Wirceburgensis
as in 967.
B. The place of page D containing a part of chapter 38 is once more of the greatest importance.
Evidently these suppositions are permissible. In theory, this page may be inserted anywhere
within the book of Ezekiel, since it is not in its place. Ranke’s proposition is particularly
unexpected, given the nature of the context which he proposes: the Torah of Ezekiel (chapters
40–48) lends itself poorly to an interpolation such as this. Ranke offers no argument. If, on
the other hand, we propose simply the order of 967, the greatest probability falls on our side.
1. The equivalences in the Greek lines of pages A, B, C and the lost intercalary pages
provide base values of 34 to 37. The following pages, include the lost pages, provide
a higher value, around 40, the number 37, from J, establishing a minimum. Therefore
D is correctly placed after A, B, C.
2. Page D has five majuscules, which attaches it indisputably to pages B and C, in
contrast to E, F, G, H, I, J, which have little or none.
3. It is necessary to locate the second half of the bifolio of which C is part. D fits
perfectly.
4. The extrinsic argument remains chief. Wirceburgensis and 967 make chapter 37
follow chapter 40. This is a remarkable resemblance. Is it not remarkable that
Wirceburgensis should give the same place as 967 to chapters 38 and 39?
At this stage it is hardly necessary to rehash Johnson’s calculations. They are not wrong but,
inspired by the Vulgate, they are less precise than that which we propose here, because the Septuagint
contains many small omissions.
The absence of the end of chapter 36 and the particular placement of chapters 38 and 39 are
therefore not the result of one singular Greek manuscript. These two phenomena are evidence of the
history of the tradition of the Greek text and the Latin version of the book of Ezekiel. Moreover, the critic
has always studied chapters 38 and 39 (Gog and Magog) as an ensemble. And Henry St. John
Thackeray 24 has demonstrated that the translator of 36:24–38 is distinct from those of the rest of the book,
well before the publication of Papyrus 967.
The resemblance of the Würzburg manuscript and 967 thus being confirmed by Ezekiel, two
remarks arise therefrom.
1. Wirceburgensis, which shares the particularities of 967 in Ezekiel, has none of those
in Daniel. 25
2. The authors are in agreement that the Latin text of Ezekiel in Wirceburgensis, setting
aside the order of the chapters, is closely connected to that of the manuscripts of
Saint-Gall (VL 176) and of Constance (VL 177). It is therefore not an issue of
supposing that there were two Latin traditions. The one appears to be a revision of
the other. The only hypothesis which is likely to work is to consider that
Wirceburgensis is the witness nearest the original tradition of Latin Ezekiel,

24
Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University
Press, 1921), 37–39 and 118–29; see previously Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,”
Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1902–1903): 398–411, circa 407–408.
25
The other witnessing Latin manuscripts (VL 175, 176, 182) of Ezekiel and the long citations in the Fathers do not
support Wirceburgensis in its particularities: VL 175 and 176 have the normal order of chapters; 182 and Tyconius
attest the presence of Ezekiel 36:23b–38.
 Constantiensis and Sangallensis are witnesses to a revision containing at least the
order of the chapters.

Thus – these two examples have shown –, not only is the vetus latina a precise point in the
reconstruction of the history of the Septuagint, but also the Septuagint furnishes an indispensable aid for
appreciating the testimony of the vetus latina and for elaborating upon its history. By successive
approximations, the history of the one, being perfected, permits a precise history of the other. This is to
say also that the interdependence of researchers working within these two domains remains distinct.

Appendix

Before the signing of the last book, the Prophets of Wirceburgensis contained thirty-eight
books. 26 For the number corresponding to the content, Ranke conjectured sexternions. But Lowe is
certainly correct to hold to the current formula, and reconstitution by quaternion is the only possibility
and is required because of its consistency. Then the thirty-eight chapters are not sufficient. Forty-seven or
forty-eight are necessary. One may ask if he may not read forty-eight in lieu of thirty-eight.
In the reconstruction below, the miniscules designate the pages of the Twelve Prophets, of Isaiah,
Jeremiah and Lamentations; the majuscules designate the pages of Ezekiel (same as above); the Greek
letters designate the pages of Daniel. The supposed order is evidently that of the Greek Bible.

a: Hosea 1:1–2:5; b: 2:5–15; c: 4:13–5:10; d: 5:10–7:1; e: Jonah 3:10–4:11; f: Isaiah 29:15–

30:6; g: 29:15–30:6; h: 45:20–46:11; i: Jeremiah 12:12–13:12; j: 14:15–15:5; k: 15:5–19 …; l: 16:14–
17:11 …; m: 18:16–19:6; n: 19:6–20:4; o: 20:6–18; p: 21:1–22:2; q: 22:2–16; r: 22:16–23:3; s: 23:3–
21; t: 23:21–39; u: 42:15–43:11; v: 43:28–44:11; w: 45:23–47:5; x: 48:1–17; y: Lamentations 2:16–
3:9; z: 3:10–40.

Page M contains the end of Ezekiel and the beginning of Daniel (Susanna)

α: Daniel 1:15–2:9; β: 3:15–32; γ: 3:32–50; δ: 8:5–20; ε: 8:20–9:10; ζ: 10:3–16; η: 10:16–

11:6; θ: 11:20–33 …; ι: Bel 36–42.
The reconstruction is delicate and must be taken step by step because of a progressive tightening
of the handwriting. Averages begin around 30 Greek lines and finish around 40. 27

26
Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, VIII, XVI, line 4 (emendanda et addenda), 160.
27
An indirect but perceptible confirmation of the reconstruction is furnished by the actual disposition of the pages in
the rewritten manuscript. Two halves of the same acknowledged original bifolio are usually the product of one
author. Here are twenty-one pairs (with indication of the page in the rewritten manuscript): δη (17,19), βγ (33,35),
KL (37,39), EJ (97,99), cb (101,103), BA (113–15), pq (117,119), sn (169,171), DC (181,183), ζε (203,205), αΜ
(207,209), yz (219,221), fg (223,225), ιθ (235,237), HG (239,241), da (249,251), wv (253,255), IF (265,267), tm
(295,297), xu (299,301), jl (313,315). Following the proposed reconstruction, it is normal that e, h, i and k remain
without correspondents. Only o and r are separated while belonging to the same bifolio. It is surprising that this
should be the only case.
 (1)

(2) a
(13–14)
Twelve or thirteen chapters are missing, of which only one page remains, e.

(14–15)

(15–16) a
(21–22)
Seven chapters are missing, of which only one page remains, h.

(22–23)

(23–24)

(24–25)

(25–26) a
(28–29)
Four chapters are missing.
 (29–30)

Two chapters are missing. (30–31) a

(31–32)

(32–33)

(33–34) a
Five chapters are missing. (37–38)

(38–39)

One chapter is missing. (39–40)

(40–41)

(41–42)

(42–43)
 (43–44)

(44–45)
One chapter is missing.
(45–46)

(46–47)

Univ. cath. De Louvain Pierre-Maurice Bogaert

Faculté de Théologie
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve

TRANSLATION:

Florida State University Carson M. Bay

Department of Religion
112 Dodd Hall Tallahassee, FL