[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Testament of 'Amram
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, James R. Davila wrote:
> >In "4Q Visions de 'Amran et une citation d'Origene" (RB 79 :
> >77-97), in reconstructing the passage from the Testament of 'Amram
> >describing the appearance of Malki-re$a(, Milik prints the word h(bn.
> >Since he translates "d'une vipere," it appears to me that he has (kn in
> >mind. Can anyone tell me if the printed text is in error at that point?
> >David Suter
> >Saint Martin's College
> Looks to be. The photograph in the article shows that bet and kap are
> clearly distinguished and the letter in the word in question is kap.
> Thanks for bringing the reading up; it bears directly on an article I'm
> finishing right now and I hadn't noticed it. By the way, does anyone know
> why the word (kn here is translated "smiling" in the English edition of
> Garcia Martinez? I can't figure out how to get "smiling" from either (kn
> or (bn. Could it be that the translator misread the word "serpient"e as a
> participial form of the verb "sonreir"?? Does anyone have the Spanish
> version handy to check for me?
> Jim Davila
No light on the smile here, but I note that Paul J. Kobelski, in
_Melchizedek and Melchiresa(_ (pp. 31-32) has a discussion of textual
problems at this point and adds an alternative reading from another
manuscript: <.h>(kyn. He sees this as an error for <.h>kyn, another
word for viper or snake, and perhaps an effort to explain h(kn. It
appears that we are getting a whole beastiary for snakes (note the
reconstucted ptn in the previous line), without at the same time
reproducing the word in Genesis 3 (n<.h>$).
Saint Martin's College