[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 [1972]:
> >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>$).

David Suter
Saint Martin's College