[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: pNahum: Kittim in the first column

> Greg,
>      I don't have the MS before me, but Lohse p.262 has Kittim as clearly in
> the text of the first column (I:3). There are no brackets indicating an
> unclear text or a broken text. Vermes, whose scholarship I respect on this
> matter, also must have read Kittim clearly there since he translated that in
> his book without brackets (p. 337). Are you arguing that their reading of the
> Hebrew is incorrect and if you are, why? Is it because "Kittim" logically
> shouldn't belong there in your mind or is it because it is not there?
> -David Jay Kaufman
> HUC-JIR Jerusalem
> Rabbinical Student

We may not be talking about the same column.  I am 
talking about the earliest known column of the text, 
numbered 1-2 ii in Allegro's DJD in 1968.  
However, translations or editions of pNah published
before 1968 were based on previous publications 
of pNah without knowledge of the earlier
column.  I suspect the copyrights on your
Lohse and Vermes you are citing are before 1968.
Before 1968, col 3-4 i (by today's sigla) was
identified as the first column.  That is the
column with the "rulers of the Kittim" reading 
in line 3 which is the one reading of Kittim in 
the text (and not in any dispute as a reading).  
I was referring to the earlier column where 
Kittim do not exist.  Editions published since
1968 will make this clear.    
Greg Doudna