[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pNahum: Kittim in the first column
Greg Doudna wrote:
A final point on Kittim is that this reference at 3-4 i 2
is the only Kittim reference in pNah. As in Daniel,
there is this single passing reference to Kittim,
once, in pNah, as an aside. The alleged "Kittim"s
in the first column (1-2 ii) that are found in
English translations simply do not exist as
readings, nor is there sound reason to restore
Kittim at any point in that column. There is no a quo
63 BCE date in 4QpNahum.
**********
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