Forwarded for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a review of my book, _4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical
Edition_, by Timothy Lim in the _Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament_ 27 (2003): 164-65, Lim
states of my transcription, "Moreover, in many ways it
is often inferior to the one, say, edited by M.P. Horgan.
There are transcriptional errors, for instance, in
col. 3-4 ii 5 (p. 760); col. 1-2 ii 5a, 8 (p. 756)."
Since Lim did not identify where in those lines he saw
errors in my work, and I was unable to guess what
he meant, I wrote him to ask what he meant. Lim responded
by claiming three errors he saw in my transcription, in
support of the above statement in his review.
In the first instance, at 1-2 ii 5a, Lim responded that
I had omitted transcribing a space between lamed and
taw in my transcription of the word MMShLTM ending that
interlinear line. Lim would transcribe a space there,
mid-word. In fact the scribe wrote that interlinear word
around a lamed ascender protruding from below. I noted
this detail in my line notes, p. 95. There is no intentional
mid-word space left by a scribe at that point, or indeed
anywhere else in the extant text of 4QpNah.
In the second instance, at 1-2 ii 8, Lim stated that I
had omitted transcribing a space between bet and chet
when I transcribed the word BXYR[. But there is no
mid-word space there either in the scribe's writing; the
letters are illusorily separated in the photographs only
because a crack in the parchment has separated them. I also
called attention to this in my line notes, at p. 98.
In the third instance, at 3-4 ii 5, Lim noted that I had
incorrectly run the words MPXD and 'WYB together as
MPXD'WYB without a word-separation space between the
two words. Here Lim is correct. However this was a
typographical error, not an error in my reading or intent
to transcribe those words. I transcribed those words
correctly (separated) in my opening transcription (p. 166)
and second-stage transcription (p. 476), indeed in all
transcription and discussion in the body of my work until
that final typographical mistake in the closing
transcription. I deeply regret the typo with the two
run-on words in my final transcription--despite my
best efforts at proofreading, that one slipped by--but in
the end that is all that is there underneath Lim's
statement that there are errors in my edition.
On a separate matter, Lim states that I emend vital texts
"because they are inconvenient for the historical
reconstruction". This is not correct. In the examples
cited I did argue for emending the texts, but my reasons
had nothing to do with having been motivated by an
historical reconstruction. In the first instance, at
4QpNah 3-4 iii 9, Lim writes, "For instance,
the independent plural pronoun, _hem_, is changed to the
singular _hu'_ (pp. 762, 515, 519-20, 650, and _passim_)
in order to suit his interpretation of Manasseh as a
singular individual."
In fact I argued for that emendation in order to agree with
the _text's_ interpretation of Manasseh as masculine
singular. "Manasseh" in 4QpNah receives masculine singular
pronouns visibly at 3-4 iii 11 (2x; -H); 3-4 iv 3 ("his
reign"); iv 4 ("his women"); iv 4 ("his children"); iv 4
("his warriors"); iv 4 ("his honored ones"), and reconstructed
at five other places (see my list at p. 520), that is, in
_every_ other occurrence except at 3-4 iii 9, where as it
stands the text reads HM MNShH. That HW' rather than HM is
expected at that point is perhaps illustrated by noting the
translations of Dupont-Sommer 1963, Allegro 1968 in DJD 5,
Garcia Martinez in 1994 and 1996, Wise-Abegg-Cook 1996,
and Vermes in all of his editions, all of whom render HM
at 3-4 iii 9 as the _singular_ copula "is" (!). The pesharim
do not otherwise show capriciousness in language of this nature,
but they do have a known high incidence of scribal copying
mistakes. I argued on these grounds that it appeared HM at
3-4 iii 9 was one more such scribal copying mistake. Lim
misstated my reason, making it sound as if I was capriciously
emending the text because of an historical theory, which was
absolutely not the case.
Lim's second and third instances were at 1QpHab 9.2 and 9.10
where, as he notes, "Or again, the perfect of 'they did'
and 'God gave him' in 1QpHab 9.2 and 10 respectively are
contextually altered (pp. 619-620) to the imperfect to fit
the alleged future punishment of the Wicked Priest." This
last sentence is correct as stated, but it has nothing to do
with influence from an historical theory; it is an argument
purely internal to the text itself. I stated this explicitly:
"The argument for the two emendations is from an overpowering
expectation that the past sins/ future punishment motif (the
pattern in every other known pesharim text and everywhere
else in 1QpHab) is what 1QpHab should have at these two
points, and that the anomalies are more likely to be
explicable as minor corruptions in scribal transmission
than intentional authorial departures from the expected
pattern. This analysis is supported by the known incidence
of scribal errors in 1QpHab and the other pesharim as a general
observation, and by reconstruction of simple error mechanisms
in the specific cases at issue ... The argument for emendation
relies ... on the formal pattern of perfect verbs for sins
and crimes, and imperfect verbs for imprecations and coming
punishments ..." (pp. 619-20).
Greg Doudna
Bellingham, Washington
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
