Klotz, BiOr 68(5-6) (2011), Reseña de Una Nueva Edición Del Libro de Nut

8/10/2019 Klotz, BiOr 68(5-6) (2011), Resea de Una Nueva Edicin Del Libro de Nut

1/9

475 A NEW EDITION OF THE BOOK OF NUT 476

*) Review article of: LIEVEN, A. von The Carlsberg Papyri 8.Grundriss des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch. Vol. I: Text;Vol. II: Tafeln. (CNI Publications 31). Museum Tusculanum Press, Copen-hagen, 2007. (Vol. I: 30,5 cm, 463; Vol. II: 40 cm, 25 Tafeln). ISBN978-87-635-0406-5. ISSN 0907-8118; 0902-5499. /121,-.

HOOFDARTIKELEN

A NEW EDITION OF THE BOOK OF NUT

DAVIDKLOTZ, Yale University

Abstract

Review of the most recent edition of the cosmographic composi-tion the Book of Nut,*) a detailed outline of the movements ofthe sun, decan stars, and other celestial bodies, recounted within amythological framework. First attested in the Osireion of Sety I at

Abydos, this important text is attested in Pharaonic tombs as well

as on Hieratic and Demotic papyri of the Roman Period, severalof which are published for the first time. While the new parallelsgreatly advance our understanding of the Book of Nut, the difficulthieroglyphic texts, partially composed in enigmatic writing, stillinvite further study.


2/9

477 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXVIII N 5-6, september-december 2011 478

5) D. Kurth,Einfhrung ins Ptolemische. Eine Grammatik mit Zeichen-liste und bungsstcken, I (Htzel, 2007), p. 400, n. 89, cites one example.

6) Wb. V, 621, 16; 624, 9;G. Mller,Hieratische Plographie III, p.58; W. Erichsen,DG, p. 691

7) The pupils have this value in the New Kingdom cryptography; J.C.Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity,OBO198 (Fribourg; Gttingen, 2004), p. 590; D.A. Werning, Aenigma-tische Schreibungen in Unterweltsbchern des Neuen Reiches: gesicherteEntsprechungen und Ersetzungsprinzipien, in C. Peust (ed.), Miscellaneain honorem Wolfhart Westendorf, GM Beihefte 3 (Gttingen, 2008), p. 138.

8) The A. cites a previous article by J.F. Quack, but that reference doesnot explain the sign-value either. One could suggest confusion or inten-tional substitution with the egg sign, based on bnn(.t), both egg andseed (P. Wilson,A Ptolemaic Lexikon, p. 318; Cl. Traunecker, Coptos,p. 152, n. e).

1) E.g. K. Ryholt, A Parallel to the Inaros Story of P. Krall (P. Carls-berg 456 + P. CtYBR 4513): Demotic Narratives from the Tebtunis Tem-ple Library (I), JEA 84 (1998), pp. 151-169; J.F. Quack, Ein neuerZeuge fr den Text zum neunkpfigen Bes: (P.Carlsberg 475), in K.Ryholt (ed.),Hieratic Texts from the Collection. The Carlsberg Papyri 7,CNIP 30 (2006), pp. 53-64.

2) The A. decided not to translate or discuss the famous portion of theBook of Nut (only preserved in the Osireion exemplar) detailing the con-struction and use of a shadow-clock, apparently because it was not recopiedin the later papyri (see briefly pp. 12-13).

3) This editorial decision also ignores previous attempts by Demotiststo employ a standardized transliteration system; cf. the various essays in

Enchoria 10 (1980).4) E.g. the relative form .t, that which is seized, is spelled pho-

netically as tt(p. 439, x+54 [S]), yet the A. transliterated cc(p. 33).

(2) The synoptic edition has a confusing layout. All hiero-glyphic and Hieratic examples are reproduced in typesethieroglyphs, without transliteration. Since PC1 employs bothhieratic and demotic, the A. presents a transliteration of thedemotic and a transcription of the hieratic into hieroglyphs.

This approach has its advantages, as it allows one to distin-guish between the original text and the demotic annotations.However, the resulting reading experience is awkward: toread a section of PC 1 one must first consult the demotic textin vol. 2, find the corresponding transliteration in the synop-tic edition, move backwards to the translation (where thetransliteration is not repeated), and then skip forward to theseparate commentary section.

Moreover, the lack of transliteration for the non-Demoticsections leaves readers wondering how precisely the A. inter-prets difficult passages. This omission is vexing for unusualorthographies peculiar to late hieratic texts, none of whichare discussed in the section on transcribing late hieratic (pp.35-36). Since no transliteration is provided, brief explanatorynotes could have been useful for non-specialists.

13:The A. translates this group as Rebellen without furthercomment; apparently this is to be transliterated sb.w

(< ), a rarely attested value for the first sign.5)

14, 25, etc.:This abbreviation for d, to say is not uncommon in LateHieratic and Demotic,6) but it is still rare enough to merit afootnote.

20, 25, 55: = nw or m, to look. Based on theglossary, the A. would transliterate this group as m(p. 359), which is definitely possible.7) However, this verbrarely employs the preposition r (Wb. II, 9, 7-8: selten),whereas nw() r is the normal construction (Wb. II, 218,6-9), and continues this way into Demotic and Coptic.Furthermore, m hardly occurs in Demotic outside ofarchaizing texts.

44 bis, 144:The A. reads these examples as a book entitled dieAuflsung (bnr/bl), but the transliteration and explanationonly appears in a later chapter (p. 285). Since the pustulehieroglyph does not elsewhere have the value bnnor bnr/bl,some discussion is necessary.8) Furthermore, other examples

of this book (according to the A.) are spelled (39,47, 48, 143; also not explained on p. 49, n. 179), is an

The so-called Book of Nut is an important cosmographiccomposition first attested in the Osireion of Sety I at Abydos,with fragmentary versions in the tombs of Ramesses IV andMutirdis in Western Thebes. Over a large representation of thesky goddess, Nut, are extensive hieroglyphic texts describing

the nocturnal voyage of Re and the thirty-six decan stars throughthe body of this celestial divinity. The Roman Period PapyrusCarlsberg 1 (PC1), first published in 1940 by Helmut Lange andOtto Neugebauer, comes from Tebtunis and preserves copies ofthese earlier inscriptions in hieratic, interspersed with lengthiercommentary in both hieratic and demotic.

The Author has identified additional hieratic papyri withcopies of this fascinating text in the vast holdings of theCarlsberg Institute (PC228, 496-497), along with additionalfragments in Oxford, London, Berlin, and Florence. Previ-ously, similar parallels have been published in short miscel-lany articles.1) In this instance, the A. took the opportunityto create an updated synoptic edition of all relevant texts,2)with translation, commentary, and detailed discussions oftextual transmission and other related topics.

As one expects from the series, this is an impressivelyproduced book, featuring a meticulous description of thepapyri, extensive bibliography, and an excellent volume ofplates; the 1:1 photographs of all the papyri vastly improvesupon the small plates included in the editio princeps of PC1,and one finds reproductions of the hieroglyphic copies fromthe Osireion and two tombs. Without a doubt, this volumewill remain the standard edition of these difficult texts, andthe A. is to be commended for collecting the various frag-ments and producing this valuable work.

Given the extraordinary relevance of the Carlsberg Papyrifor both Egyptological and interdisciplinary studies, previousauthors have taken pains to create lucid translations and well-organized commentary to render the material accessible to awider intellectual community. The A. of the present volumehas unfortunately made several editorial decisions which

have rendered the text even more obscure and uninviting tonon-Egyptologists than necessary:

(1) In contrast to previous volumes of the series, the A.insisted on using the Tbingen transliteration system (e.g. for d, cfor, etc.), even for the demotic texts. While not reallya problem for Egyptologists, this idiosyncrasy will undoubt-edly frustrate interdisciplinary scholars, since there are still nodemotic grammars or dictionaries which employ this sys-tem.3) Since the Tbingen system only approximates the pro-nunciation of Egyptian until the early Middle Kingdom, itsappropriateness for transcribing the present text notattested until the Nineteenth Dynasty and preserved primarilyon papyri of the Roman Period is unclear.4)


3/9


13) J.F. Quack, Kollationen und Korrekturvorschlge zum PapyrusCarlsberg 1, in A Miscel lany of Demotic Texts and Studies, CNIP 22(Copenhgaen, 2000), pp. 165-171.

14) E.g. notes 165; 166; 206; 208; 228; 234; 236; 240; 246; 251; 259;276; 302; 310; 311; 312; 317; 323; 328; 348; 387; 396-397; 418; 430;442; 445; 450; 455; 457; 459; 466; 472-473; 475; 478; 481; 490-491;496; 498; 511; 512; 516; 524.

15) A similar case exists with Thirtieth Dynasty copies of the Book ofGates, which shed precious light on a difficult cryptographic section: C.Manassa, The Judgement Hall of Osiris in the Book of Gates, RdE 57(2006), pp. 109-150.

16) J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books.17) For example: p. 28, n. 91; p. 30, n. 105.18) Contrast with J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, pp.

588-617; C. Manassa, RdE 57 (2006), pp. 112-113; J.A. Roberson, AnEnigmatic Wall from the Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos,JARCE 43 (2007),p. 112; M. Mller-Roth, Das Buch vom Tage, OBO 198 (Fribourg; Gt-tingen, 2008), pp. 455-459; D.A. Werning, in C. Peust (ed.), Miscellaneain honorem Wolfhart Westendorf, pp. 124-152. For the book of Nut, seealteady V. Vikentiev, ASAE 43 (1943), pp. 115-131, an article which theA. dismisses without further discussion (p. 9, n. 5).

9) At least according to Wb. I, 461; W. Erichsen,DG, p. 118; CDD (b),p. 54.

10) E.g. notes 164; 230; 417; 466; 565.11) E.g. notes 128; 139-140; 147; 297; 299; 417; 747; 758; 768; 771;

774; 834-835; 837; 847; 851; 852-853; 858; 958.12) See p. 144: Es handelt sich hierbei um die umfnglichste wissen-

schaftliche Behandlung der Dekanzyklus aus gypten.

commentary, and since J.F. Quack already published a shortarticle full of improved readings for the Demotic text,13) theA. has little to add to earlier sections; the commentary in theMondkapitel and so-called Planetenkapitel, however,are more substantive. Unfortunately, the A. rarely summa-

rizes the discussions and readings of previous commentators,but only provides brief references.14)In short, it is often quite difficult to read this book, under-

stand obscure passages, or follow the general commentarywithout constant recourse to the previous edition (EAT III)and to the collected works of J.F. Quack and the A. As aresult, this very important text will have a harder time reach-ing scholars of Egyptian religion, Greek and Babylonianastrology, the history of science, and other related fields.

Cryptography

The early hieroglyphic copies of the Nut Book frequentlyemploy enigmatic or cryptographic values, and thus therelated papyri indicate how later scribes interpreted these dif-ficult texts.15) Unfortunately, the A.s treatment of enigmaticsigns is disorganized and appears to have been added as anafterthought. Arguably the most comprehensive treatment ofNew Kingdom cryptography is the recent book by John Dar-nell.16) The A. mentions this work only a handful of times,mainly to point out scholarly quibbles,17) and never refers toit again when discussing specific cryptographic values.

The former book employs a reasonable philologicalmethodology in order to justify new readings, one shouldpropose a rational phonetic or graphic derivation, withoutresorting to acrophony and quotes textual parallels tosupports its interpretations. The present work, however, fol-lows no methodology, but proposes ad hoc interpretationsdevoid of philological rigor, recalling the works of tienneDrioton.

One looks in vain for a table of all attested cryptographicor sportive values;18) instead there is only a smattering

of examples (einige der wichtigsten Charakteristika,pp. 31-33), often presented without textual references;when the A. condescends to provide such citations, theyapply to the separate Osireion publication, not to the syn-optic edition in the present book. The A.s interpretationsof these examples are often unreliable, or at least insuffi-ciently argued, as some of the following examples maydemonstrate:

attested orthography for bnr/bl, to release.9) The A.sinterpretation is plausible, but sound philological argumentsare not advanced in the present book.

(3) In general, the A. omits to include basic citations to dic-

tionaries, not to mention more recent lexical studies.

10

) Thiscauses some minor problems:

p. 53, n. 215:The A. proposed reading the oddly specific translation for tt(Standarte, die wie das tt-Zeichen aussieht) without pro-viding any references.

p. 147, n. 859:The A. claims that terms such as r--w, (Ascendant, lit.place of rising) cannot exist in earlier texts, da die Bil-dung mit r-- erst demotisch mglich ist. The A. provides noreferences, but in fact a quick look at Erichsen,DemotischesGlossar, p. 242 (s.v. r-, r-tp) sends one to Wb. II, 394-395 (end; limit; place etc.), which notes that this con-struction is attested as early as the New Kingdom.

Incidentally, the same construction elucidates a problem-atic passage in 32:

(S, R, PC1): nn rr.w=f, its limits are unknown(PC1): bn w py=w rpy=f r-[],its limit (r-) cannotbe known, rather than Unbekannt ist ihr (?)-Tun (p. 59,n. 267).

(4) Least helpful are the frequent references to unpublishedworks, especially the thesis of J.F. Quack, Beitrge zu dengyptischen Dekanen(Berlin, 2002),11) still unpublished andthus not available to other scholars, either through UMI orotherwise online. Since many important issues of translation,interpretation, and dating of the text relate directly to theunpublished thesis, a brief summary of the results, argu-

ments, or sources would have been useful. Given that thebulk of the Nut Book discusses the Decan stars,12) thereader may be surprised to read:

Zu dieser Familie [der Dekane] s. in extenso die BehandlungEAT III, S. 118-128 und bei QUACK, Beitrge zu den gyptischenDekanen, (iVb). Da v.a. letzteres Werk eine umfassende Aufar-beitung des gesamten Materials zu den Dekanen bringen wird,wird hier auf weitergehende Bemerkungen verzichtet (p. 143).

In other words, scholars interested in what the Nut Booksays about Decan stars, and how this compares to otherEgyptian astronomical texts and cosmographic representa-tions, will have to wait until the long-awaited study by J.F.Quack appears. In the work under review, the A. only dis-cusses a number of minor details in the general commentary.This situation is unfortunate although the A. cannot solely

be to blame as it significantly diminishes the usefulnessof this book.

A similar problem plagues the textual notes. Since themain texts have already been published several times with


4/9


24) The same verb occurs in a similar text (Chr. Leitz, TagewhlereiI,gAb 55 [Wiesbaden, 1994], pp. 38, 40), but the A. dismisses any apparentconnections between the two passages as problematisch (p. 170).

25) For n= , see Chr. Zivie-Coche, Miscellanea Ptolemaica, in P.Der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, II (Bos-ton, 1996), pp. 869-870; D. Kurth,Einfhrung ins Ptolemische, I, p. 422,n. 121; Dendara XV, 14, 11 and 12. For the second value (probablyderived from D41, which writes nw/nw) see J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic

Netherworld Books ,p. 118, n. 374.26) The converse value (goose = m) is attested in the New Kingdom:

M. Mller-Roth,Das Buch vom Tage, p. 457.27) The writing is discussed by J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld

Books, p. 32.

19) This value is not popular, and possibly limited to foreign names: J.Quaegebeur, Documents Concerning a Cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos atMemphis,JNES 30 (1971), p. 248, n. f.

20) The A. claims the two signs are interchangeable, but provides noreferences. One example of this substitution (G 47 for G 43) may occur in. Drioton, Inscription nigmatique du tombeau de Chchanq III Tanis,

Kmi 12 (1952), pp. 28, 30, but the reading there is far from certain.21) The A. claims that this designation ist ja auch sonst belegt

and refers to the Commentary (p. 58, n. 257), but the relevant sectionprovides no parallels or references (p. 141). The examples of , chick,recorded in LGG VII, 447-448, have little in common with the presentcontext.

22) Reading: d+n> dw.t, morning. The first sign (X8) has thevalue dw in Duat (Wb. V, 415, 3); the water sign (N35) is securelyattested as t < t (J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, p. 54,n. 90; M. Mller-Roth,Das Buch vom Tage, p. 458).

23) J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, p. 190, n. 111;D.A. Werning, in C. Peust (ed.), Miscel lanea in honorem WolfhartWestendorf, p. 139; D. Kurth, Einfhrung ins Ptolemische, I, p. 188,n. 281.

present context.24) Moreover, the three rams could just aseasily write stars (s(bA).w [siou]< sr.w [esoou]),using an enigmatic value which the A. discussed elsewhere(cf. p. 61, n. 279).

118:The A. claims this section ist stark korrompiert, vermutlich

wurde aus verlesen, aus (p. 89, n. 484). Neitherof these signs need be corrupt, as they both are attested inother cryptographic texts.25) The same observation applies to

50, where = n(cf. p. 31, n. 111).

138:The A. claims: S hat irrig im statt is (p. 93, n. 517). Sim-ple interchange of birds (e.g. for a goose, s< s) is an equallyplausible explanation.26)

Further enigmatic values occur throughout the text, withoutany comment in the chapter on cryptography or in the textualcommentary:

49, 131 (possibly 110): = nThe A. does not discuss this remarkable orthography of nwhich implies the phonetic equivalence w~ . Even if onecompares Coptic wn (Iwnw) and wn# (n), the presentexamples demonstrate that the ayin may have weakenedalready by the New Kingdom, so that both wand couldrepresent a similar vowel. Since Egyptian ayin is believedby some scholars to represent /d/ until the early MiddleKingdom, this particular orthography may provide yetanother terminus post quemfor the composition.

116, 120, x+76, etc.: = rThis cryptographic value is peculiar to the Book of Nut. TheA. suggests it might reflect a hypothetical Old Kingdom pro-

nunciation, when Egyptian ayinactually represented conso-nantal /d/, which in the Middle Kingdom may have beenequivalent to a trilled /r/ (p. 32). This ingenious interpretationignores a simpler proposal suggested by J.C. Darnell, TheEnigmatic Netherworld Books , pp. 235-236, n. 270 (ayinand rboth similar to Semitic ghayin). Alternatively, theremight be a general equivalence: r~w~ (all sounding likee), as in wn= n(cf. supra).

139, 142: (rr sm.t=f) (sm sb)This orthography for sm, which appears to write pig-mother, alludes to the theme of Nut devouring her children.The A. comments on the obvious thematic cryptography inthis section (pp. 32-33, 94, n. 518), but does not bother toexplain its derivation: s(< s, pig) + m(mw.t).27)

0: and for bk, falcon.The A. makes the reasonable case that these orthographies

were influenced by standard Late Period substitutions of

and (p. 47, n. 167). However, the examples from P.

Leiden T 32 and variants which the A. mentions can hardlyresult from the same confusion, as they omit the r completely

, and they only make sense if the first sign has thephonetic value b< b.

6:The A. read this phrase aspy=s y.t, Ihr Aufgang (p. 50,n. 193) but noted elsewhere that the resulting grammaticalform is peculiar (pp. 32, 271). The A. does not remark uponthe use of the eye-sign to writey(< r.t). While that value israrely attested in the Ptolemaic Period,19) it does not occurelsewhere in the corpus of New Kingdom cryptography. Theunproblematic reading proposed by Erik Hornung, but hast-ily dismissed by the A., is thus to be retained: p=s, r.t,when she flies up, the eye appears.

30:Based on PC1, the A. suggests substituting the chick for

a similar sign to obtain , , Kken or Nestlinge(p. 58, n. 257). This proposal is reasonable,20) although notsupported by other examples.21) Similarly based on PC1,one might read this entire section as: m dw.t, sw Rpr=f,() the child in the Morning. Re comes forth,22) ratherthan Ein Kken(?), wenn Re sich zeigte(?), indem erherauskommt (TA, m di.n sw a, pr=f).

69: (S) (R)The A. reads: Er tritt ein in sie (q=f r=s), without explain-ing the arm in the Sety I version. One might translate instead:he enters into her (Nuts) mouth (q=f m r=s) (cf. 55),with the arm = m.23)

135:In both examples the A. reads: pr b.w , the Bas comeforth (discussed briefly on p. 31). This translation is clearlybased on PC1, but the A. does not mention that the value pris not attested for the goose or any other birds. The verb inthe hieroglyphic versions is most likely p, to fly up(with substitution of birds) a translation appropriate for the


5/9


34) In addition to the references noted by the A. (p. 129, n. 755), oneshould consult J.C. Darnell, The Apotropaic Goddess in the Eye, SAK24 (1997), pp. 44-48 (with references to earlier discussions).

35) See J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, pp. 219-223;D. Klotz,Adoration of the Ram, pp. 178-182. Furthermore, if tny.torR.t(feminine solar disk) only denote Sothis, how does one explain Rattawy(lit. Female sun of the two lands), a solar goddess with few connectionsto Sothis?

36) Ph. Derchain,Elkab I (Brussels, 1971), pp. 12-13 (not mentioned bythe A.); see now B.A Richter, On the Heels of the Wandering Goddess:The Myth and the Festival at the Temples of the Wadi el-Hallel and Den-dera, in M. Dolinska, H. Beinlich (eds.), 8. gyptologische Tempelta-gung: Interconnections between Temples, KSG 3,3, (Wiesbaden, 2010),pp. 162-167. For Nekhbet, incense, and Punt, see also A. Gutbub, Textes

fondamentaux de la thologie de Kom Ombo, pp. 344346, n. (r); R. Preys,Les complexes de la Demeure du Sistre et du Trne de R, OLA 106(Leiden, 2002), p. 305.

37) Wb. I, 321-322; R. Preys, Nekhbet, lil droit du dieu solaire,RdE 61 (2010), pp. 159-177.

38) Suggested by D. Meeks, Les oiseaux marqueurs du temps,BCLE4 (1990), pp. 50-51 (not mentioned by the A.).

28) J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, pp. 259-260; D.Werning, in C. Peust (ed.),Miscellanea in honorem Wolfhart Westendorf,p. 139.

29) Also suggested by D. Kurth,Einfhrung ins Ptolemische , I, p. 190,n. 336.

30) See recently D. Werning, The Sound Values of the Signs GardinerD1 (Head) and T8 (Dagger), LingAeg 12 (2004), pp. 198-199.

31) Chr. Leitz, Zu einigen astronomischen Aspekten im sogennantenNutbuch oder Grundri des Laufes der Sterne, Enchoria 31 (2008/9),pp. 1-21.

32) Chr. Thiers, Le ciel septentrional ghr.t et le ciel mridional gb.t,ENIM 2 (2009), pp. 53-58.

33) For these symbols, see Cl. Traunecker, et al.,La chapelle dAchris Karnak, II (Paris, 1981), pp. 53-54; Chr. Favard-Meeks, Le temple de

Behbeit el-Hagar(Hamburg, 1991), pp. 218-219, n. 935.

might preferably read sb, enemy, since teaching isusually spelled sb.tor sb.t in Demotic (Erichsen, DG, p.421). One would thus translate: lest any enemy reach her(the female vulture (t nr.t), a reference to the relevantdepiction of Nekhbet (as one might expect), watching over

the southern boundary of Egypt.4:The A. Suggests reading the bird plus road as , r.t,Weg, noting this would derive von rfliegen (speziellzum Himmel), without providing any references to this spe-cialized use of the verb r, to become distant (cf. Wb. III,146, 19). In Ptolemaic texts, the bird can write n/r, and(Wb. III, 110, 12), but this is not attested earlier. Instead, onemight simply translate p w.t, the road, since the latterword is already treated as masculine in P. Ebers (noted byWb. I, 246, 17).

5-6:The Nut Book depicts the vulture goddess Nekhbet at theedge of the sky, and PC1 elaborates: [] Punt, she (Nekh-bet) returns from Gods Land. The A. argues that sinceNekhbet is a crown goddess, she automatically embodies thegoddess of the Eye of the Sun, which according to the A. canonly represent Sothis, and thus the entire passage relates tothe heliacal rising of Sothis at the New Year (pp. 128-130).This approach to the Egyptian religion is overly simplistic,as it reduces all goddesses to manifestations of Sothis. Incertain contexts, the Eye of Re could indeed represent Sothisat the New Year,34) but elsewhere these goddesses representthe feminine light energy of the transcendent solar deity.35)

Incidentally there is evidence for Nekhbet as the Wander-ing Goddess at Elkab, bringing incense from Punt via theWadi Hellal in her form of a vulture.36) Nonetheless, otheraspects of Nekhbet can be considered in the present context.The Nut Book juxtaposes the flight of the vulture with the

appearance of the sun, and this might relate to the use of thevulture to write wnm.t, right-eye = the sun during thedaytime.37) Since the vulture is also homophonous for theword year (nr.t), Nekhbet might also represent the New Yearwatching the arrival of the Inundation from the south.38)Finally, Nekhbets position at the edge of the Nut figuremight explain her common epithet: wp.t-Nw.t, (She who isat) the Edge of Nut or she who opens Nut (LGG II, 360).

130: = wtyThe reading is self-explanatory, but the alternation between

and is noteworthy.28)

140:Based on the parallel in PC1 (nw t p.t r nfr), the A. trans-lated the first group as den Himmel befahren bis zum Auf-hren (p. 94), without commenting on the second sign. Thisprobably reads nw m p.t, sailing within heaven, with thed-arm writing m(< m, give).29)

x+75:The new parallel in PC 228 confirms that this group shouldread zp-tpy, first moment, as indeed the A. already recog-nized (p. 107). The exceptional use of db> tpy, first,merits a brief mention.30)

Translation and Commentary

The preceding comments aside, the translation is generallyreliable and the commentary can be incisive and original; the

Reviewer genuinely learned much from the perceptive dis-cussions. Nonetheless, the Nut Book remains a difficult text,and the translation of numerous passages could be improved.Since Christian Leitz recently discussed many of the astro-nomical interpretations at length,31) the following commentsare restricted to philological problems.

0:The term khr.t(eine Vornbergebeugte(?), p. 47, n. 160)actually occurs in a number of Roman Period hieroglyphictexts from Thebes, and apparently designates the northernsky.32)

2, 4, 77a:The text locates two obscure regions at the edges of the sky

in total darkness, rt-qb.t (South), and srq-ty.t(North?;discussed on pp. 126-128). These might be the Egyptiannames for the mysterious symbols which appear behind the

king in running scenes: and .33) Such scenes usuallyhave a cosmic significance (e.g. the king running around theentire world), and these emblems occur in conjunction with

the signs depicting the two halves of the sky ( ).

3:In the Demotic text (PC1, 1, 18), the A. reads: [r] tm d.tsm sb.t r=s, [ um] nicht zuzulassen, da die Lehre zu ihrgelangt (pp. 49-50, n. 188). Rather than sb.t, Lehre, one


6/9


45) J. Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re,Amun and the crisis of polytheism(New York, 1995), pp. 72-74.

39) For the final phrase, see K. Jansen-Winkeln, Beitrge zu den Pri-vatinschriften der Sptzeit,ZS 125 (1998), p. 10.

40) Wb. I, 205, 15-18; R. Caminos, Late-Egypt ian Miscellanies, p.452[1]; L.H. Lesko,A Dictionary of Late Egyptian , I, p. 72. This verb maybe related to Coptic lale/ loole, to cover; overlay (with silver orgold), and Demotic rr, to work (copper); cf. W. Westendorf, Kop-tisches Handwrterbuch (Heidelberg, 1965-1977), p. 78; CDD, p. 97.

41) D. Meeks,AL I, 77.0692; D. Klotz, Two Studies on the Late PeriodTemples at Abydos,BIFAO 110 (2010), p. 148, n. c.

42) In Urk. VIII, 142 (4), Amun smelted his physical body as an augustchild (w.n=f .t=f m y sps).Similarly, Osorkon is said to be suppliedwith a body (n(.w)=f m .t) at his birth; K. Jansen-Winkeln,Inschriftender Sptzeit, II, 188, 8 (col. 4); R. Caminos, The Chronicle of PrinceOsorkon, 126, n. (ff).

43) C. Manassa, The Late Egyptian Netherworld, I, pp. 177-180.44) J. Assmann, Das Leichensekret des Osiris: zur kultischen Bedeu-

tung des Wassers im alten gypten, in N.-Chr. Grimal, et al. (eds.),Hom-mages Fayza Haikal, BdE 138 (Cairo, 2003), pp. 8-10.

Book along with many iconographic and textual parallelsoverlooked by the A.

19:The A. reads: sw n=f t=f =f, as So lebt sein Vater(?)

und ist wirksam (p. 54, with n. 221). This section makesmore sense as two parallel clauses (sw+ sm=f, Noun +sm=f): he (Re) lives again, and his father (Osiris) becomesan Akh-spirit, referring to the aftermath of the Solar-Osirianunity.

In the commentary to this section, the A. notes the closeparallels to the Pyramid Texts (Spell 216): Man mchte fastden Eindruck gewinnen, als spiele der Pyramidenspruch aufdas Nutbuch an, noting this might support the thesis thatparts of the Nut Book go back to the Old Kingdom (p. 136).However, since the early date is far from convincing (cf.infra), it is far more likely that the converse is true, espe-cially since 216 remained popular after the Old Kingdom(e.g. CT VIII, 113-121, includes twenty examples of thisspell from the Middle Kingdom alone).

23-24:The A. dismisses a possible iconographic parallel (P. BM10018), asserting allerdings ist diese Vignette ingesamt soauergwhnlich da sie Kaum zum Vergleich herangezogenwerden kann (p. 137); yet immediately after the A. cites yeta similar example (p. 137, n. 807). Since all of the cosmo-graphic representations under discussion exhibit significantdifferences, it is unclear how the A. determined this particu-lar image the only one with a preserved hieroglyphic label to be more unusual than the others.

Furthermore, the entire discussion of Osiris and hisupraised arm (pp. 137-139) would benefit from consultingJ.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, pp. 390-412(discussing this passage as well).

29:The A. is confused by the reference to solar rays enteringinto the earth (n p t), since the sun has already risen andknnen seine Strahlen wohl kaum noch in der Erde verbor-gen sein (p. 57, n. 252). The underlying concept here is thatthe solar rays penetrate everywhere, even underground, andthis idea finds expression in many solar hymns.45)

31-33 (p. 141, n. 831):For the relatively common image of Re sitting on the heav-enly cows horns, see now: U. Verhoeven, Das Kind imGehrn der Himmelskuh und vergleichbare Rindermotive,in J.-C. Goyon, C. Cardin (eds), Proceedings of the NinthInternational Congress of Egyptologists Grenoble, 6-12Septembre 2004, II, OLA 150 (Leuven, 2007), pp. 1899-

1910.37-38:The A. reads: r gr.t bw nb sw n p.t sw n t dw.t pw r r=s,Was nun jeden Ort angeht, leer(?) von Himmel und leervon Erde, das ist die gesamte Duat (p. 60, with n. 274). Amore idiomatic translation might be: As for any placewhich is neither heaven nor earth, it is all (part of) the Duat.

9, 104:Contrary to the A.s critique (p. 252, n. 1377), the phrase zr t, descend to the ground, finds a direct parallel in theautobiography of Harchebi of Buto, col. 3, which can betranslated: One who knows about all things, whether it be

visible in heaven, or descended to the earth (z.n=f r t; i.e.the invisible, deceased decan stars); expert in their illumina-tion and their extinguishing (ssAnf=sn nsm=sn).39) Theverb zr, to wait for (something), would make little sensein Harchebi statue, as it is followed by the word t, earth.

10:

S.

M.

The A. read: So (?) er sich auf (?), rejecting any connec-tion with the verb r, to ascend (p. 51, n. 196). Alterna-tively, this group word might write rr, to achieve, accom-plish; to supply.40) Since the term first occurs in LateEgyptian, the phonetic group writing orthography is notunexpected; the determinative would derive from r,horned animal.41) This passage could refer to the newbornRe being supplied with a new physical body, as in othersolar texts.42)

17:The A. translates the idiomatic phrase wb=f np=f as Erffnet seine Fruchtblase, citing only a suggestion by J.F.Quack (p. 53, n. 210). This interpretation is pure conjecture,as there is absolutely no evidence that npmeans amnioticsac. This idiomatic phrase literally means to open up thepotters wheel, and thus to begin work on a piece of clay,suitable for the beginning of creation.43) At the same time,the combination of wb and np evokes two solar terms,

wbn, to rise, and nhp, early morning.

18:The A. discusses the connections between Osiris and water,but assumes it is only a late phenomenon (p. 135). In fact,this theme occurs already in the Pyramid Texts.44)

18-19, 23-24 (pp. 135-139):For Res purification in the arms of his father, Osiris, seealso J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books,pp. 391-392, who already discussed this section of the Nut


7/9


49) This might be explained by the A.s decision to translate the NewKingdom and Roman Period versions together as a single ideal text, exceptwhen there are major variants (pp. 45-46); the A. appears to prefer thegrammar of the late papyri, although one would expect the oldest MiddleEgyptian copies to take precedence in a critical edition.

50) For ignored examples of the Nominal sm=f, see 55, 56, 57, 68,69, 85, 90. In addition, the A. curiously translates most examples of theperfective sm.n=f in the present indicative tense; e.g. 111, 118, 133,136.

51) R.A. Parker, The Function of the Imperfective sm.f in MiddleEgyptian,RdE 10 (1955), pp. 49-59.

46) E.g. G. Posener,Le Papyrus Vandier(Cairo, 1985), pp. 54-55; notealso that the Ogdoad enter the underworld in Heliopolis before travelling toMedinet Habu: Opet I, 27; Urk. VIII, 95c; 145i;Deir ChelouitI, 31, 10.

47) C. Manassa, The Late Egyptian Netherworld, I, pp. 424-440.48) Since the translation jumbles the sequence of events, the A. is

erstaunt that the verb wb would be used to describe the entrance intothe Netherworld (p. 150). Instead, the entrance occurs in 55 with theexpected verb (q m n nr pn), the exit in 56.

deutig (n. 504), clearly influenced by PC1. However, theorthography is identical in both passages of the Osireion ver-

sion ( ), and the mythological account only makes senseif one translates bones in both places, as the A. appears to

recognize in the commentary (pp. 169, 172).In the second example of the Osireion version (132), thisword is followed by . The A. did not comment on thelatter sign (perhaps assuming it was a determinative orphonetic complement for qsn), but parallelism with thepreceding clause (n tp.w=sn, their heads come alive;131) suggests reading the nose sn (< sn, to kiss; tosmell): qs.w=sn pr(.w)m rm.w, their bones transforminto people. See already V. Vikentiev, ASAE 43, p. 16.

148:Perhaps restore , pr, rather than as the A. sug-gests (p. 96, n. 532).

x+9:

Since r-wis a compound meaning night (Wb. III, 226,2), one could simply translate: (until) night arrives (sprr-w). The general sense of x+7-9 is: Sailing in the daybark (mn.t), which is visible (m m=s) from dawn, whenRe appears, (until) evening arrives.

Here as in other places, the A. appears to be unfamiliarwith the narrative use of the infinitive (cf. Gardiner, EG306, 2), preferring to break the section into terse discon-nected statements or captions: In der Mandjetbarke Dahin-fahren. In ihr Sehen bei Sonnenaufgang, wenn Re sich zeigt.Die Nacht ber Ankommen(?) (p. 98).

Grammar

Translating the Middle Egyptian versions of the text, theA. pays surprisingly little attention to grammar, particu-

larly regarding verbal morphology and syntax.49

) Forexample, most nominal sm=f(mrr=f) forms are translatedas simple indicative present tenses, whether emphasizingan adverbial adjunct or forming a Wechselsatz.50) Thisdisregard for verbal nuances is inexcusable for the presenttext, since the scribe of PC1 accurately transposed thegrammar accurately into Demotic, a feature which RichardParker discussed in detail over half a century ago!51) Whilethe A. briefly acknowledges the latter article (p. 262), itis only to retort that the later scribes might not havealways understood the earlier verbal forms properly without providing any examples of such confusion in PC1or elsewhere. It is as if the A. assumed even the New King-dom scribes were incapable of understanding the originalgrammar, and thus did not pay close attention to the verbalsystem.

46:The New Kingdom versions state that the stars rest inthe Duat (S) and in Heliopolis (R). The A. wonders:Sollte hier Heliopolis (bzw. genauer ein dort befindlichesHeiligtum) als nchtlicher Aufenthalt der Sonne intendiert

sein? (p. 145). A number of texts locate the entrance tothe Duat in Heliopolis,46) and Heliopolitan toponyms fea-ture prominently in the Amduat and other underworldbooks.47)

56, 69: wb m-t sqdd=f (var.

The A. read the first example: Danach geht (er) hervor undfhrt dahin in ihrem Inneren (p. 72), but the grammar is notas problematic as n. 340 suggests. Understand: narrativeinfinitive (wb) + compound preposition (m-t) + nominalsm=f(sqdd=f); essentially an adverbial sentence (A+ prep-osition +B). Literally, one can read: the opening up (of thepotters wheel) is after his sailing; or more naturally: (he)

opens up (the potters wheel) after sailing. This translationis not only grammatically preferable, but it accurately cor-responds to the sequence of the solar cycle: Re enters theDuat through Nuts mouth (55), and then exits the womb(opens the potters wheel) after sailing through herbody.48)

In both examples, the A. assumes that m in the prepostionm-nw is written twice, zunchst im Klartext, danachkryptographisch (p. 72, n. 342). Instead, the first m shouldrepresent the adverb m, thence, referring back to Nutsmouth (55; 69); m-nw=srefers to the Duat, as in 55.

89: n=n nm.tw=nThe A. suggests: Emendiere zu m.tw=sn (p. 80, n. 404).No correction is necessary, as both phrases are examples ofthe sm.n(w) passive identified by E. Edel, Die Herkunt desneugyptisch-koptischen Personalsuffixes der 3. Person Plu-ral w, ZS 84 (1959), p. 33, who already discussed thispassage (not mentioned by the A.).

96:The A. corrects the last group to the third person plural suf-fix-pronoun: (So stritt Geb mit Nut), weil er zornig warwegen des sie Fressens (r wnm=sn), arguing that thisemendation is necessary (p. 81, n. 410). Alternatively, onecan simply read this as a relative: he was angry because ofthose whom she ate (wnm.w=s).

116, 132:Both passages discuss the bones (qs.w) of the decan stars

which fall to the earth (116) and transform into people(132), just as their tears become fish (117). The A. trans-lates the first instance as Knochen, (p. 89), but the latteras bel (qsn) (p. 92), and states that this reading is Ein-


8/9


54) Cf. also the frequent use of nn n nr.w/nr.ytin other UnderworldBooks; J.C. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books, pp. 454-464.

55) See most recently J.A. Roberson, Observations on the So-Calledsw sm=f, or Middle Egyptian Proclitic Pronoun Construction, in Z.Hawass, J.H. Wegner (eds.), Millions of Jubilees, Studies in Honor of

David P. Silverman(Cairo, 2010), pp. 185-205.56) A.M. Calverley, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos, II (Chicago,

1935), Pl. 19 (lower right), Briefly noted by the A., who dismissed it as avariant of a Pyramid Text (p. 253, n. 1382).

57) W. Westendorf,Koptisches Handwrterbuch, p. 238;for this verb,see also L.V. Zabkar, Adaptation of Egyptian Texts to the Temple Ritualat Philae,JEA 66 (1980), p. 133, n. 35.

58) For connections between the Amduat and Middle Kingdom royaltombs, see U. Rssler-Khler, Knigliche Vorstellungen zu Grab und Jen-seits im Mittleren Reich. 1: Ein Gottesbegrbnis des Mittleren Reiches inkniglichem Kontext: Amduat, 4. und 5. Stunde, in R. Gundlach (ed.),

Das frhe gyptische Knigtum, AT 36 (Wiesbaden, 1999), pp. 73-96;J.F. Wegner, The Tomb of Senwosret III at Abydos: Considerations onthe Origins and Development of the Royal Amduat Tomb, in D. Silver-man, et al.(eds.),Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Mid-dle Kingdom Egypt(New Haven, 2009), pp. 103-169.

52) Nonetheless, see D. Kurth, Zur Definition des Ptolemischen, GM229 (2011), pp. 65-79, for a rebuttal against recent arguments that that allGraeco-Roman temple inscriptions are mere copies, and that Ptolemaicscribes were incapable of producing original texts in good Middle Egyp-tian; cf. also S. Cauville, Dendara XV, pp. 6-7.

53) A. von Lieven, Der Himm el ber Esna: eine Fal lstudie zurreligisen Astronomie in gypten am Beispiel der kosmologischen Decken-und Architravinschriften im Tempel von Esna , gAb 64 (Wiesbaden,2000); see the very critical review by D. Kurth, OLZ 99 (2004), pp. 25-34.

Das Leben von Kenmet zusammen mit Ab-Schetui istdas Leben des Horus, p. 52)

The particle skand the phrase nn n sb.w, these stars,are supposedly typisch fr die Sprache des AR (p.251, no supporting references); but these features are

perfectly correct in Middle Egyptian.

54

) The sameremark applies to the example of r sm.t=f. Although the prothetic yodis more common in Old and

Late Egyptian, the deverbal noun qd, builder appears inall stages of the language, including Coptic (Wb. V, 74).

The A. wisely demurs from employing the sw sm=fform as evidence of earlier dating because it is neveractually attested in the Old Kingdom55) but neverthe-less notes it as a faint possibility (pp. 251-252).

Furthermore, the A. quotes a handful of words which sup-posedly only occur in the Pyramid Texts oder in Texten() die vollstndig oder in ihrer Inspiration auf das ARzurckgehen (p. 252). Since all words in question continuedto be carved through the Graeco-Roman Period, even if inarchaizing texts, how can one argue that their meaning was

forgotten after the Old Kingdom? For example, the worddnn, to protect, occurs elsewhere at Abydos under SetyI (i.e. contemporaneous with the Osireion texts), 56) andapparently survived into Coptic as tonj.57)

These several debatable observations do not amount toeine Reihe von Belegen proving that smtliche Kapiteldes Basistextes ins AR zu datieren sind (p. 253). Instead,most indices point to an origin in the Middle Kingdom,including the verbal system which the A. largely overlooks.Moreover, if the work originated in a Middle Kingdom royalpyramid complex or temple in the Fayyum (e.g. the Laby-rinth),58) this might explain the inscriptions popularity atTebtunis in the Graeco-Roman Period.

The A. advocates such an early date in part to aggrandizethe importance and popularity of the Nut Book, deeming itein Referenzwerk that was still copied and annotatedmehr als 25 Jahrhunderte nach seiner mutmalichen Entste-hung. (p. 296). In the concluding chapter, the A. decidesthat the Egyptians must have valued the text primarily as ascientific treatise, not as a religious composition. Yet Egyp-tian astronomical conceptions had changed greatly over thecenturies, particularly under Assyrian, Persian, Ptolemaicand Roman rule and cultural influence, and Greek and

Conclusions

The present review has dwelt largely upon the difficult hier-oglyphic text of the Osireion and the various problems in theA.s translation, particularly regarding grammar and cryptogra-phy. This emphasis is largely because the A. spends much time

in the concluding chapters discussing the original date of thetext. After a long and well-researched methodological introduc-tion about the Egyptian language and archaizing texts (pp.223ff), the A. concludes that Egyptians of the Late Period wereincapable of correctly understanding earlier texts, much lessproducing new compositions in older stages of the language.For the A., archaisms do not exist in Egypt; when relics ofOld or Middle Egyptian occur in later texts, they must be directquotations, pieced together via a patchwork technique.

A detailed discussion of this polemic on textual transmis-sion and archaisms would far exceed the present review.52)It is ironic, however, that the A. does not distinguish betweenMiddle Egyptian verbal forms, yet repeatedly questions theability of Late Period scribes to do the same. The negativeestimation of scribal competence is difficult to accept, given

the As previous attempts to translate Roman Period inscrip-tions,53) not to mention the philological problems in the pre-sent book. The A. compares these priests and scribes to mod-ern Germans reading Hochdeutsch with only passiveLesekompetenz (p. 258). Yet Egyptians of the Late Periodimmersed themselves in Old and Middle Egyptian hiero-glyphic and hieratic texts; they recited them in daily liturgiesand rituals, they actively copied ancient monuments onpapyri, recarved earlier inscriptions during renovations, andimitated biographical, historical, literary, funerary, and tem-ple texts in their private monuments.

It is absurd to argue that scribes of the Graeco-RomanPeriod, many of whom mastered Demotic, Greek, hieratic andhieroglyphs, were incapable of distinguishing between sm=fand sm.n=fin the earlier inscriptions, or of realizing that LateEgyptian texts (i.e. Ramesside and Third Intermediate Period)were not as old as the Old and Middle Kingdoms especiallywhen the Demotic grammar of PC1 demonstrates the opposite.

The A. devotes considerable attention to establishing thetextual history of the Nut Book (pp. 37-44, 223-254). Sincenumerous indications point towards the Middle Kingdom(e.g. the repeated use of -t.wy to write nw [p. 33]; theposition of the decan stars [p. 42]), the A. assumes the bookwas first compiled out of disparate sources in the TwelfthDynasty, with certain portions going back to the Old King-dom (pp. 42-44, 251-254). The latter assertion is intention-ally provocative, but the textual evidence is quite flimsy:

Apparent examples of the Nominal sentenceAB pwaretypisch altgyptische (p. 251, no supporting refer-

ences). Both examples actually appear to be parentheticglosses introduced by pw (e.g. 15: Kenmet and Ab-Shetwy live (that means: Horus lives), rather than:


9/9

491 THE SEPTUAGINT AND ALEXANDRIAN SCHOLARSHIP 492

59) Notable is the A.s translation of the composition: Grundri desLaufes der Sterne (t snsm.t nt sb.w) (pp. 125-126). The Egyptian phraseliterally translates to Blueprint of the Movement of the Stars and refers tothe actual Nut Book, a two-dimensional representation of the celestial circuit.However, the A. understands the term snin an extended sense, just like Ger-man Grundri (cf. A. von Lieven, Translating the Fundamentals of theCourse of the Stars, in A. Imhausen, T. Pommerening (eds.), Writings of

Early Scholars in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Rome, and Greece [Berlin,2010],pp. 139-150), noting only one example for such a meaning, namely theBook of the Fayyum, another artistic rendering of a physical space (p. 125).

60) One might compare the similar practice of keeping commentary tab-lets alongside copies of older omen texts in Babylonian archives of the firstmillennium BCE; e.g. E. Frahm, Royal Hermeneutics: Observations on theCommentaries from Assurbanipals Libraries at Nineveh, Iraq66 (1994),pp. 46-50.

Demotic astrological papyri have little in common with thecosmographic view of the Nut Book. Nonetheless, the A.argues that the text provided an important theoretical basisfor Egyptian astronomers,59) and even suggests thathroskopoi would consult this book during religious festivals

of the Graeco-Roman Period (pp. 297-298). However, the A.does not explain what practical information a hroskoposmight find in PC1 or the hieratic papyri.

The later copies of the Nut Book hardly support the A.sthesis that this text was a fundamental study of astronomy inancient Egypt. Rather, they appear to be copies (or copies ofcopies) of the New Kingdom composition as it appeared atAbydos or in the Theban tombs, two popular tourist destina-tions in the Graeco-Roman Period, similar to other Tebtunispapyri which preserve tomb inscriptions of the First Interme-diate Period from Asyut. Yet PC1 is more than just a transla-tion of the earlier text, since it also contains numerous refer-ences to more recent astronomical treatises (pp. 284-290) andto a text apparently called the Solution (bl), a separatevolume of commentary to the Nut Book.60) These annotationssuggest that the Nut Book was copied for antiquarian interest,to assist curious Egyptians or foreign visitors in reading themonumental versions and understanding how the ancient cos-mographic ideas correspond to more recent theories.

The numerous criticisms notwithstanding, this book is auseful work written by a gifted and well-read Egyptologist.The A. is to be congratulated for identifying and publishingthe new parallels from scattered papyrus collections, not tomention the thought-provoking concluding essays. If the A.had published these items alone, perhaps as separate articles,there would be little reason for complaint but then wewould not have the useful synoptic text, which has alreadybecome the standard edition. The Nut Book is a challengingtext, and any potential translator must understand Egyptianastronomy and religion, Late Hieratic, New Kingdom cryp-

tography, Middle Egyptian, and Demotic. The A. is undoubt-edly an expert in Graeco-Roman papyri and astronomy, butthe book pays little regard to the earliest hieroglyphic ver-sions and suffers as a result. Yet although future research-ers will still need to pay careful attention to the translationsand grammar, all will benefit considerably from this updated,convenient, and more complete edition of a difficult but end-lessly fascinating text.

September 2011

Klotz, BiOr 68(5-6) (2011), Reseña de Una Nueva Edición Del Libro de Nut

Documents

Transcript of Klotz, BiOr 68(5-6) (2011), Reseña de Una Nueva Edición Del Libro de Nut