Col. 2

lwk t) Mykrbm Mynhwkhw Mlw( d(w Mlw(m wnyl( lm[ ] wdqx~ybxrw
lwkb hkkrby Myrmw)w wykrd lwkb Mymt Myklwhh l) lrwg y#n)
Mymlw( t(db hknwxyw Myyx lk#b hkbl r)yw (r lwkm hkrwm#yw bw+
y#n) lwk
~ t) Myllqm Myywlhw Mymlw( Mwl#l hkl wydsx ynp )#yw
hknty hktm#) (#r
~y#(m lwkb ht) rwr) wrm)w wn(w l(ylb lrwg
yml#m lwk dyb
~hlk hkyrx) dwqpyw Mqn ymqwn lwk dyb hw(z l)
ht) Mw(zw hky#(m K#whk Mymxr Ny)l ht) rwr) Mylwmg
~rpkl xlsy )wlw hk)rqb l) hknwxy )wl Mymlw( #) tlp)b
twb) yzxw) lwk ypb Mwl#i hkl hyhy )wlw hktmqnl wp) ynp )#y
Nm) Nm) Myllqmhw Mykrbmh rx) Myrmw) tyrbb Myrbw(h lwkw
rwb(l wbl ylwlgb rwr) wrm)w Myywlhw Mynhwkh wpyswhw
hyhw wb gwshl wynpl My#y wnww( ly#kmw twtx
1 tyrbb )bh
yl yhy
2 Mwl# rwm)l wbblb Krbtw twzh tyrbh yrbd t) w(mw#b
Ny)l hwwrh M( h)mch wmi
3xr htpsnw kl) ybl twryr#b )yk
lwk wb wqbdw Mymlw( tlkl
[]b wr(by w+p#m t)nqw l) p) hxyls
wgwshb rw) ynb lwk kwtm trknw h(rl l) wy
4 wlydbyw twzh tyrbh twl)
Mymlw( yrwr) Kwtb wlrwg Nty wnww( lw#kmw wylwlgb l) yrx)m
Nm) Nm) Mhyrx) wrm)w wn(y tyrbh y)b lwkw
wrwb(y Mynhwkh l(ylb tl#mm ymwy lwk hn#b hn# w#(y hkk
Mhyrx) wrwb(y Myywlhw hz rx) hz Mtwxwr ypl krsb hnw#rb
tw)mw Mypl)l hz rx) hz krsb ty#yl#b wryb(y M(h lwkw
l) dxyb wdm(m tyb #y) l)r#y #y) lwk t(dl twr#(w My#mxw
wlrwg Mwqmm Mwry )wlw wdm(mi tybm #y) lp#y )wlw Mymlw( tc(l
qdc tb#xmw dsx tbh)
[] bw+ twn(w tm) dxyb wyhy lwkh )yk
)wbl s)wmh lwkw Mymlw(
[l] dws ynbw #dwq tc(b wh(rl #[y)]
hl(g )yk wtm) dx
[ ])wl wbl twryr#b tkll l[ ]

1Charlesworth reads twzh as in line 13, but the first two letters of this word look markedly different from those in line 13. The photograph clearly shows two lines close together between the letters I have identified as x and t; unless there is a flaw in the parchment that is invisible to the camera, these are two separate letters, not two parts of a single h. The letter Charlesworth identifies as z has a clearly-visible leftward hook at the bottom of it, and the stroke to the right of it curves over and joins it near its top, producing a letter that is virtually identi cal to the t at the end of the word.Return
2I have followed Charlesworth here, though the reading is questionable. The second yod in yhy actually appears to have a double stroke that makes it resemble a pinched h. There is also no gap between the yhy and yl. If yl yhy is not the correct reading, then it is something like ylhhw.Return
3There is an apparent crease in the parchment through this word. Charlesworth reads wxwr, but I believe this reading is strained. The r is clear, and the top of the next letter has a sharply-dipping U-shape. The rightmost downward stroke of this letter is very plain, and there appears to be one descending from the left side of the U-shaped top as well, which makes it a x. The th ird letter is questionable; if it is a mem, it is a very narrow one.Return
4Charlesworth reads a single word here, whlydbyw, but this appears to be a reconstruction rather than what actually seems to be visible on the manuscript. There is another crease or other bit of damage through the letter Charlesworth reads as h, but even so, if it is a he it is twice as wide as any other in the entire document. This scribe made his he's with a single top stroke, adding the downward strokes by lifting the pen before each one. The left leg of Charlesworth's h does not intersect the top horizontal mark as a separate stroke; this line was written with a rounded hook at the top that flows right into the d ownward stroke. I suspect that Charlesworth was trying to find a reading that makes sense, but if wy is an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton, the reading makes sense even though it is unique in this document.Return