Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:13:03 +0200 (CEST)

>>>>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would
>>>>seem that the "romans" was the original text
>>>
>>>I have to disagree. While I am open to LXX readings, I think the
>>>internal evidence clearly favours a reading with "Kittim" over
>>>one with "Romans."
>>
>>Sorry, but what is this internal evidence that clearly favours the "Kittim"
>>reading over "Romans"?
>
>It's the evidence that I gave: That "Kittim" would be the reading we
>would expect to see. 

Robert, this is not evidence: this is merely stating your opinion. If you
had been brought up on LXX you'd argue the same way in favour of "Romans".

The LXX had the Balaam passage referred to in the MT Dan11:30. There is no
necessary reason for Dan11:31 being changed in the Greek, especially if it
referred to a prophetic passage, as is the case here.

>(It may not follow any particular canon of internal evidence, but it is not 
>based on the manuscripts, so it is internal evidence.)

The LXX is not internal evidence. You will find that the DSS do favour LXX
readings at times over the MT. I can see no reason why you would favour the
MT reading here over the LXX, given the evidence we have.

I wonder if anyone else has thoughts regarding the original state of
Dan11:30, given the fact that the MT mentions the "ships of the Kittim"
(based on the Balaam oracle in Num24:24), while the LXX has "Romans" and the
Theodotion version has "Kittim". Neither Greek version is aware of the
underlying Balaam prophecy and one can see Theodotion changing "Romans" of
the LXX to "Kittim" to bring it into line with the MT.

Ian Hutchesson

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:17:49 -0500

>had been brought up on LXX you'd argue the same way in favour of "Romans".

I'll make you a deal. You call your opinions "opinions," and I will
allow you to call mine "opinions" as well.

Evidence comes in two forms: That which occurs on the parchment
(external evidence) and that which occurs in the critic's head
(internal evidence). You may call it transcriptional probabilities
or whatever you want, but it still takes place *in your head* (or
in mine, or in the readers'). That is internal evidence.

That doesn't make it wrong. But it is, always, a matter of
opinion. And debate. I find my evidence overwhelming.

Take a look at Liddell & Scott. Try to find Kittim. In any
form (KITAIOI, KITTAIOI, etc.) I couldn't find it in any
form I could think of. Whereas "Rome" occurs in all sorts
of variants.

A Greek reader not familiar with other LXX passages -- and
surely there were such -- would have no idea what KITTIM
means. So the LXX translator -- responsibly, I would say,
given our modern notions of translation -- appears to have
glossed it as "Romans." 

>referred to a prophetic passage, as is the case here.

I can't see that a reference to an obscure prophetic passage is
a better explanation for change than making an obscure passage
clear.

>The LXX is not internal evidence.

No, but you are preferring the LXX reading based on internal evidence.
That is the point I am trying to make. External evidence, insofar
as there is any (and I concede it's not much) favours MT, since (as
best I can tell from your post) all other versions agree with MT.

>You will find that the DSS do favour LXX

Read above. You may not agree. But to me this is overwhelming internal
evidence.

And I repeat, I am not biased against LXX. I believe that the LXX
must *always* be consulted, not merely turned to when the MT is
corrupt. But, to me, the LXX reading has "gloss" written all over it.

Which, again, is why I don't like deciding readings on internal
grounds. Of course, in the case of the OT, we usually don't
have much choice, since it's usually a matter of deciding between
MT and LXX. External evidence cannot decide such a question. :-(

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:17:06 -0700

> MT reading here over the LXX, given the evidence we have.

I have to cry "foul" on this one, Ian.  Simply saying that the DSS 
"do favour LXX readings at times" says nothing about what they are 
likely to preserve in Daniel 11:30.  Fact is, as far as I can find 
this verse isn't preserved in the published DSS.  However, 4QDan(c) 
preserves the four verses before it and follows MT readings.  I 
haven't seen a single reading among the DSS of Daniel that supports 
an LXX reading, so invoking the DSS at this point seems a little, um, 
inappropriate?
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
When in doubt, go for chocolate.  Life is too short
not to.

---

From: Jonathan Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:04:03 -0300

How do I disconnect from this list?

Jon
============================================================================
"Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man
who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away 
and immediately forgets what he looks like."  (James 1:23-24, NIV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: [email-masked]                ICQ: 7216071

My Home Page:  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3342/
My Online Bible Site:  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8373/
The ABU Summer News Site:  http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Lab/7788
============================================================================