Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:20:24 +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"?

>You point out that the Hebrews would have no experience with the
>Romans.

I did not say this. (My words were "The Hebrews had no direct experience
with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim".)

The Kittim is geographically placed in Gen 10 between Tarsus and Rhodes, ie
the writers knew exactly who the Kittim were and where they were located. If
you look at the other Kittim references in the OT/HB you will see that the
term is not generic in any sense. It specified the Cypriots. It would seem
strange to use a clearly defined term refering to one group of people to
refer to another group. One would need a period in which the term's usage
widened as I think happened during the second century BCE, such that when
the semi-"official" book of Hasmonean history, 1 Maccabees, was written it
could use "Kittim" to refer to the homeland of Alexander. It seems to me
that the most likely period for the application of "Kittim" to the Romans
would have been after the Pompey contact.

                                  -------------

>Apparently the Judeans did have some early experience with the Romans in
>connection with the Maccabean revolt.  See I Maccabees 15:15-16.  --RLM

Yes, this however was quite some time after the writing of Daniel. One could
of course mention 2 Macc 11:34ff.

Ian Hutchesson

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:21:21 -0500

>Sorry, but what is this internal evidence that clearly favours the "Kittim"

It's the evidence that I gave: That "Kittim" would be the reading we
would expect to see. (It may not follow any particular canon of
internal evidence, but it is not based on the manuscripts, so it
is internal evidence.)

>with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim".)

Frankly, I don't see that this is a particularly strong distinction --
especially as I did not put the words in quotation marks. :-)

This does demonstrate, BTW, why I dislike internal evidence so much.
To me, the internal evidence here is quite clear. Obviously, the
author of the original post does not think so. No such problem,
usually, in determining the readings of the manuscripts. :-)

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

                        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)