Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 22:50:04 -0400

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

At 09:55 PM 8/24/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello.
>
>I recently checked out the LXX on Dan11:30 to find that it does not mention
>the "ships of the Kittim" at all: it simply has "Romans", though the
>Theodotion version simply has "Kittim". I have long puzzled over the use of
>Kittim to refer to the Romans in a work written around 165 BCE. It seems far
>too early when one considers what seems to be a reasonably consistent use of
>the term in the OT/HB to refer to Cyprus (hopefully, this point doesn't
>really need arguing -- though I will if necessary). The Hebrews had no
>direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim.
>
>I would think that "Romans", as seen in the LXX is the earliest version. One
>would expect that there would be more of an original line if someone merely
>changed Kittim to Romans, but this is not the case: the LXX doesn't mention
>any ships. Yet ships are integral to the Hebrew text as it refers back to a
>Balaam prophecy.
>
>>From the evidence provided by the two Greek versions and the Hebrew it would
>seem that the "romans" was the original text and later Daniel has been
>reworked to attach the prophecy of Balaam at a stage where Kittim could
>refer to Romans, then the version of Theodotion has attempted to bring the
>LXX version into line with the Hebrew.
>
>I would be interested in any comments on this line of thought.
>
>
>Ian Hutchesson
>

---

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:12:41 +0200 (CEST)

>    I think that the Aramaic Daniel

Dan11:30 was not in Aramaic and there is doubt that any of Daniel was
originally in Aramaic. If you read Giovanni Garbini's article on "Biblical
Hebrew", you'd know that the Aramaic of Daniel is not reflective of any
Aramaic on historic record, ie it's fake. Garbini notes that it's the sort
of language one would find when someone tries to pretend to use an antique
version of a language without knowing that antique version, which would be
consistent with an attempt to place Daniel in the sixth century BCE. (In the
same article he deals with Ezra's unreal Aramaic as well.) But then the
oddity of Daniel's Aramaic seems to be well-known in scholarly circles.
Garbini gives a list of articles from S.R.Driver, G.R.Driver, W.Baumgartner
and H.H.Rowley all arguing against the quality of "Biblical Aramaic". He
also quotes from Bauer and Leander's "Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaeischen":
"the stories of the book of Daniel are the work of an author clearly not
well versed in the language".

>of 165 BCE used "Kittim" to refer to
>any non-Jews that came from the West (direction of Cyprus) 

Have you got even one contemporary example to justify this? You should note
that without Dan11:30 this sort of analysis has no basis whatsoever. That's
the problem that interests me.

Ian Hutchesson

---

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:33:22 +0200 (CEST)

>>One definitely cannot claim that "Kittim" was an obscure term, so one cannot
>>argue that Rwmaioi was substituted for reasons of obscurity.
>
>Not obscure to a person who knew the Old Testament in Hebrew. So
>what? 

These are the people who translated the book.

>The point of looking to Liddell & Scott is to examine what people
>*not from the Jewish background* would make of "Kittim." The answer
>is, they would make nothing of it.

The translators didn't have Liddell & Scott, ie you can't make much about
what people knew or didn't know from citations of works that have survived
from antiquity when you know that those works are not a big percentage.

>It's just the same as if you spoke to the average American about an
>"indeclinable noun," or a non-mathematician about a "geometric
>mean," or a non-traditionalist about "incremental repetition."

This now is merely guessing. "It may be that Kittim had become an obscure
term that was transported into Greek in seven out of eight cases, but
glossed in the eighth case we are examining."

>>>I can't see that a reference to an obscure prophetic passage is
>>>a better explanation for change than making an obscure passage
>>>clear.
>>
>>What makes you think that to the people translating the LXX the Balaam
>>prophecies were obscure passages? One would think these oracles were
>>somewhat popular.
>
>Why? 

The Balaam stuff was relatively popular amongst the DSS from the number of
citations from Numbers. You are the one who claimed for some reason that
Num24:24 was an obscure prophecy. Perhaps you could justify that.

>From what I understand about paraphrasing in the LXX, it is usually things
that don't translate that need paraphrasing and the "ships of the Kittim"
can be translated without problem.

>Every time I have explained why I think the LXX reading is a gloss. 

It seems that every time, you have said that it is a gloss along the line
that it looks like a gloss in your opinion without supplying anything more
than it looks like a gloss.

>The fact that I think the LXX reading is a gloss is not a reason to prefer the 
>MT reading?

Thinking doesn't seem to be an adequate criterion when it equates to
"believing" as it does in the above statement.

And I guess you're right about the thread: as not many have taken it up,
perhaps it should be dropped.

Thanks for your thoughts, Robert.

Ian Hutchesson