Subject: Re: tc-list Dan 11:30

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:49:08 +0200 (CEST)

This is the information one gets from comparing the LXX with the MT
regarding Kittim:

           LXX              Massoretic
---------------------------------------
Gen 10:4   KITIOI           KITTIM
Num 24:24  KITIAIWN         CHITTIM
1Ch 1:7    KITIOI           KITTIM
Isa 23:1   KITIAIWN         CHITTIM
Isa 32:12  KITIEIJ          CHITTIM
Jer 2:10   XETTIIM          CHITTIM
Eze 27:6   XETTIIN          CHITTIM
Dan 11:30  RWMAIOI          CHITTIM

One definitely cannot claim that "Kittim" was an obscure term, so one cannot
argue that Rwmaioi was substituted for reasons of obscurity.

>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.

>>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.
>
>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.

>>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.

We simply have a division between MT and LXX, so which is superior? 

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

You keep saying this, but it always ends up with either the LXX reading or
the MT and for some unstated reason you prefer the latter.

>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.

Strange, the MT reading has gloss written all over it: there is nothing at
all to suggest a use of Kittim that would mean "Romans" in the OT/HB.
(Please prove this wrong if you can.) So your acceptance of the MT Dan11:30
reading as correct flies in the face of the general usage of the term.

>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. :-(

A restatement:

1) Kittim = Romans does not represent the common OT/HB use of the term,
   which appears to be Cyprus/Cypriots.
2) One would expect the "ships" to remain if it were in the original
   Hebrew, but the LXX doesn't know the about the "ships"
3) Theodotion has merely changed the Romans to the Kittim to be in line
   with the MT, but does not insert "ships..." -- a minimal modification
4) The MT version is based on Num24:24, which if present at the time of
   translation should have bound the Greek to the original if there was
   a citation, but it didn't, so there wasn't!

And an additional point:

5) None of the Dead Sea Scrolls use Kittim to mean Romans! pHab for
   example cannot be about Romans because the Romans never used beasts
   in combat, though it can be about Cypriot mercenaries fighting for the
   Seleucids (and then any Seleucid soldiers). Remember that Nicanor is
   called the Cypriarch (leader of the Kittim). The Kittim are allied to,
   or are Assyria (Seleucids). The Kittim of Assyria enter Egypt (1QM1:3
   Wise/Abegg/Cook, just as Antiochus IV did). By extension Kittim
   came to mean any Greek (hence 1Macc1:1, circa 110 BCE).

When was the term available to be used regarding Romans? When did the Romans
become enemy material?

Ian Hutchesson

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:35:31 -0500

I'll make this my last post on this subject. Since I obviously am
not getting anywhere. :-)

>This is the information one gets from comparing the LXX with the MT

Not obscure to a person who knew the Old Testament in Hebrew. So
what? If the LXX readers knew the Old Testament in Hebrew, why
did they need the LXX?

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.

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."
They have no context -- no way to interpret this passage (which
we all know does in fact refer to the Romans) to mean the Romans.

[ ... ]

>prophecies were obscure passages? One would think these oracles were

Why? 

>the MT and for some unstated reason you prefer the latter.

Let's see. This is my fourth post. Every time I have explained why I
think the LXX reading is a gloss. The fact that I think the LXX reading
is a gloss is not a reason to prefer the MT reading?

See why I say I can't get through? :-)

Enough. The last word is yours (or at least not mine)....

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

                        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)