Subject: tc-list Dan 11:30

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 21:55:02 +0200 (CEST)

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: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:54:18 -0500

>I would be interested in any comments on this line of thought.

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."

You point out that the Hebrews would have no experience with the
Romans. They wouldn't distinguish peoples sailing from the west.
All people coming from over the sea would be Kittim -- just as,
in the First World War, all the people of the Central Powers
were Huns to the Western Allies, even though the people they
were fighting (the Germans) had no Magyar blood at all.

I'm sure you can think of other examples of peoples being called
by generic names when their actual nationality is not well known.

The LXX edition of Daniel, as I understand, is given to paraphrase.
Now we know, and the translator probably knew, that these people
were Romans.  But the author of Daniel might not know that, or if
he did know might be trying to conceal that fact. (Remember, he
was pretending to write from the perspective of 520 or so B.C.E.,
when Rome was still just a collection of semi-independent hills
in Italy.) It seems much more logical to assume that the translator
paraphrase the Hebrew reading "Kittim."

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

                        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: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:02:00 -0700

> direct experience with the Romans and yet Dan11:30 has Kittim.

    I think that the Aramaic Daniel of 165 BCE used "Kittim" to refer to
anynon-Jews that came from the West (direction of Cyprus) but when Daniel
was translated to Greek, the Romans were a clear presence.

Jack